Talk:PARE

PARE as a registered trademark is a brand name applying to aviation books and printed educational materials for pilot training. Yes, I did the trademark search and saw registration #1676774; it looks like the trademark was registered incorrectly—trademarks are used to protect brands, not methods or processes. As such, its trademark status is irrelevant to this article. If every article that contained a word that might be a trademark in some context had to devote a lengthy paragraph to discussion of that trademark status, the encyclopedia would be unmanageable. Agateller (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The certificate of registration states "For: Books on the subject of aviation; and printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials for use in pilot training..."

As part of the trademark application process, an affidavit was filed with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks with the following additional information pertaining to the context and use of the mark: "The letters 'P A R E' comprise an acronym created by Applicant standing for 'Power, Ailerons, Rudder and Elevator'."

Context is extremely important (and relevant) when talking about trademarks. In fact, the same mark can be registered to different people/organizations under certain conditions, e.g., provided that the use of the mark in one context/industry is not likely to cause confusion when used in another context/industry. For example, mark "XYZ" could be trademarked for something in the electroplating industry, yet the identical "XYZ" mark could conceivably also be trademarked for something pertaining to, say, the aviation industry. The contexts are completely different with little chance for confusion. Look up the trademark "EMT" to see how many different registrations have been issued, for example.

In the aviation context (in which the Wikipedia article was presented), the mark "PARE" has a very specific meaning vis-a-vis "printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials for use in pilot training" -- spin training. Therefore, the clarification and discussion of the acronym, its use, and trademark status IS relevant here, especially given that the initial article provided incorrect information--incorrect not only as it pertains to the actions that have been associated with the PARE acronym for 20 years, but also compared to the generally accepted (NASA Standard) spin recovery actions that have been known now for 70+ years.

The acronym is not a "brand" of books for aviation; it is a specific memory aid (brand) for spin recovery. The assertion that the mark was incorrectly trademarked should be taken up directly with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as attorneys in that office reviewed, approved, and later renewed the registration.

Information published on Wikipedia should be both accurate and technically correct. Especially if the cost of misinformation could cause serious injury or death to someone else. Rstowell (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)rstowell[reply]

Trademarks apply to products and services, not methods or techniques. While PARE might be trademarked in certain narrow contexts pertaining to the manufacture and sale of printed documents (yes, I reviewed the registration), it has no generic application in an aviation context. The intent seems to be to intimidate people into not using the acronym in any context, and not just in association with the products and services for which it is registered, or to promote a specific commercial product. Also, trademarks are adjectives, not nouns. Thus, you might well be able to trademark the "PARE® series of spin-recovery training books," but PARE alone is just an acronym. The application of a trademark does not guarantee safety or protect anyone from injury, whereas attempting to discourage the use of a handy acronym for the purpose of remembering what to do in a spin may well have such effects in some circumstances. Agateller (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to "review the registration" all you want, but that doesn't mean that you get it.

You, sir, did not develop the PARE acronym for spin recovery. I did that, sir, not you.

You, sir, do not own the trademark for the PARE acronym which is "for books on the subject of aviation; and printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials," as well as "for use in pilot training," as well as "The letters 'P A R E' comprise an acronym created by Applicant standing for 'Power, Ailerons, Rudder and Elevator'." -- I own that trademark, sir, not you.

Your claim that anyone is trying to "intimidate people into not using the acronym" is absurd on its face and is completely baseless. Quite the contrary. Anyone who has been involved with light airplane flying for any length of time knows full well that they are encouraged to adopt the PARE spin recovery acronym along with the CORRECT spin recovery actions that go with it for safety's sake. All I ask is that it be applied in the proper context and with the specific recovery actions that are associated with it (and have been for decades). Actions that you, sir, dangerously misrepresented in your initial attempt to look knowledgeable about spins.

What I object to, sir, is the idea that you think you were somehow doing pilots a favor by initiating this Wikipedia entry with blatantly erroneous -- dangerously erroneous -- information. You did no one any such favors, sir. In fact, the dangerous information you offered could have killed someone who read it and thought the information credible.

You're concern about the registered trademark status of something you don't own, and which you did not develop, and in a subject area that you have little-to-no experience in, is grossly misplaced. You should be worried that the information you presented was not only obviously incorrect to any reader who knows anything about the subject, but also blatantly dangerous to the point that it COULD KILL SOMEONE if followed. Shame on you, sir.

But you continue to focus on the trademark issue instead. Never mind that you should be apologizing for putting out life-threatening information under the guise of "scholarly pursuit," or to impress others that you are "learned and participate in shaping Wikipedia."

Claiming to "know a little about a lot" makes you a master of none, and calls into question the credibility of anything you have to offer on this or almost any other subject.

Stick with topics you actually know something about; leave the rest to experts in those fields. And if you are going to borrow, or steal, or embellish, or misapply the work of someone else, a little deference when they call you out on it would be nice. Rstowell (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]