Bullshit Architecture.

Uncreative Bullshitters Architecture

yes, the list can go on.

raccohunter, get the idea that you aren't getting much of a serious response. Time to get the idea to stop being lazy or relying on others to name your business. 

Get together with your partners and brainstorm and settle on one that you all feel as a group represents you guys and resonates with you, your business plan, etc.

You need to have some idea what your business is about to have a good base for naming. Think about it.

I believe you might have to actually have AIBD professional membership for that but not hard to achieve if you have an architecture degree. Just pay the membership dues and work hard and make money and the dues would be a minor expense in the grand scheme.

Yeah, something along the lines of Title 15 of the U.S.C. 

Just to add, downright, "certified professional building designer" is a registered trademark of NCBDC / AIBD.

Under no circumstance may that title be used unless authorized by the trademark holder. In which case, through NCBDC certification and maintaining actively certified in good standing status.

Lets not derail the discussion for a discourse on this.

kjdt,

Use of the title building designer is one thing. The registered trademark "certified professional building designer" is another thing. 

Commercial use of a registered trademark without either ownership rights to the trademark or the trademark licensed from the trademark rights holder is violation of federal trademark law. AIBD/NCBDC has the equal protection of their registered trademarks as Microsoft or any other commercial business registering their trademarks.

That's the point I am getting at. Just as the states had coopted the title architect and effectively 'trademarked' it to themselves.

Enough said here. 

The subject is in fact about a business name and that is in the domain of commercial use and trademark laws.

So lets try to stick to that subject.

Before we get to that, I have this question:

Why is there this pattern of architects disregarding, disrespecting and even violating federal laws? We have our great and grand AIA doing that and violating not only once being sued but twice. 

How about International Business Machines. All made up of common words. That is not how trademark laws work Bloopox. Alot of trademarks are made of commonplace words. Many trademarks which are business names of many business use commonplace words because they are comprised of words found in the language which in the U.S. would be primarily English. If you read trademarks laws and cases, even trademarks comprising of commonplace words are protected. I understand the argument and nothing is necessarily prohibiting you from a non-commercial use of a title that is trademark. When you conduct business in the business name of a registered trademark then you get into trouble. To usurp a trademark in the U.S., the trademark has to not be in use and be determined as abandoned, just so you know. 

If you used the term certified professional building designer in a non commercial way, you would be fine. If you use it commercially without doing you can find yourself in a legal quagmire. 

However, I think we are spending too much time debating a very minor point and the more we discuss that, the more we are going off on a tangent. 

When it comes to states, and business names, there can be a lot of businesses having the same name as another business in another state. For example there can be a business registered in Oregon with the same name as another business in say Florida yet they are different businesses. This is due to businesses registering locally with individual states. This is because when you are registering with a state your business name, for example, you are largely reserving your business name like a trademark but it is only within the state but even that doesn't mean a person has a legal right to use the business name as the name can violate federally registered trademarks which is nation-wide. So even when you do register the business name at the state, you have to be sure your business name doesn't violate trademarks registered by some other business.

You make a good point about having different business names in different states. To further add, there may even be different ownership share requirements in the case of architectural firm registration requirements. In which case, one may have to create multiple business entities for example.

JeromeS and kjdt,

There is other trademarks protected. Have you ever heard of a word mark. That is protected. Maybe, you really should look at the trademark laws for once in your actual life. I have.

However, every legal case in trademarks is a crap shoot. There are many other trademarks. Even slogans which are entire sentences. 

If you name your business using your true and real name with a title then the use of that in such commercial application falls into the trademark law domain.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:i4hhy7.3.6

Word MarkCERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER

Goods and ServicesIC B . US B . G & S: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES. FIRST USE: 19850718. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19850718

Mark Drawing Code(1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number76202474

Filing DateJanuary 30, 2001

Current Basis1A

Original Filing Basis1A

Published for OppositionFebruary 25, 2003

Registration Number2717009

Registration DateMay 20, 2003

Owner(REGISTRANT) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR BUILDING DESIGNER CERTIFICATION CORPORATION OKLAHOMA 13519 South 49th West Avenue Sapulpa OKLAHOMA 74066

(LAST LISTED OWNER) AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING DESIGN AKA AIBD CORPORATION D.C. 529 14TH ST NW, SUITE 750 WASHINGTON D.C. 20045

Assignment RecordedASSIGNMENT RECORDED

Type of MarkCERTIFICATION MARK

RegisterPRINCIPAL-2(F)

Affidavit TextSECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20140108.

