Talk:Canadian trademark law

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Canadian trademark law → Canadian trade-mark law – In Canadian law, the term that is used is usually either "trade-mark" or "trade mark". The federal law in Canada is the Trade-marks Act. Most Canadian law dictionaries also use "trade-mark". However, "trademark" is also used in Canada in newspapers and magazines, for example. In my opinion this is non-controversial, but really I don't know for sure if it will be. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is trademark law no matter what precise form is used in the country in question. In this international anglophone encyclopedia we would not use "védjegy" in the title of an article on Hungarian trademark law. Adapting to such an unstable and variable usage in Canada is to take WP:ENGVAR too far. Trademarks are a matter of international interest and registration. If the "official" form of the word used in statutes is hyphenated in an old-fashioned way, that is not a primary consideration for us. Note ngrams for "trademark,trade - mark" (that's how you do hyphens in ngrams). "Trademark" is internationally dominant by far, and getting more dominant. Noetica^Tea? 00:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Your Hungarian example is not a great one, since "trademark" and "trade-mark" are both from the same language. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

O, of course I acknowledge that. I was just setting up a wide limit, within which to view something more narrow. Noetica^Tea? 04:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see. That sentence has the effect of reading a bit like a straw-man argument, since it's really a type of WP:ENGVAR issue, not an issue of whether to use foreign languages in category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be a general–technical choice in Canadian English. Canadian Oxford only lists "trademark"; Canadian legal texts appear to prefer "trade-mark" and some describe it as the "Canadian spelling" (for example, see [books.google.com/books?id=A8KA1h0YpmUC]). (Also consider: Category:Canadian trade-mark law, Confusion in Canadian trademark law, Depreciation of goodwill/dilution in trademark law, and Functionality in Canadian trademark law.) Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment (nom). User:Agent 86 recently moved the article to Canadian trade-mark law with the summary "Change to Canadian spelling (which is used in its governing statute)". I have moved it back, noting that there is an ongoing discussion of this proposal. I suppose that user's move comment and action can be considered by whomever closes this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - In cases where there is an apparent even split, as there seems to be here, we should default to official useage - and official useage, here, seems to be "trade-mark". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support If you had looked at the edit history, you'd have seen that I moved it to "Canadian trade-mark law" back in May,[1] - seven months ago - which wasn't controversial at the time. The other day I noticed it had been moved back without an explanation in the edit summary, so I simply restored the move (which is the edit linked above). Given that this is an article about a topic specifically within a Canadian context, reference to the Manual of Style supports using the Canadian spelling of the term for the title of the article and its use within the article. (For ease of reference, the MOS states, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."). Agent 86 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Leaning toward oppose. I'm not buying that this is universal throughout Canada. The Globe and Mail doesn't think so ("...to dismiss BBM trademark lawsuit"). The Toronto Sun doesn't think so ("his trademark move..."). The National Post doesn't think so ("All trademark holders..."). I think this is an example of the government trying to hold onto a tradition that the rest of the country is trying to leave behind. Just a theory, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agh, the Toronto Sun used as a reference for language usage! Now I do know that the end is near. (I believe the prophecy of such a diabolical occurrence can be found somewhere in the book of Zephaniah.) (Seriously, though, you are right that the major newspapers in Canada—including the Suns—use the "trademark" spelling.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If the apocalypse did come, the Sun would put it below the headline "LEAFS WON'T MISS PLAYOFFS".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Har har. The apocalypse would provide some genuinely new material for Sunshine Girl props, however. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose while Canadian law might prefer to hyphenate the term, Canadian reliable sources don't. So there's really no need to move. Hot Stop ^UTC 02:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – the present title works per WP:COMMONALITY, so engvar and retain say we should leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hot Stop - Since either title is technically correct, it makes sense to leave the most common English form in place. The claim that multiple Canadian reliable sources use "trademark" should be enough reason to leave it that way. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.