sizcache = "0" sizset = "68">
When a plant is not the name of plant name? Sadly, the answer is more often than not in our world today, where marketing comes first and the second točnost.Trenutni plant naming trend often violate the International Code of Nomenclature for cultivated plants (ICNCP) , U.S. trademark Law, and occasionally the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules relating to deceptive business practices.
To understand this problem, we go back in time to 1952, when the first International Code of Nomenclature for cultivated plants (hence the title of the Act) was published to standardize the confusing way in which plant varieties are imenovani.Kodeks prescribes the manner in people around the world to communicate about plants, and as long as everyone respects the code, problems in communication horticultural minimal. Unfortunately, we are moved at a time where more and more people are undermining the Code in part because of ignorance and greed, creating a taxonomic nightmare.
the current trend of improper and confusing use of cultivar names and trademarks, both by growers and marketers of plants, has done irreparable long term damage to the industry and the public is hopelessly confusing naming of plants and communication about these plants. Even in the latest edition of Dr. Michael Dirr's Manual wonderful Woody Landscape Plants (5th ed.), It is clearly visible, even someone as knowledgeable as Dr. Dirr does not know the cultivar name, and that is simply the name of a company's marketing .
Nomenclature of the
To understand where there is confusion, let's start with some basics about plant taksonomija.Imenovanje cultivated plants is regulated by a small book, The International Code of Nomenclature for cultivated plants 2004th In the preamble to the Act, the purpose is stated: "The aim is to provide a stable way of naming different groups of cultivated plants, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity or throw up in the discipline of confusion." Although the Code is not a legal document, as the International Codes are usually recognized as legally valid in most court proceedings.
In principle 3, the state, "Any sort or group a certain limit may submit only one accepted name, the earliest that is in accordance with the rules." Principle 4 of the Code makes another important point, "the names of plants must be universally and freely available for use by any person to designate a unique group of plants. In some countries, the plants are marketed using the trademarks. Such marks are the intellectual property of the person or corporate body and therefore not freely available for any person to use, and therefore can not be considered names ."
Article 19 of the Code further engages variety imena.Većina relevant part of Article 19.13, which states, "For the cultivar name to be established on or after January 1, 1959 its title the word or words in a modern language other than Latin, except as allowed under Article 19.6, 19.7, and Article 19.24. "There are many other requirements, but they are not relevant to discuss the trademark issue. Now that you understand the basis for the naming of plants, let's see how improper use of trademarks has made a mockery of the spirit of the law.
Trademarks
trademark names are intended to be used only to indicate the origin of products or brands. Trademarking can be as simple as writing a ™ after the name, but for a more sound legal basis, a trademark registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Then it becomes a trademark registration Trademark ® for a price of about $ 250 (unless you are did a lawyer). Trademarks are owned by the individual or company and can not be placed on individual items. They are valid for 10 years if used properly in the store, and can be renewed indefinitely for 10-year period.
a classic example of properly using the trademark is Tylenol ®. If you look at the drug store, you will find is a company registered as a trademark Tylenol znak.Proizvod you purchased, but not Tylenol, but rather one of many products, such as Tylenol cold and sinus medicine or Tylenol pain. In most of these products, the generic name of acetaminophen. If the company's trademark name becomes recognized by the public as the product itself (ie, general), the trademark becomes invalid. A few known examples of signs that invalidated because they have become generic in the minds of consumers are: aspirin, cellophane, thermos, and ladders. Many other signs of improper use are still in effect, simply because they are provoked.
current improper use of trademarks in the horticultural industry is its origin more than half a century prije.Najgore culprits in the early years, were roses and bedding plants industrije.Ruža industry seems to be the first to use meaningless names for non-conforming plant varieties, while the bedding plant industry completely thumbed its nose at the code even bothering to come up with any variety of names for most of its introduction. One of the most popular roses in horticulture is one that everyone knows what peace is. Surprisingly, there is no such plant as Rosa 'Peace.' Plant we grow under that name is actually Rosa 'Madame A. Meilland'. Mir trade name coined by Conard Pyle nursery, and is used in the market Rosa 'Madame A. Meilland' after World War II to capitalize on postwar raspoloženja.Biljka became known in the public mind as a peace rose.