Renewal1ST RENEWAL 20140108

Other DataThe certification mark, as used by authorized persons, certifies that, by testing, the person meets minimum requirements for professional building design, and meets the professional qualifications and performance standards as dictated by the certifier.

Live/Dead IndicatorLIVE

It is classified as a Certification mark. This certification mark is trademarked and as you know, you will have to argue the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment which in turn if you were successful would also undermine the legality of state licensing laws because that will unravel the legality of states adopting laws that is a form of censorship and abridgment of rights. If your argument that common words can't be trademarked then states may not be legally allowed to restrict title use and in turn the argument of free speech supersedes the trademark and title laws which is nothing more than a state 'trademarking' (reserving) the common words such as architect. 

If you argue that, we can argue that architect is also a commonplace word and that states violated the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment when they adopted licensing laws. Title laws are functionally the same as a trademark law and if AIBD/NCBDC may not protect its registered trademark of "certified professional building designer" then nor shall states on the basis of freedom of speech.

Here's another thing, unless you build what you design and is the chief builder or arch-builder (ie. arkhi- = chief, master or basically arch like arch in archbishop and -tekton means builder) then you are a fraud. You are not an architect just because you design a building. You are not a builder. Architect is anglicized from the latin word which an latin-ized from the greek word. In those days, you were what today would be known as a design-builder. 

Since, the fundamental basis is architect is a commonplace word. If commonplace words can not be restricted by law and you want to argue that case then the road goes both ways and architect is a common place word.

Prior to licensing laws in the U.S., an architect is a building designer and building designer is an architect. These two titles were merely synonyms. The latter was a less commonly used. Architect was the more commonly used word. Building Designer was just an english grammatically restructured form of "designer of buildings" which is the definition of architect.

The whole legal premise of architect title can be undermined. While an explicit title "state licensed architect" or "state registered architect" or similar titles indicated state licensure/registration would hold up for protection but then you delineate with the public by displaying your license # like general contractors. 

Bottom line: If you are successful you will lose the restriction of the architect title.

The argument would be raised with one being a basic precedence because the Constitutional law bars states (and their sub-political bodies) from adopting or enforcing any law the  abridges the privileges of the United States Constitution. The basis of title law isn't health, safety and welfare. Practice acts pertains with those issues. The title isn't an HSW matter and more than a trademark matter. It is a de facto 'trademark' and in fact, a state licensing of a reserved title is a type of certification mark. As licensing is a certification. 

Are you sure you really want to ride that train to that outcome?

By the way, trademarks are protected included ones that are just word marks.

Here are a couple cases relevant to "CERTIFICATION MARKS".

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/104/38/548959/

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/303/494/457950/

These two cases refers to a certification of goods but the law applies to services and the certification of service providers. CPBD like LEED. LEED is a certification mark for LEED certification of buildings but also certification mark of accredited persons. As the trademark laws does not make such distinctions. So when you use the LEED-AP after your name, the initials of a string of common place words like "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" and the following: "Accredited Professional". The long hand of that certification mark is "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Accredited Professional".

These are protected and defended. The state title laws of professional titles are in and of themselves a  type of "Certification mark" which the states legislated in its laws.

If the certification marks are not lawful to be defended just because it encompasses common place words which means you have to argue the first amendment right and Constitution then it Architect title can not also be restricted because no because of the 14th Amendment of the United States forbids states (and their subpolitical bodies) from adopting or enforcing any law that abridges (which means to restrict or limit or otherwise reduce) the privileges and immunities of the United States Constitution ( the privileges refers to the Constitutional rights ). Therefore, EVERY state would have violated the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment right of the United States Constitution. 

I'll re-ask this question: Do you really want to ride this train to that outcome?

That is what the word ARCHITECT means kjdt. 

