Re: dogwood scientific vs trademark name

Lisa -- 
Thank you very much for the link to Tony Advent's article. I found it very 
interesting and informative.  

I'm still using my old 4th edition Dirr manual because I have written so many 
useful notes in the margins I can't part with it.  In the 4th edition Dirr 
lists the plant in question as Cornus florida 'Cherokee Daybreak'.  Now you 
say in the new 5th edition he lists it as Cornus florida Cherokee Daybreak 
TM.  (Looks like another good reason to stick with my old edition.)  

Advent said in the article, >> Even in the latest issue of Dirr's wonderful 
"Manual of Woody Landscape Plants' (Fifth Edition) (3), it is clearly evident 
that even someone as knowledgeable as Dr. Dirr is confused over which is a 
cultivar name and which is simply a marketing name.<<

It is obvious there is some confusion, but we know Dirr knows the rules of 
botanical nomenclature because he outlined them in the front of his 4th 
edition manual.  If there is a nomenclature section in the 5th edition also, 
it would be interesting to check it and see if he has anything to say about 
his use of tradenames in the new edition. I can't imagine what he was 
thinking.

Are you saying that when you checked the patent office records you found the 
trademark registration was for 'Daybreak'?  If that is so then even if Dirr 
has a good reason for listing the tradename rather than the scientific name, 
he has it wrong.  The tradename would be C. f. Daybreak TM.  

My best guess is still that Cornus florida 'Cherokee Daybreak' is the  
registered botanical name.  I speculate that, since cultivar names cannot be 
trademarked, the name was shortened to Daybreak when they applied for the 
tradename.  

Oh well, whatever they call it -- a dogwood by any other name would smell as 
sweet.  --Janis

In a message dated 6/27/00 9:13:45 AM Central Daylight Time, osthill@htc.net 
writes:

>  Michael Dirr lists it as Cornus florida Cherokee Daybreak TM, (no 
quotations,
>  its not
>  the scientific name)  which is what made the alarm bells go off to begin 
> with.  
>  Scientific names cannot be trademarked, so I knew that Cherokee Daybreak 
TM 
>  was not the true name of this plant.  Tony Avent wrote an excellent 
article 
> on this subject.
>  I won't rehash what he says, but I strongly recommend the article.
>  (if the link below  doesn't work go to http:// www.plantdelights.com
>  and follow the link "articles") 
>  
>  http://www.plantdelights.com/vendors/plantdel/olctrademark.xtml/
> acaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>  
>  Anyway, I've done some digging at the US Patent and Trademark office and 
> have found
>  that all approved patent applications are now online, and reasonable 
> searchable.
>  So, the plant in my garden is, hopefully, Cornus florida 'Daybreak' and 
has 
> been labeled
>  as such.  I say hopefully, because the trademark designation is given to 
the 
> company/individual,
>  not the product. The trademark holder can sell any tree they like under 
that 
> trademark,
>  so look for the tag that says C. f. 'Daybreak'
>  
>  This has the potential to be a soapbox subject, so I am going to quit now!
>  The tree in question is very pretty, though it is experiencing a spot 
> anthracnose
>  problem.  Considering that my garden has had 9.2" of rain in the last 2 
> weeks,
>  I suppose that's not surprising.
>  
>  Chiir,
>  
>  Lisa
>   
>  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE WOODYPLANTS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index