Article published In:
Language for Specific Purposes
Edited by Antoon De Rycker, Kris Buyse and Lieve Vangehuchten
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 162] 2011
► pp. 6383
References
Butters, R.R.
(2010) Trademarks: Language that one owns. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 351–364). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008a) A linguistic look at trademark dilution. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 241, 507–519.Google Scholar
(2008b) Trademarks and other proprietary terms. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 231–247). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Changing linguistic issues in US trademark litigation. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M. & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law. (pp. 29–42). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar
Butters, R.R. & Westerhaus, J.
(2004) Linguistic change in words one owns: How trademarks become “generic”. In A. Curzan & K. Emmons (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II (pp. 111–123). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J.K.
(2011) Curriculum Vitae. Online document: [URL] (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
Coulthard, M.
(2010) In my opinion. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 473–486). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K., & Woolls, D.
(2010) Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 523–538). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A.
(Eds.) (2010) The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinwoodie, G.B.
(2008) What linguistics can do for trademark law. In L. Bently, Davis, J. & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 140–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durant, A.
(2008) How can I tell the trade mark on a piece of gingerbread from all the other marks on it? Naming and meaning in verbal trade mark signs. In L. Bently, Davis, J., & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 107–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eades, D.
(1994) Forensic linguistics in Australia: An overview. Forensic Linguistics 11, 2, 113–32.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J., & Turell, M.T.
(Eds.) (2008) Dimensions of forensic linguistics. AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, T.
(2010) Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 508–522). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008) Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 215–229). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillén-Nieto, V.
(2008) El caso Respicort v. Respicur: Un dictamen pericial lingüístico sobre el conflicto entre marcas comunitarias. Unpublished MA Thesis. Directed by Dr. M.T. Turell. Master’s in Forensic Linguistics. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Hotta, S.
(2006a) Functions of language in trademarks. Ritsumeikan Law Review (R. L. R.), 231, 1–19.Google Scholar
(2006b) A linguistic exploration of trademark dilution. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law (pp. 179–186). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar
Hotta, S. & Fujita, M.
(2007) The psycholinguistic foundation of trademarks: An experimental study. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and the Law. (pp. 173–178). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar
Jessen, M.
(2010) The forensic phonetician. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 378–394). London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montes de Oca, D.R.
(1998) Aspectos lingüísticos de la marca publicitaria. Onomazein, 31, 111–131.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G.
(2001) That’s correct. California Lawyer. July. On line document: [URL]. (Last accessed 20th April 2011).
Okawara, M.H.
(2006) Linguistic analysis of some Japanese trademark cases. PhD dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Oyanedel, M. & Samaniego, J.
(2004) Report written for the court’s consideration in a likelihood-of-confusion case in 2005 involving rival trademarks Paltomiel and Palto con Miel, Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia, Sentencia N 24/2005, Republica de Chile, 4. Online document: [URL] (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
Rieber, R.W. & Stewart, W.A.
(Eds.) (1990) The language scientist as expert in the legal setting. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 6061. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Sanderson, P.
(2007) Linguistic analysis of competing trademarks. Language Matters, 381, 132–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shudo, S.
(2005) Towards more objective criteria for decisions on similarities in trademark disputes: What linguistic analysis may contribute. Conference paper, 7th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law, International Association of Forensic Linguists, Cardiff University, July 1–4.Google Scholar
Shuy, R.
(2002) Linguistic battles in trademark disputes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The battles over linguistics and law. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Generic v. secondary meaning: Registry Hotel v. Hospitality Management. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 46–55). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Teaching a jury about meaning: Warren v. Prestone. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 56–68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Sounding alike and meaning alike: Con Agra v. Hormell. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 69–80). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Descriptiveness: Nouns and modifiers: Woodroast Systems v. Restaurants Unlimited. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 81–94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The meaning of a patronymic prefix: McDonald’s v. Quality Inns. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 95–109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Sounding, looking, and meaning different: AMR Pharm v. American Home Products. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 110–115). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Differences in the ingredients, qualities, and characteristics of the products: Pyewacket v. Mattel. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 116–124). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Going beyond competing company and product names: Auto Nation v. Car Max. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 125–143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Using foreign language words in trademarks: Alixandre Furs v. Alexandros Furs. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 144–149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Power, control and the ownership of language. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 190–200). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solan, L.M.
(2010) The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 395–407). London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Solan, L. M.
(1990) Does the legal system need experts in English syntax? In R.W. Rieber & W.A. Stewart (Eds.). The language scientist as expert in the legal setting (pp. 107–118). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 6061. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Turell, M.T.
(2008) Plagiarism. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 265–299). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) El plagio en la traducción literaria. In M.T. Turell (Ed.), Lingüística forense, lengua y derecho. Conceptos, métodos y aplicaciones (pp. 275–298). Sèrie Monografies 8. Barcelona: IULA.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2005): Lingüística forense, lengua y derecho. Conceptos, métodos y aplicaciones. Sèrie Monografies 8. Barcelona: IULA.Google Scholar

Software references

Boersma, P. & Weenik, D.
(2011) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (v 5.2.21). Amsterdam: The Netherlands University of Amsterdam. On line document: [URL] (Last accessed 2nd February 2011).
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Guillén-Nieto, Victoria
2022. Plagiarism Detection: Methodological Approaches. In Language as Evidence,  pp. 321 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.