Talk:Muncaster Castle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

It is the absolute right of the owner to show trademark information.

Do you see this on the pages here? "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."

I am sorry that you don't particularly like my trademark muncaster® but this is NOT an option and if you don't believe me ask a trademark attorney! To remove it is to use my registered mark without MY license, this amounts to Federal Trademark violations (especially when you have been warned about this).

Delete this article or leave the trademark.

Muncaster Castle is a very famous castle. I am proud of my heritage and I am also proud of my trademark! 0waldo 13:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:MOS-TM:
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
    • avoid: REALTOR®
    • instead, use: Realtor
Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). The fact that you have trademarked a name does not require others to display it as you wish. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the trademark appears to only apply to internet browser software and not have anything to do with the castle [1]. Phr 15:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter about the underlying reason for the trademark, what matter is the mark; if the trademark "muncaster" is used ( on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter )then it must be noted as a trademark. The trademark could be for toilet paper, dog-food, rat-traps, pyramids, castles or snakes. The point of a trademark is that reference is made to the holder of the trademark if the trademark is used and bla, bla, bla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0waldo (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I'm quite sure that's incorrect. If you go to the store and buy a bag of apples, it says "apples" and doesn't have anything mentioning the trademark for the Apple Computer company, and this seems similar. If you've got a verifiable cite for your claim (maybe a Nolo Press book?), that should help clear things up. Thanks. Phr 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Phr correctly pointed out, and in regard to the edit summary "fix trademark notification; you don't say that dell is a registered trademark of dell computer corporation and they make computers.": this is because the context makes that clear. Stating on Muncaster Castle that Muncaster is a registered trademark is (besides being unnecessary) not sufficient, because a trademark is valid only within the field it was granted. The Muncaster trademark in question pertains only to web browser software, and has no relevance or validity pertaining to this castle. If I wanted to start a castle-building business and call it Muncaster, I would be able to get a seperate Muncaster trademark for it, because there would be no possibility of browser software customers getting confused by it. Haakon 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have ABSOLUTELY no idea of U.S. trademark laws or what you are speaking of; go get some U.S. trademark education and then please come back and apologize to me. You actions are very inhumane and you constantly target me and my works. PLEASE GO PICK ON SOMEONE ELSE. 0waldo 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look phr and haakon; I'm sorry but I'm not your personal paid law teacher; I do know what I had to do to get the trademark, and I also know what the trademark lawyer told me and I know I am right. If the trademark is used the trademark owner must be cited (unless the trademark owner or a U.S. Federal Court deems different ) Don't believe me? Go and pay and consult a U.S. Trademark attorney! 0waldo 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 0waldo, nobody's trying to pick on you--at least I hope not--but I think you must be quite confused about what the lawyer or PTO told you. It's not that complicated a subject; if you do a google search on "trademark faq", it finds many pages and none show anything like what you're describing. If you have a PTO pamphlet you can quote from, or maybe some other written info that you got from your attorney, then as mentioned, that would help. But I think if you actually check such a source, you'll find that it doesn't say what you're describing. If you surf through Wikipedia, there are hundreds of trademarked products mentioned, none of them have trademark symbols, and it's all fine. The software-related trademark doesn't apply at all to something unrelated, like a medieval castle, so mentioning it doesn't even make any sense. If we did an article about the software, then we should mention the trademark. Phr 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue will be happily resolved Monday morning as I will call the trademark attoney. I will be back and comment then. Thank you. Jmunchovie 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I note from a search of the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office records a trademark was issued as follows Registration Number: 3031731 Registration Date: December 20, 2005 Owner (REGISTRANT): muncaster, walter W INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES po box 205 wetumpka ALABAMA 36092 Type of Mark: TRADEMARK - I am not at all convinced that Mr Muncaster is in any way entitled to claim exlusive possession of a public domain word and deface this article with registration marks and notices, since use of the word Muncaster as a place name has not only existed but been in continual use for many centuries prior to his decision to use his own surname as a trademark for his software. Indeed, place names in the United Kingdom ending in "-caster"[2] are usually in the approximate vicinity of 2,000 years of age, having been derived from the ancient Roman word castrum (meaning "camp", "fort" or "castle").[3]. Also, as Mr Muncaster possibly would agree, the use of Muncaster as a surname is likely to have originated with people living in that locality in Cumbria, England.

