Quips, quotes, catch phrases can be copyright in titles. The judge
through out the Fox complaint about the Franklin title use of "Fair
and Balanced" because it met the copyright test "common use". Titles
become part of the public domain after they exceed copyright
protection. The Potter franchise has sucessfully sued several people
using their titles in knockoff publications.

Jim

"Dog Ma 1" (reply w/o spam)> wrote in message >...
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > ...You might use rosetta as a synonym for the
> > idea of multilingual translation but in this case is copyright for the
> > specific intentional use to mean the translation of Chinese English
> > tea terms. If you want to use rosetta to mean the same thing you'll
> > need my permission. I was first and anybody else is second which is
> > the minimum test for copyright infrigement.
>
>
> Actually, the issue here is not the test but the copyright. Under US and
> most foreign law (by reciprocal treaty), copyright applies to specific
> representation, lexical or graphical. Concepts may not be so protected.
> Titles are also not subject to copyright, as is evidenced by the frequent
> re-use of catchy phrases from prior works in the titles of new books,
> movies, poems, etc.
>
> What one could do, for $335, is register a "word-only" US service mark for a
> specific commercial use of a name or phrase for a specific service offering
> under one of the standard USPTO categories. Translation services are covered
> therein. Prior use in the same field does not necessarily bar issuance of
> the service mark, but may make enforcement difficult if others have
> maintained a more-or-less continuous practice of the same service under the
> same name.
>
> YMMV.
>
> -DM
> (Not a lawyer, but have done a lot of intellectual-property casework and
> hold several copyrights and service marks)