Here’s an analogy that brings this concept home: should you say you’re going to “photocopy” that page, or are you going to “Xerox” that page? That is what I see when I read the many misuses of “FDM” in print and online.
In our 3D printed world, should we use “FFF” or “FDM”? [Source: Fabbaloo / LAI]
Hold on, which is it? FFF or FDM?
There’s one twist to this situation, however.
Another day, another misuse of the term “FDM”.
Or longer, should they choose to renew it.
And they are wrong.
The message here is that we should all be using FFF, not FDM, unless you happen to be a Stratasys employee or referring to their equipment.
In fact, it appears that the filing date for their latest renewal is 26 January 2021, meaning that FDM is theirs alone until at least 2031.
I checked.
It has not expired.
Stratasys’ current in-force trademark registration for “FDM” [Source: USPTO]
Perhaps Stratasys has allowed the “FDM” trademark registration to expire?
Thus — legally — “FDM” refers ONLY to Stratasys equipment using that filament extrusion process. Any other company using “FDM” to refer to their equipment is wrong.
“Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) – also often referred to as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) – is a widely used 3D printing technology.”
FDM is the process invented by Stratasys in the 1980s, and one of the first two 3D printing processes discovered. Stratasys trademarked the term “FDM”.
Yes, it may be the same physical process, since Stratasys’ original patents expired back in 2008 and since then many companies have deployed equipment using a version of Stratasys’ original process. But they cannot call it “FDM”.
In the United States, trademarks are registered for ten year terms, and can be renewed. In other words, trademarks can indeed expire. At that point they can be freely used for whatever purpose.
The correct term for all (except Stratasys) is “FFF”, and that’s what we consistently use in this publication.
