Good comments Larry, but I think there is more to it than meets the eye.
Quote:
|
The Italian names given to a group of the Aloes was done by a large commercial propagator who paid for the rights to do so.
|
Hypothetically speaking, what if the person who sold these rights wasn't the person who bred or named the plants, and they didn't have the right to do so?
Quote:
|
In turn, this company trademarked (TM) the Italian names. They did not however, Patent (PP) them. Therefore, anybody can legally grow and propagate using any names other than the said trademarked names.
|
This is a good point and true..... and unfortunately, this is a major contributor to the confusion for collectors. The Italian plants are
already being marketed under different names to avoid trademark infringements and are confusing consumers and collectors alike.
Quote:
|
Many of the newer hybrids are shown with PPAF which means the Patent has been applied for. Whether patented or patent applied for, the plants marked as such are protected.
|
When the "Italian Jobs" were originally listed on the propagators website, they were
ALL listed as PPAF, only a year later being changed to TM.
Putting PPAF on a plant to deter others from propagating it as a 'bluff" without actually having completed and submitted the application is a federal crime. This also holds true for using "TM" on a product when the application has not yet been submitted.
In the case of the "Italian Jobs" for example. If someone wants to take one of these plants... let's say "Guido" and propagate it, they can change the name of the plant and do whatever they want with it... which ads confusion by having a plant tagged with multiple names.... or they could opt to market the plant as "Guido" which they would have to do in cooperation with the trademark holder and pay a royalty if that is the agreement.
The valid reason for doing this would be that the trademark holder has most likely spent a lot of money marketing the plant and building it's name... so people will likely want the plant they have seen advertised by name.
What I don't understand is how cultivar names and trademark names can exist in harmony.... I should probably read Tony's article as I imagine that this is one of the big issues here...
If I name a cultivar and publish the name properly..... can someone come along and change the name by trademarking it? Does the person who names the cultivar properly also need to trademark the name to cover there bases?
I mean once a cultivar is named, that should be the end of it shouldn't it?
Of course, there is no "Cultivar Police" that is going to prosecute you and convict you of a crime and asses monetary penalties...... such as with trademarks and patents.
Totally confusing isn't it?
Allen