[amelius]

"Canvas" is a generic term found in the dictionary. IANAL, but I suspect nobody can claim it as a trademark. I found this about it:

> Generic terms are common words or terms, often found in the dictionary, that identify products and services and are not specific to any particular source. It is not possible to register as a trademark a term that is generic for the goods and/or services identified in the application. If a trademark becomes generic, often as a result of improper use, rights in the mark may no longer be enforceable.

[BHSPitMonkey]

The operative words there are "for the goods and/or services identified in the application". "Canvas" is not a generic term for a notetaking/documentation platform such as this. "Wiki" probably would be. "Apple" is trademarked if you're using it to describe a computer.

[amelius]

Canvas is a generic term for something you draw or write on. Even in the context of computing. See for example the HTML canvas.

[khedoros]

Those statements are all true, but they aren't an argument against the company being able to own a trademark on "Canvas".

Canvas isn't "a term that is generic for the goods and/or services identified in the application". "Software as a Service" would be, and so would "Collaboration Software".

A company called "Chainsaw" could be a lumberjack company. One called "Chisels" could provide stone masonry services. This, despite the fact that those are generic words for tools that would be reasonably expected to be in use for those kinds of work.

[amelius]

The service they provide is essentially a canvas. They go through great lengths to provide to the user the abstraction of a canvas. So this would be analogous to a chainsaw company selling a product named "Chainsaw".

[khedoros]

Crucially, the USPTO disagrees with you (although, who knows? That could change in the future). Is the company providing a canvas, or a collaboration tool that uses an abstraction of a canvas to operate? I think that you're conflating what a thing is with how that thing is constructed. It is a collaboration tool. It uses a canvas. "Canvas" isn't a generic word within the realm of SaaS collaboration tools, so a trademark on that name, in that context, should be valid.

In your example, a chainsaw company could produce a product called Chainsaw, but it couldn't (shouldn't be able to, at least) gain a trademark for that name.

[amelius]

> It uses a canvas.

The users are using the canvas, not the company.

Would you say that a chainsaw renting company could call itself "Chainsaw" (because it "uses" chainsaws as a means to provide the user with sawing capabilities)?

[spdustin]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11382259

They identified the services in their trademark application, and it was approved for publication. (edit: Just to further support your point. Canvas isn't a generic word describing their services.)