Well, something that would take a mark like that isn’t generally read immersively - which means maybe it’s not so bad. A valid readability concern though is the “textural distraction” that such marks have before the reader gets to that point of the text (sometimes from many lines before).

Also, a big issue in something like this is Familiarity, specifically here how quickly it’s gained with something jarring like this; maybe with a proper name the reader has to learn the bouma anyway so again it’s not so bad. Nobody really knows though... So I might work the aesthetics angle (as in, it’s ugly); and/or look for a font with discrete marks, to reduce the textural distraction.

hhp

I have to use these all the time. I minimize the impact by making them really small (unreadable, basically) and raising the baseline of the mark. They’re there, yet they’re not…
peace

If the trademarks are owned by the client then its understandable that they would like to protect them by ’bugging’ the marks. My company’s policy is to bug only the first use of a mark on any given document.

As for marks not owned by the client, unless there’s some legal requirement between the owner of the marks and the client, they may be able to avoid bugging and just put a standard TM disclaimer on the doc “all TM’s not marked remain blah blah blah”. Obviously they should talk to their lawyer before doing this.

Cheers, Si

let me give you a ferinstance...

“Microsoft® Windows™ consistently outperforms Linux™ based sytems on Dell® Opteron™ boxes using FakeSofts® Checker™ software. In fact Microsoft® Windows™ outperforms MacOS™, OSX®, and other Unixes™ even when FakeSofts® Checker™ software isn’t used in accordance with IEEE™ standards. “

That’s obviously not a real sentence, but it demonstrates the kind of density of bugs I’m talking about. If I superscripted them, well, then there is just a dot after every other word. Hrant got the idea - it’s not “what can I do about it” or “do I have to do it” it’s “How can I convince my client not to do this without saying ’Because it’s flipping hideous!’?”

Re: Reading this immersively - what exactly qualfies as immersive reading? We’re talking 250-1000 words of product descriptions. I don’t really have a problem using these things in display text or headlines, but in the body it really seems to break up the flow.

Tell me more about this “textural distraction” thing, that sounds like a promising avenue.

steve

(the other thing that gets me is he likes to put them where they totally not required, like after IEEE or UNIX. The argument for that is “better safe than sorry!” which is difficult to respond to without lapel-shaking)

>That’s obviously not a real sentence

Seems accurate to me ;-)

>The argument for that is “better safe than sorry!”

Your client needs legal advice as well as design advice.

The rule of thumb in the US is only the first time a registered trademark etc. appears on a document it needs ® or TM etc. Anything else is redundant and over kill.

do like Peachpit Press:

Trademarks
Thoroughout this book trademarked names are used. Rather than put a trademark symbol in every occurence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fasion and to the benefit of the trademark owner with no intention of infringement of the trademark.

=======

> what exactly qualfies as immersive reading?

Good question. There isn’t necessarily a clear threshold. In fact in this case if somebody has decided to read the thing, he’ll get through it before getting a headache. The question though becomes: do you want to make reading this thing so unpleasant than the reader just gives up?

> Tell me more about this “textural distraction” thing

Basically, when there’s enough of a “spike” in the texture or color of text, the eye wants to jump directly to it to quickly figure out what this “special” thing is. When this happens, the eye then has to go back to where it was; this is wasteful and tiring. When a paragraph is littered with such spikes, it become quite unpleasant to read.

—

But here’s a possibly stronger argument:
Somebody reading such text might think it’s a parody.

hhp

- But here’s a possibly stronger argument:
Somebody reading such text might think it’s a parody. -

I like it™!
I had to make an ad with the phrase “One Night Only™”. Brilliant. This has really gotten out of control and of course behind the scenes the lawyers are driving.
CYA™©® to the max…
peace

Thanks hrant,

That helps. That’s the phenomenon I’m looking to describe - but your description is much more accurate than soft “design-speak” like “It breaks up the flow.”

gratzi

steve

The search is working, though it’s not public yet. http://www.typophile.com/search/

Try it out.

(Yes, this is an official, unofficial leak.)

The search is working, though it’s not public yet. http://typophile.com/search/

Try it out.

(Yes, this is an official, unofficial leak.)

I’ve always liked the first usage style, and you can add lines at the end of the pub. as well for safe measure.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.html

“In publications that are not advertising or sales materials, all that is necessary is to use the proper spelling and capitalization of the name of the product. A trademark attorney can tell you when the use of the symbol is required.”

I’m guessing that the next thing you are going to say is that the pieces you are working on are sales pieces...

Are you concerned solely with readability?

There is a slightly more subtle problem — using TM and other devices makes the publisher or writer look like a shill for the companies whose products are mentioned.

If that is what you want, then use them by all means, but make them small and unobtrusive. But if not, no need. (Check with your lawyer, of course.)

The New York Times doesn’t even use intercaps in company names, btw (let alone TM symbols).

—Kathleen