On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Swerve wrote:
> > Trust me...I am looking at a travel-sized can of shaving cream that says
> > "Gillette(R) Foamy(R) Regular Shaving Cream". I've had this for a few
> > months (only use it for travelling). If Jack really wanted to have a
> > snowballs chance in hell of keeping this, he should have registered a
> > trademark for it, or shown prior art.
>
> I absolutely disagree. Trademarks on common words only give the trademark
> holder exclusive use of that word under very specific conditions, in this
> case Gillette can prevent others from using Foamy as a shaving cream.
IANAL, but...if you look at recent cases like this, you'll see that
"exclusive use of that word" is not needed here...it would if Jack had any
kind...even common law trade use of that name. But the fact that he deals
in domains and offered to sell it to them and is not using it for any
business that pertains to the word (which, in many states would create a
common law trademark), works heavily against him.
> It is also quite descriptive, as in foam, which is what shaving cream is.
> You cannot trademark descriptive words as in apple, and not allow others who
> sells apples to use the word apple.
Tell that to Apple Computer and Apple Records. If Apple Records had
beaten Apple Computer to the punch, Apple Computer would be SOL. But if I
had, and used the site that didn't relate in any way to a business using
the trademark Apple, either could take it from me, on a first come, first
serve basis.
> Imo, Jack has nothing to prove here. Foamy is an English word. We all have
> the right to use the English language in ways that seem fit. Since Jack
> didn't sell shaving cream, he did not violate Gillette's trademark.
You may be right, but based on precedence, I doubt it. Once again,
IANAL...
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am
=========================================================================