Some of the larger nurseries soon realized that no matter what the name of the plant variety, they could come up with their own proprietary (trademarked) name of the marketing and use those names to promote plants that are already available variety imena.Ideja was to convince the public that marketing is the company's name is actually the name biljke.Sljedeći step in the downward spiral was when nurserymen began intentionally giving new plants stupid nonsensical cultivar names. After the promotion of plant often tout that only the name of marketing, causing consumers often do not realize the plant is a real ime.Kultivar cultivar name, if included in all advertisements and signs will be printed in very small print in relation to the "marketing name". The whole idea is for the companies marketing (trademark) name become a generic name of the product the consumer mind. The practice of using meaningless names violates the whole purpose of the International Code of Nomenclature for cultivated plants, and the use of trademarks as generic names violates the legal use of trademarks.
Some breeders blindly follow trends, as well as in choosing nonsensical names of cultivars, not realizing that these names are only the official name of its new UK uvod.Uzgajivač primrose, Geoff Nicolle, wanted to name and patent his new primrose after his granddaughter Katy McSparron. Instead, it was patented under the name of cultivar Primula 'Prinic' PP 12,892 and sold under his name grandchildren. I have corresponded with her granddaughter, who was furious and insisted that the plant was named after her. Unfortunately, it is becoming very common, where people who have honor, or marked with a plant called after they left, but nothing is not valid without a stamp plant prilogu.Velika new plant then is stuck with a meaningless name.
As I mentioned earlier, Article 19.13 of the Code does not permit the use of these ridiculous names. The self-contradictory, however, the current version of the Code now provides for exceptions meaningless code name (Article 19.27). This is where political pressures have crept into what should remain a scientific document. Privately, one of the authors of the Code said we breeders of certain world cultures such as Alstroemeria, carnations and roses will be picked up too much noise, if the nomenclature committee is the text in the Code any more. In other words, the authors edition of the Code gave to those who are already breaking the law, similar in concept to change the law, so as to reduce the number of criminals.
Many breeders and breeders of new plant is properly selected and try to recoup their investment in new manufacturing plant to ensure compensation payments than those in manufacturing plants. Plant patents are the only legal means of protection of property plant. Patents are good for 20 years (17 years ago) after the date of filing the patent. After this time, anyone can legally expand and sell previously patented cultivar. Patents require very little paperwork and a fee that many small growers can find a little expensive. Many breeders have the misconception that means giving them easier and cheaper alternative to patents, but this is not the case.
To further complicate things, some plants are patented and then marketed under the company trademark. Some nurserymen think they can get a 20-year patent protection products provided, and further measures trademarking other (marketing) name for each plant. Once the patent expires, others could expand former patented plant, but in theory they can not sell it under the company trademark ime.Klasični example of Monrovia is Limemound spirea. At the end of their patent protection in 2003, anyone can spread the spirea 'Monhub' PP5834, but Monrovia took none other then able to legally sell the plant Limemound spirea. Unfortunately, the nursery and many trademark attorneys who advise nurseries do not seem to understand the basic trademark law.
trademark law states that a trademark name can be used to (not) for any product manufactured by the trademark owner. For example, if a trademark owner has grown four gold spireas or 100 different trees, they can all be marketed under the same trademark name, despite the different varieties. The trademark names belong to the society itself, rather than a specific plant or product. In other words, a cultivar name Limemound spirea does not exist.
Article 12.1 of the Code states Rosa 'Korlanum', which is marketed under three different names, trademark, each owned by another company, Surrey, Sommerwind and Vente D'ete. This causes the public to assume that there are three different roses, when all of the same plant. In the case of Loropetalum chinensis 'Hines Purple Leaf', which is marketed under at least two different character names, Plum Delight, and pizzaz. This practice is more common as a lack of understanding of proper trademark use deteriorates. Are you confused yet?
Article 12.1 of the Code states Rosa 'Korlanum', which is marketed under three different names, trademark, each owned by another company, Surrey, Sommerwind and Vente D'ete. This causes the public to assume that there are three different roses, when all of the same plant. In the case of Loropetalum chinensis 'Hines Purple Leaf', which is marketed under at least two different character names, Plum Delight, and pizzaz. This practice is more common as a lack of understanding of proper trademark use deteriorates. Are you confused yet?
If you visit the United States Patent and Trademark Office Web site, you will see the patent office itself has no understanding of any U.S. law trademark or ICNCP.Klasičan example of this confusion comes the patented plant, Itea virginica 'sprich' PP 10,988. Despite cultivar name 'sprich' not 'the word or words in modern language "(Article 19.13) and thus violates the spirit of the laws of nomenclature, it became legal after the cultivar name is indicated as such in the patent application. If you read the patent for I. virginica 'sprich', says, "The new Itea virginica cultivar is being marketed under the trade name Little Henry." Because a trademark can not be permanently attached to a particular item, show USPTO does not understand their own regulations.
