Talk:Rajneesh
You state that "silly as it may be the ® is still part of the name" "Osho®".
Not according to http://www.osho.com/, which features the name "Osho" over and over again, without any accompanying symbol, and nor on any other hit on the first page of a Google search for "Osho". The Anome 20:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
From religioustolerance.org:
- The Osho International Foundation (OIF) has registered the word Osho® in order to promote of certain products. The registration is being challenged before the US Trademark Board of Appeals. Those opposing the OIF allegedly claim that the name cannot be a trademark, and that the OIF committed fraud in its application. While this matter is being sorted out in the courts, we are using the registration mark, to avoid prosecution.
Wouldn't you agree that we'd best follow suit? Mkweise 20:51 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. Even if the word is trademarked, it isn't normally used in titles. Should we include the tradmark at Microsoft, Apple Computers, Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay too? Tuf-Kat
- I'm just a technical writer who does what he's been taught, but I believe according to the letter of the law (at least in the US) trademark attribution is required in publications, though not in correspondence. Better ask the Wikipedia legal department to be sure. Arguably it could be a serious issue where litigious trademark owners are involved, as with Osho® or Scientology®. Mkweise 21:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
In addition, the cited page uses the name repeatedly without the symbol, clearly demonstrating that it is not part of the name. The Anome
I've stripped the honorific titles from the entry name, as that appears to be the Wikipedia standard. Mkweise