Talk:Post-it note/Archives/2019

Mercury

Does the adhesive used in Post-it notes contain a small amount of mercury? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change

I would like to suggest an edit to this article in order to improve the accuracy and the citations. In the interest of transparency, I would like to disclose that I am a lawyer representing 3M Company in trademark matters and this contribution is made on its behalf. See WP:SCOIC.

Currently, the article states that “Despite this, the name has become genericized for all such products in many countries.[citation needed]”As you can see, there is no citation supporting the statement that the name “Post-it” has become genericized for all such products in many countries. This sentence has remained unsupported for at least a year and a half.

I would propose changing the sentence to read: “While some people may use the trademark ‘Post-it’ in a representative sense to refer to any sticky note, no legal authority has ever held the trademark to be generic.” In support of this proposition, I have included citations to federal court and administrative decisions (in the U.S. and abroad), which have held that 3M owns valid and enforceable rights in the trademark “Post-it” (in other words, that it is not generic) and that the trademark “Post-it” is a famous trademark. Given that the current statement has no support (and has remained unsupported for quite some time), I believe that the revised statement, which includes substantial support from legal authorities, is more accurate and helpful for users. I welcome your comments.

See 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc., Opposition No. 91173411, 2014 WL 3686877 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 2014) ("The above evidence leaves us in no doubt that POST-IT is a famous mark for sticky notes."). Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998) ("3M owns a valid mark—"Post-it"®. . .The "Post-it"® mark is strong. . .[T]he evidence submitted is sufficient to establish the fame of the "Post-it"® mark"). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Dole (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 1997) ("This record establishes . . .the fame of opposer's POST-IT mark."). 3M Company (Republic of Turkey Turkish Patent Institute 2009) ("“[I]t has been determined that the “POST-IT” trademark is a “well known” trademark recognized broadly by everyone. . . .”").3M Company v. Ahmed, Opposition No.OP000402446 (United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office 2015). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. D. Benito (Superior Court. Contentious, Madrid, Spain 2003). 3M Company v. Daval-Frerot (National Institute of Industrial Property, France 2016). 3M Norway AS v. Note-it AS, Opposition No. 200477 (Norwegian Board of Appeal for the Industrial Property Office 2005). 3M Company v. Xρηστοσ Λϵριδησ, Opposition No. B 002276247 (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (EUIPO) 2015). 3M Company v. Estates Indust. Co., Ltd., Invalidation No. 2013-890061, Control No. 1285551 (Japan Patent Office 2014)..

Alex PB (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Implemented Thank you for compiling all of these cases and formatting them so perfectly. It's much appreciated. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)