A call to regulate the term "kilt"

[M. A. C. Newsome]

A court of law can proclaim that the sky is legally green, but that doesn't make it so.

[macwilkin]

A court of law can proclaim that the sky is legally green, but that doesn't make it so.

Reminds me of the old story about President Eisenhower being asked if he thought of himself as a Texan since he was born there (but grew up in Kansas). Ike reportedly said:

"If a cat has kittens in the oven, do you call them biscuits?"



T.

[MacWage]

Part of what I do for work is to look up trademarks and intellectual properties, as well as doing corporate branding and history research.

Companies cannot trademark a "general term," but can do a specific derivative of that term. The US Patent office even puts in a statement that the firm ONLY holds the patent for the FULL term and NO rights to the main/common part. Companies may (and have) copyrighted a COLOR, but it ONLY works IN THAT INDUSTRY, and is registered ONLY AFTER it can be PROVED that that color is UNIQUE to that company and recognized as an indicator of that company's products. For example, Owens Corning OWNS pink in the insulation field. Companies can make their product in ANY color that they want, but not pink. Likewise, Coca-Cola owns "Coke" and several similar variations of their name. However, they DO NOT own "Cola," even though it was part of their original trademark and coined (a mis-spelling of a bean) by them. They LOST all rights to it by general usage soon after competitors used "Cola" as a general descriptive to their product (for example-> Pepsi-Cola).
As for the food analogy . . .
Videlia is a city in Georgia. Actions were taken to protect the term "Videlia Onion," which means that ONLY onions from Videlia can be called such. BUT, they have NO rights over "Onion."
Champagne is a region of France, as is Burgundy and Chartreuse. In the WINE field, there are rights issues with using those terms. However, the terms burgundy and chartreuse have taken the color of the wines made there and entered the common lexicon.

I think that the term "kilt" is WAY to common to be upheld by such copyrights/patents/rights legislation. They COULD hold "Scottish Kilt" (maybe) or some more specific variation. Of course, the courts and copyright matters don't always use logic, so I could be wrong.
My doubt is based on the WIDE spread usage of the term world-wide in business and copyrighted names and branding. One cannot return the stuff into Pandora's Box, once opened.

Most people, however, would STILL use the centuries old terms "kilt" and "kilts" for the men's pleated garment we all know and love. So, I doubt they will be ABLE to enforce any actual legislation in the world-at-large (and I doubt they could do so in Scotland itself).
It would be like the US Congress dictating that ONLY the Carolinas and Georgia are "The South." EVERYONE would just ignore it and include Virginia, Alabama, Miss., Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, and probably Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, and the rest (even Maryland-> whose NORTHERN border IS the "Mason-Dixon Line").

So, I think such attempts would be uninforcible for the term "Kilt," though some term may be created for what we call a "tank" that would be.

[slohairt]

Well said,MacWage!

Topics like this make me uncertain whether to laugh or cry! (As I sit here wearing my as-of-yet unofficially named Scottish national costume.)

Does anyone know if its true that Utilikilts patented the reverse Kingussie style of pleating? If so, how pathetic. It almost makes me want to patent the other styles and allow everyone to use them unhindered!

[arrScott]

Legislating against popular opinion is rarely successful.

Too true. Instead of trying to legislate a definition of the word "kilt," why not simply regulate how the thing can be described? Set a uniform standard for how much work must be done by hand vs. machine to use the word "Handmade" and how much work must be done in a certain location to use that location's adjective, like "Scottish." So if the customer sees a kilt that calls itself a "Handmade Scottish kilt" you'll be certain:

1. It's a kilt.

2. It was made significantly by hand (presumably with some degree of machine weaving and/or machine stitching).

3. The final product was crafted significantly in Scotland (though possibly with parts made elsewhere, as with most products these days).

As the poet said, "A kilt's a kilt for a' that."

[MysticMead]

Well said,MacWage!

Topics like this make me uncertain whether to laugh or cry! (As I sit here wearing my as-of-yet unofficially named Scottish national costume.)

Does anyone know if its true that Utilikilts patented the reverse Kingussie style of pleating? If so, how pathetic. It almost makes me want to patent the other styles and allow everyone to use them unhindered!

the only thing that I've seen on the Utilikilt website in the past about patents.. was the way they had to stitch the leather kilts...

[The Wizard of BC]

All of my products have a hang-tag attached telling the customer the fabric content, amount of fabric used, and place of manufacture. They also have a little Canadian Flag on the back pocket flap.

The only legislation that would truly work is that we impose on ourselves. If all manufacturers fully stated the details of their product it would help but never eliminate the cases of people attempting to mis-lead the public.

It would however get the word out that some manufacturers care about their product and are not ashamed to say so. Loudly and Clearly. I don't hide behind, or expect laws or regulations to let my customers know the quality of the product I produce. I scream it at the top of my lungs. I want my customers to know why he is paying hundreds of his hard earned dollars for my product.

Believe it or not, but I'm not the only kiltmaker in the world. I wouldn't want to be. I like the competition. It serves the customer far better if he has a choice. And he has a choice, to buy from me or from someone else. To spend a few dollars or the spend thousands. That's called commerce. And it's thriving.

If a competitor is not as honest and forthright as I try to be, I may advise him that perhaps he should re-think his advertising because history has proven that open, honest, business will survive and thrive and sneaky business die a quick death. But in the end I am responsible only to my own business. What the Gold Brothers do is not illegal. And they abide by the first rule of business which is, make a profit.

If I see a guy go into a competitors shop and buy his product I can't get angry at him. Jeez, he did something right, he got a customer in his door. It's my job to figure out why that guy didn't come into my shop and if necessary change what I do.

Most times it not necessary to do anything because it is a fact of business that not everyone will buy the exact same thing. And that's the beauty of business. We all get to try. Some will thrive and some will fail.

All I can do is try the best I can. Whining only makes me unhappy.

[Monkey@Arms]

Does anyone know if its true that Utilikilts patented the reverse Kingussie style of pleating?

I know nothing of the validity of patents, and don't want to go too far off-topic, but in answer to your question, here is UK's patent.

Best regards,

Jake

[MacWage]

I know nothing of the validity of patents, and don't want to go too far off-topic, but in answer to your question, here is UK's patent.

Best regards,

Jake

And for the US one:
http://www.uspto.gov/

[MysticMead]

well, based on the drawings included for their patent... it has NO unpleated over apron... so that would indicate that UK doesn't even make a garment that they patented