Re: dogwood scientific vs trademark name
- To: woodyplants@mallorn.com
- Subject: Re: dogwood scientific vs trademark name
- From: L* a* A* F*
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:38:53 -0500
- References: <200006290601.e5T612g23703@lorien.mallorn.com>
Dear Janis,
It is a good article, isn't it? I know what you mean about notes-my Armitage's
is like that, too. Dirr says "Trademark names have no taxonomic validity"
and thats about it. Only one very brief paragraph.
A search, at the USPTO for PP6320(per Dirr) turned up a patent for
Cornus florida 'Daybreak', issued to Commercial Nursery. A trademark search
turned up Cherokee Daybreak as a trademark registered to Commercial Nursery.
So, my deduction is that the plant is Cornus florida 'Daybreak' Aargh!
Avent's article talks about the Stellar Series of dogwoods. Dirr (5th)
lists the nonsense names as the scientific names, which Avent says should not be
allowed. Maybe that is the bone of contention?
It certainly is a mess. Common names, scientific names, trademark names,
latin versus nonsence. But it is a really pretty little tree.
Take care,
Lisa
> 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.
--
Lisa Flaum
Waterloo, SW Illinios, USA
Min -10F Max 105F (-24C to 40C)
Wet winter, dry summer punctuated by gully washers,
high humidity, unreliable snow cover, clay soil
Member NARGS, IBS, SRGC, AGS, AHS, RHS, APS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE WOODYPLANTS