Now, it is interesting to note that the US Trademark Act of 1946, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1052, part (e) states that: "No trade-mark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it - (e) Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, or (4) is primarily merely a surname."[4]

As "Muncaster" is not only a Geographical Indicator[5] (at least in the UK) but also a surname, it is surprising that Mr Muncaster has been permitted to register the single word "muncaster" at all; however even though registered it nevertheless does not prevent any business from any town or city in the world called Muncaster from using that place-name in its business name, nor does it prevent any person with the surname of Muncaster from operating a business under their own surname. (see the "Surnames & Geographic Names" section of this document for additional commentary). As has been mentioned above, this article has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Walter Muncaster's software product, and there can be no possibility of any "confusion, mistake, or deception"[6] arising in this instance.

Furthermore, while Mr Walter Muncaster has registered the name "muncaster" as trademark in the United States, a search at the World International Property Organisation (WIPO) website would suggest he has not registered the name internationally (for countries which are signatories to the Madrid Protocol). However even if registered in the UK, the European Community,[7] or WIPO, it is highly unlikely that a word which is both a surname and a current place-name could be reserved for the exclusive use of a US software company.

In short, Mr Muncaster should probably restrict the assertion of his trademark rights to US-based companies which might attempt to confuse or mislead his potential customers with a competing software product, and not trespass into a matter where the word Muncaster is being used in a perfectly separate and legitimate context. Bezapt 12:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bezpat? Are you a trademark attorney? No, I did not think so. I spoke to my trademark attorney and he said that we have the right to asset legal U.S. Trademark ownership as 'muncaster' is a U.S. registered trademark, he also said we only need to mention it once in the page and at the bottom as a footnote. 0waldo 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0Waldo, what is your attorney's name and email address? I think the trademark mention is inappropriate for this article since the trademark is about computer software and has nothing to do with the castle. Also, even when acknowledging trademarks, Wikipedia style does not use the (r) symbol. Phr 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is really the case, I dare you to get the trademark notice added to [8]. Haakon 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phr: Like I am REALLY GOING to give you my trademark attrorneys name and email address? Shall I give you my Physicians name and email address too? What is your trademark attorneys name and email address and you doctor's name and email address? Now, if you go and look up "muncaster" you will see that it is a registered U.S. trademark. "muncaster" appears in this article and since I am the legal owner of the U.S. trademark muncaster® then I'm going to put it in here because it is my responsibility to defend the trademark that I own.

Concerning your inaccurate remark: "Wikipedia style does not use the (r) symbol":

if you examine the footer of Wikipedia pages you will see, "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.". Why? Because they are attributing the U.S. registered trademark "Wikipedia®" to the legal owner "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", they are “defending” their trademark as I am. If you don’t agree or don’t like it, then go ask Jimbo Wales why the hell he wants to put his trademark attribution on the bottoms of the pages?

You go and consult with a trademark attorney, just like I did. 0waldo 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Haakon: I'm going to do my best to ignore the sharp 12 penny nail sticking in the cheek of my butt. 0waldo 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make notes that any other trademark is registered, I've reverted and I expect it will not be re-added without a firm consensus here which there clearly has not been -- Tawker 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a firm consensus; I think I can this problem fixed monday. 0waldo 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo, good point about the trademark symbol--I should have said Wikipedia style is to not use the symbol in articles. See WP:MOS-TM as cited above. More to the point, your trademark has absolutely nothing to do with medieval castles and citing it here is neither necessary nor appropriate. That is the issue I'd hoped to explain to your attorney, since it's not at all obvious that you understand this point well enough to have done that yourself. Basically I think either you're misinterpreting your attorney's advice, or you're getting inappropriate advice due to the attorney's getting incomplete information. Anyway, you're getting nowhere with your reverts, and nothing you do on monday is likely to change that. Also, I join Haakon in wondering why you haven't gotten your trademark mentioned in www.muncaster.co.uk. I don't think you should expect a different result on Wikipedia. Phr 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am in complete agreement with Phr. Would like to just add in response to Mr Muncaster's previous comment that no, I am not a trademark attorney. However Mr Muncaster, you do not seem to have read my post very carefully - I have provided links to your own country's legislation in support of my remarks, as well as a link to a very clear, plain-English commentary (see the "Surnames & Geographic Names" section of this document), which was written by Professor Thomas Field, Jr., an Intellectual Property specialist, who I daresay your trademark attorney (whoever he or she is) would probably regard with some respect. You can read some more about his credentials here.Bezapt 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trademark[edit]