The use of trademarks as a secondary "pseudo-variety" names for individual plants and violates the spirit of the nomenclature of the Code, as well as U.S. trademark law. Trademark law clearly states, if a trademark name becomes shared (generic) name for a particular item, and then became the trademark invalidated. Trademark attorneys advise nurseries long to write a cultivar name in single quotes, a smaller species, then the trademark name, without the single quotes in larger type. In their minds, to keep their trademark valid. Nurseries are also told their trademark attorneys until conducts its means, according to whether the cultivar name is always on the trademark name, its trademarks remain valid. This bizarre reasoning, however, defeats the whole reason for the improper use of trademarks, which is a trick the public into thinking the trademark name of a generic product name. This is a deliberate deception that will someday make a Federal Trade Commission on horticultural scene.
properly used trademark would be one, like Star ® Roses, which is used to market a large group of roses under one umbrella trademark. This sign would remain true if not then he began to use their trademark in the market are also some varieties, such as Rosa 'Wezaprt' as the Bronze STAR ™ Rose and Rose 'Wezlavn' as Silver Star Rose.
court cases
By 2006, one of the few cases that could have gone to trial was when Iverson perennial attempt to impose a legal trademark owned by the name Scabiosa 'Butterfly Blue'. Unpatented plant was previously published in the 'Butterfly Blue 'as a cultivar name, and they were wrong in both attempts to trademark a cultivar name and using their trademark illegally in one product. Fortunately, the number of nurseries banded together against Iverson and trademark infringement case was abandoned before it reached court.
Finally, in 2006, the case is improperly used trademarks actually reached the courts in Van Well Nursery Inc. et al. V. mony life insurance company, et al. (decided 16 March 2006.) In this case, complicated, Mony Life Insurance Co. acquired the property from the A / B Hop Farms defaulted due kredita.Objekt apples are known as Smoothee and Scarlet Spur. When Mony Life Insurance Co. tried to sell the land to mention that it contained Smoothee and Scarlet Spur apple trees, Van Well kindergarten and Hilltop Nurseries sued for trademark infringement. Their claim is that apple trees are actually cultivars 'Snipes' and 'Gibson', although they were marketed under the brand names Smoothee ® and Scarlet Spur.Lanham Trademark Act, section 15, says he is not the actual abuse of a trademark for a product, making it makes it invalid, but instead of a public perception that the mark is the name of the product itself that makes the character is valid.
The judge in the case of Van Well right decision is to be in the public domain, apples were known as Smoothee and Scarlet Spur, and thus legally registered trade marks are now invalid, because it has become known as the product umjestoizvor products. (Smoothee trademark was not actually terminated immediately, just because the owner was not a party to this particular complaint.) Scarlet Spur trademark was canceled, despite trademark owners followed their legal advice and are always registered trademark symbol along sispravan cultivar names when advertising jabuke.Slučaju depend on the age-old adage in determining the validity žiga.Znak must say "who are" not "what are ."
This case has a huge impact on those in the nursery industry who improperly using trademarks to market of certain plants for the past few desetljeća.Slučaj shows that despite the best efforts of faith on the part of trademark owners to make their trademark name is valid, it is an impossible public views the mark as a generic name. Not only will the industry be left with the embarrassing nonsense sort of names that will exist until the plants are grown, but the nurseryman who have spent large sums of money on trademarks and trademark attorney fees, and then using signs in contravention U.S. Trademark Law, the left feeling the financial sting with no way to recoup their losses. After the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wakes up and calls to act as if they were recently with the departure of the advertised and delivered to the pot size, those who market individual plants under the trade names will have another fight on their hands.
It would be nice if the nursery, which is truly ethical, but wrong to take the lead in reversing this terrible trend. It would also be a nice change if groups such as the perennial Association (PPA) and the American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA) to a firm position on the long-term adverse effects of two plants by means of appointment both for industry and consumption javnosti.Najbolji way to conclude that the trend is for a reputable nursery that public stand against this confusing practice for long-term good of horticulture. Short of that, it will be up to the Garden Writers (GWA) and the American Public Gardens Association (APGA) to identify the plant his one and only one cultivar name, and hopefully at the same time embarrass those who persist in making up stupid nonsensical names for the good plants and illegal means used to deceive the public.
