Published: October 26, 2011
I noticed, for the first time, the heading “The City Paper Digi-Cam™” above the photograph on page 3 of your Oct. 19 issue. A quick search at the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site (uspto.gov) reveals that the mark “Digi-Cam” is registered as trademark 3080651, issued April 11, 2006, to Brigade Quartermasters Ltd., Kennesaw, Ga. Moreover, using the USPTO search tool available at the web site, it appears that the phrase “The City Paper Digi-Cam” (if that entire phrase is what the ™ is being applied to) is not a registered trademark, nor is there an existing application for same within the trademark system. There are penalties associated with the inappropriate use of the ™ symbol, and given the experience of many with respect to another trademark that is well known in Baltimore, I think City Paper would be wise to discontinue using “trademarks” that it does not own or that do not exist.
I would like to offer a rebuttal to reader Staci Ross’ recent letter (“’Big Books’? Not So Much,” The Mail, Oct. 12) about City Paper’s Big Books Issue (Sept. 28). I really liked the approach taken this year, asking local tastemakers what they read and why. I burn though a lot of books myself, and I know that many of the best ones I’ve read over the years have come directly from the recommendations of friends and acquaintances. I would welcome this sort of Q&A as a regular mini-feature in CP’s Books section. Not only would some great, offbeat book referrals come out of it, but it would also give the paper a chance to spotlight a wide and possibly surprising range of local bookworms. What do you say, guys? Maybe once a month?
The writer is a former managing editor and arts editor of City Paper.