--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > If it WAS in common use, they couldn't have made it a trademark > > > > > > BTW, Transcendental Meditation couldn't be > > > trademarked in the U.K. and several other > > > countries precisely *because* it was > > > considered to be too common a phrase. > > > (Not an *everyday* phrase, certainly, but > > > common enough, presumably in spiritual > > > circles.) > > > > Well, actually, you're wrong. The Oxford English Dictionary > > (thanks to my urging) changed its dictionary definition of > > the term to note that it is trademarked in the US, at least. > > I know that some countries have different trademark rules, > > but it is NOT, as far as I know, due to "transcendental > > meditation" being "too common" that it can't be trademarked > > in those countries. > > You'll need to show exactly why it can't be in > each country, then. >
Wel, getting back to my original point, regardless of how other countries' trademark laws work, the phrase "transcendental meditation," with or without the word "deep" inserted, was NOT a common phrase before MMY started using it in the 1960s, certainly not in the USA, nor in Great Britain, I'm willing to bet, nor in Canada, Australia or any other country where English is spoken natively, including India. Excluding THOSE countries, its always possible it was a commonly used phrase, of course. Lawson
