[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)?

[chrisvls]

The generic-term exclusion would apply if and only if the word canvas was the generic -- as in the literal dictionary definition -- of the product.

That's why you can't register a trademark for "electric car" or "autonomous vehicle" or "html web page" for an electric car, autonomous vehicle or html web page business.

If you could, other manufacturers would not be able to describe their goods without infringing your mark. Since the product in question is metaphorically like a canvas, but is neither 1) a heavy-duty, plain-weave fabric; nor 2) the <canvas> html tag, another company could create a competing product and market it without using the word canvas, no problem. Hence, the generic exclusion would not apply.

(IANAL. However, was married to a trademark attorney for over ten years, picked up some things. Also, wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Gene...)

[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.)