I added the trademark back! 0waldo 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. While I appreciate your viewpoint, the trademark notice isn't relevant on this page and will be reverted. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will probably be blocked for longer intervalls, which I don't think is in anyones interest. Henrik 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLASE STOP DELETING MY TRADEMARK!!!!!! Thanks! 0waldo 01:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0waldo, sorry, but there's no reason to keep the trademark in the article, and you're clearly getting nowhere with the re-insertions, so please give it a rest. You're simply making it harder for anyone to take you seriously about anything. Phr (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
0waldo, while you may have some interest for your commercial use of the word within the borders of the USA, your registration cannot overrule the fair, reasonable, traditional and legitimate use of the word in other contexts and worldwide jurisdictions, especially when the rights of usage for other purposes greatly pre-date yours. If you can't abide the thought of "Muncaster Castle" going by its ancient name without your permission, you would need to prove your claim in a British court of law. As a USA trademark registration will probably not have much weight outside your country, it might be advisable to try and register the name in the United Kingdom first, though - that is, if they will let you. But even so, I would be very surprised if you acquired anything other than an expensive education, paid for in pounds sterling. However, until such time you can point to a British court ruling that the use of the name "Muncaster Castle" (by the lord of the castle and everyone else) must be approved by you, there is no point agitating here.Bezapt 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, would you guys just relax and let me add the trademark notifican? We could all be friends and all that stuff and life would really be casual for all ouf us if you would just be nice and give a little bit! I've been trying to relax and paint some but it's been hard because I have to keep loolking up! I take advil but that does not seem to help so maybe I'll just do some more brickwork on the gutter. So here it is and please just leave it! "thanks" waldo. 0waldo 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about the disappearance of the castle image you posted, 0Waldo, I found you've had issues with admins about your non-standard copyright notices for uploaded images. As Steven G. Johnson replied to you over at User talk:Stevenj, it really isn't that hard, simply use a standard tag for your images! If you want to record a fact in Wikipedia that a piece of software or a software company exists under the name of "muncaster", why not stop frustrating yourself with this article which has clearly nothing to do with your business product and create a new, neutral, factual article about it instead, following the accepted Wikipedia conventions? (for example: Topologika). Swimming with the current is easier than trying to swim against it; though if you choose the latter, don't blame the water for your choice! Bezapt 11:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright material...[edit]

I've removed some material in the article which seemed to have been cut and pasted from http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/muncaster-monument.htm, http://www.muncaster.co.uk/cumbria-historical-houses, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwest/series1/muncaster-castle.shtml. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCHT external link[edit]

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muncaster Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted[edit]

@DuncanHill: while I understand reverting unsourced content, how do you say that the haunting of the castle is made up nonsense? Did you check up Episode 19 of the podcast or search up Tom Fool? Jay 💬 15:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Ghosts do not exist. We should not, as an encyclopaedia, be saying they do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to Wikipedia to prove or disprove ghosts. What this article should care about is whether the castle has a history of being haunted and if the castle does offer ghost hunters a chance to spend a night in the Tapestry room. Jay 💬 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A history of being haunted" by what if not ghosts? It may have a history of claiming to be haunted, or making money out of saps, but to say "has a history of being haunted" is to claim that hauntings are real. They aren't. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. "has a history of being haunted" means people in the past believed it to be haunted. You may rephrase it any way you want. The point is what do you want to consider as made up nonsense - is it made up by the IP editor, or you feel some things were made up by people (whether sourced or unsourced), so you do not want it in the article. Jay 💬 15:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Has a history of being haunted" means exactly what it says, and we can't say that. You can say things about a history of ghost stories or claimed hauntings if you can find proper references, which that podcast most certainly isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I provided the search link that is not related to the podcast. On the podcast however, it may or may not be an attempt at spamming, since a search for "How haunted" on enwiki shows up multiple articles. Also see Chillingham Castle#Chillingham's ghosts and Mary King's Close#Hauntings. Jay 💬 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muncaster_Castle&oldid=1205629468"