At 04:46 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I looked at www.pseudo.org and at its whois print-out. One can't tell from
>that what kind of use it is. what do they do? where is this info available?
>
>p.s. mandatory disclaimer that I do not endorse the NSI dispute resolution
>policy in that it works an injustice because it does not conduct a
>likelihood of confusion/dilution analysis.
>
>p.p.s. Referring to the fact that PSEUDO is a common word, as far as
>trademark law is concerned (distinguishing it from NSI law),
This is the sentence to which my previous quote involving NSI and ICANN
was a footnote. The brief was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco on Jan. 12, 1999.
"In short, it simply does not fall within the aegis of NSI either to
amend the Lanham Act or to override existing Ninth Circuit law."
Point is, I concur with what I take to be Mr. Scwhimmer's derisive
reference to "NSI law." Second point is, things are being DONE with
respect to the NSI policy and to those who would follow in those
faltering footsteps, when one is lucky enough (as I was) to have the
chance, rather than just talking about them which, in the era of
"closed meetings" and all that, is all the outlet that a lot will have.
there is
>nothing that makes a common word inherently incapable of functioning as a
>trademark, as TIME, TIDE, DIAL, APPLE, SUN, DELL, ORACLE, FORD, LIFE, FOX,
>SPRINT, VISA and TIMBERLAND illustrate.
Quite true statement. In fact, I used APPLE as an example in my brief.
Bill Lovell
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