That was what Architect was when the Roman word for architect and also when it was adopted into English language LONG before there was a United States. However, at the end of the day, it wouldn't matter because if AIBD can't be allowed to defend the title certified professional building designer for reason of common place words (a First Amendment argument) then nor shall the states per permitted. Architect is a common place word. States would be violating the first amendment right of citizens of the United States by any law the restricts to by any amount is unconstitutional. You have to argue the Constitutional right to nullify a certification mark because it consists of common place words. You have to argue the 1st Amendment to support your argument but it also has to apply to states as well because by the time ANY state enacted architectural title and licensing law, the 14th Amendment was enacted.

gruen,

A state license is a state issued certification. The title architect is a state issued certification mark. 

Basically, a trademark. The state used legislation to reserve certain words used as occupation titles for their state occupational certification programs. Effectively it is a certification mark and that is in itself a type of trademark. 

So if one organization may not use certification marks because it consists of commonplace words (which is a 1st Amendment argument and a 5th Amendment argument for Federal and 14th Amendment argument for States & their subpolitical bodies) then all organizations may not and this means states, too!

If anything it would be a real dick move to do this. States had outright violated and ignored the restrictions of the 14th Amendment. There is nothing to be conferred as some hidden meaning than what is exactly written.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Key clause...

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

As you noticed, this clause is separated by a semicolon denoting an independent clause.

This clause refers to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights that is contained within and so forth. I don't think there is ANYTHING hidden there. Plainly written, it is blatantly clear. It means exactly what it says.

Let me say this, based on your argument, I can call myself an architect as the meaning of the word before licensing title and practice laws is simple: a person who designs buildings. You can't apply state definition of architect to what the word already means in common place and still means that in common place. Remember, when you learn your vocabulary, they don't teach the statutory meaning of the architect title. They teach the same definition in the dictionary since before Illinois ever adopted architectural licensing laws. Architect simply means a person who designs buildings for human habitation.

This was what it mean in American society by 1850s. It was only from the renaissance and post-renaissance period that architecture profession broke away and began its separation from the construction. It wasn't really until the Ecoles Beaux Arts period that the push for architects as art and design oriented occupation vs a dual role of art and construction craft and divorcing half the profession. It didn't happen over night. It was during this period of time that the role of architect as the building designer and visionary and space making exclusive of construction and construction was delineated from the point design vision is complete and the craft of making the vision reality through crafts and trades.

The idea of architects taking a hands off of the trades approach.

Yes, now, we are getting back to some blend of this. The rationale for separate architecture / construction disciplines makes sense on larger and more complex projects with diversified team structure. However, in smaller projects, the classic design-build approach which predates the design-bid-build model had returned and makes good sense in smaller projects like designing and building houses, light commercial, etc. 

This is what is done.

Yet, the meaning of the word architect is simple. A person who designs buildings. As it is most understood in American society. Nobody thinks about licensing unless someone points that out to them and only then. People just aren't taught about occupational licensing. It just isn't something public schools teach. That is the common place vocabulary of the public. The same vocabulary as taught in elementary, middle, and high schools.

Bottom line: Your argument against AIBD defending its trademark would lead to you guys losing your protection of the architect title as it stands.

I don't really care but if you want to argue that common place words can't be restricted in anyway by any law then Architect (also a commonplace word) may not be restricted by the states. 

I remind you of the question you failed to respond an answer to.

Do you really want to ride this train to this outcome because the same argument can be said for states unlawful restriction of the Architect title.

1. It was never adopted under an open to public meeting

2. It violates the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment.

3. Architect is a common place word. 

If one common place word may not be restricted then all common place words may not. Remember, the equal protection of laws. If your first amendment argument would succeed, then it serves all our interests in the end for what matters. It means the title architect shall not be restricted from use by any state law as would all common place words.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO RIDE THIS TRAIN TO THIS OUTCOME ?

jla-x,

You can have a practice act or regulate a profession's practice without title restrictions.

You don't even need to 'register' to do that aside from basically a business registration regardless of business entity type from sole-proprietorship to corporation.

The problem with the legal system is they are illegally interpreting the law by employing meanings to the law when there is none to be conferred. Every law must be enforced precisely how the law is written. Law is not for human personal interpretation. Laws are suppose to be timeless. Especially Constitutional laws. There is to be NO special meaning to be conferred except precisely how the law is written. Any source for interpretation outside the law must be public record without charge just like the laws itself.

I'm not debating the income tax resistance. I believe they would be using the 5th Amendment.

