Analysis Of A Language All Their Own By Nathan Salha

Decent Essays
In the essay “A Language All Their Own,” Nathan Salha (2011) claimed that trademarks should be used “only to protect intellectual invention and the reputations of associated companies,” and Salha wrote that trademarked slogans only exist to regulate the usage of creative slogans among businesses and that they do not limit the freedom of speech (p. 476). Furthermore, Salha (2011) argued that trademarked slogans protect businesses and promote competition by allowing each business to customize its advertisements and distinguish its product from the products of its competitors with clever slogans (p. 477). Moreover, Salha (2011) asserted that trademarked slogans protect consumers by allowing consumers to distinguish high-quality products, which…show more content…
For example, Salha used a very effective ethical appeal when he described the necessity of trademarks; Salha (2011) wrote “our founding fathers provided for such protection [of trademarks] hoping to facilitate science” (p. 477). Quite a few Americans would be inclined to respect the opinions of the Founding Fathers, and therefore, Salha used this appeal to these authority figures in order to justify his view on the necessity of trademarks. Furthermore, Salha also effectively used emotional appeals when he described the effects of trademarked slogans on consumers; Salha (2011) wrote “if corporate phrases are not protected, however, consumers may be intentionally duped into buying inferior products” that share the same slogans as high-quality products (p. 477). Salha, a consumer himself, knew that consumers like to feel secure and confident when they purchase a product or service from a business, and therefore, he used this appeal to the feelings of consumers in order to convince his audience that corporate slogans can help protect consumers. Lastly, Salha effectively used logical appeals when he explained why Donald Trump’s request to trademark “You’re fired” was invalid. Salha (2011) explained that because this phrase is used in everyday life, it is not particular to one company or entity, and therefore, it does not suit the definition of a trademark (p. 478). Furthermore, Salha knew that many readers would agree that because the phrase “You’re fired” is used in everyday conversation and does not reference a specific entity, the phrase does not suit the definition of a trademark and should not be granted trademarking
Get Access