The solution for dealing with corrupt leadership is removal of corrupt leadership. One way is not voting them into office. The other option is to apply lethal force. Once they are dead, they can't harm anyone else.

That is why we have the 2nd Amendment to defend all the others rights. I'm not suggesting blanket murdering, either.

Don't you think you guys talked enough on this tangent. 

kjdt,

I'll show you a dictionary from 1832: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=1UU-AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Webster+Dictionary+1828&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMIleGxzqvAxwIVgzuICh1MMQ9B#v=onepage&q&f=false

AR-CHI-TECT, n. [Gr. ____________] (no need to spell the Greek spelling in Greek letter) 1. A person skilled in the art of building; one who understands architecture, or makes it his occupation to form plans and designs of buildings, and superintends the artificers employed. 2. A contriver; a former or maker.

Wow! At least by 1830s, it has become an occupation that form (formulate or create or prepare) plans and designs of building. Yet it still contains aspect skilled in the art of building. This is legacy from the construction. The art of building refers to craftsmanship to employ artful application of crafts in creation of beauty.

Ecoles Beaux Arts influence is still there and to extent already had a degree of influence in the art focus of the occupation of architecture as the ecoles beaux arts has had about 200 years of influence in Europe and that carried into the United States since day one.

By this definition, I am an Architect.

If you argue that a certification mark that consists of common place word(s) can't be or difficult to defended in court, you have to challenge the constitutionality of laws of certification mark which includes even state's de facto certification marks under their so called 'protected titles' laws. State Occupational Licensing is a certification and protected titles is a de facto form of certification marks.

If it is illegal for the federal government to uphold the defense of a registered certification mark because of a Constitutional defense of the 1st Amendment which is what your legal defense of common place words falls under... then it is also illegal for the States. Anything Unconstitutional for the Federal government is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the individual States. Every State is required to abide by the Constitution of the United States and the Amendments set forth as long as the states remains part of the union of states.

The states can call their licensing program and title laws whatever they want, it is a type of certification and protected titles where only persons certified by the certifier (such as the State or anyone else) is a de facto certification mark.  De Facto means "in fact; in reality; in effect" Although state laws do not use the term certification mark, it is in effect a certification mark. The licensing is in effect a certification. 

So yes, if you want to really argue this, then the grounds and basis for title law portions of the architectural licensing laws will in fact be undermined because they would not be legally allowed to hold these protected titles for any reason. Occupational titles are not a health, safety and welfare. If states still want to have a certified list of state certified architects then those who are state certified will have to display their certification number (license number if you want to call it that) in every ad or otherwise like construction contractor.

However, some of you are more satisfied with the status quo. If states can have protection of its certification mark then so shall AIBD/NCBDC. Both are certifiers. States have their certifier (the licensing board) and AIBD had its certification body (certifier)... NCBDC (National Council of Building Designer Certification). 

Equal protection of laws. Remember that. If your argument is that it is essentially unconstitutional for AIBD/NCBDC to have its certification mark upheld and protected by the trademark laws, then it is unconstitutional for the states. Even more so because of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment. It means that commonplace words, such as "Architect" may not be restricted any more than 'building designer" or other common place words. 

Your argument goes further in that certification marks (which includes also state occupational licensing) may not be protected because it is composed of commonplace words. This means the word 'licensed' or 'registered' may also not be restricted as would "Registered Architect" or "Licensed Architect". 

The question is do you REALLY want to lose the protected status of the Architect title.

The argument can be held that Architect is a common place word found in common dictionary with no reference to occupational licensing. The argument is licensing law violated the U.S. Constitution. The word architect was already common place word when the laws were enacted. 

The states can still regulate the occupation of architecture without being in the certification business. The same as they can regulate the practice and conduct of businesses including trade laws and so forth. Therefore, it can still be regulated without certifying who can practice. The difference is anyone can practice as long as they comply with practice regulations and held liable for actions. 

If you can successfully argue your point in the courts, then the states also may not restrict the architect title. Is that what you want?

The fraud laws would prohibit anyone from saying they are state certified, licensed or even say they are certified by a 'certifier' when they are not. Lying is lying. Right?

Business ethics code prohibits deliberately misrepresenting. Right. I'm sure, those laws would remain.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you.