James M. Ray wrote:
> Exactly. Remember, too, that we're discussing LAW here, not
> logic...I am not a lawyer, though, so this is just a layperson's
> opinion of how this stuff usually-works. Consult a real lawyer
> for real legal advice.
I think that about sums it up.
The prefix "e-" (Merriam-Webster: electronic) is generic. To suggest
that you can use this prefix with any other dictionary word (e.g. "gold")
to create a proprietary term is nonsense.
The "e-" prefix does not require a hyphen. The words "e-mail" and
"email" are equivalent. As such, "e-gold" and "egold" are also equivalent,
both meaning "electronic gold."
Because of this, "e-gold" should not be any more trademarkable than
"egold" -- which was explicitly not available at the time due to prior use.
Trademarks apply to proprietary words, in one geographic territory,
and in one industry. Trademarks that apply to acronyms, generic words,
that trascend geography or industry, are RARE EXCEPTIONS, that
generally only occur after the trademarks are extremely well established.
(except for geography which global commerce is making more the rule).
Regarding generic words, as an exception, it is possible to maintain a
trademark within a specific industry. For example, Apple Computer
could successfully prevent someone else using "apple" (or even names of
apple varities such as macintosh) in the computer industry.
However, defending generic words across industries would be completely
unprecedented. Apple Records, Red Apple Grocery, Fiona Apple, etc,
all exist without infringement.
E-Gold can probably defend their trademark of e-gold as it applies to
digital currencies, but to suggest this word is automatically trademarked
and propriety just in itself is to rob the English language of a word.
Rather than jump over people for wanting to use the term "electronic gold"
and its abbreviations (e-gold and egold) in generic usage and in names
of businesses in OTHER INDUSTRIES (such as gambling), you ought
to jump over E-Gold Ltd for picking a stupid trademark.
Registration of a trademark does not in itself create a trademark. The
trademark must be used, and must be defended. To suggest people
simply ought to avoid a trademark is to suggest one ought to forsake
the most important moderation aspect of trademarks and take the
trademark office at face value. (This is even more important with respect
to patents).
IMHO, every new trademark and patent ought to be infringed upon,
and forced to be defended in court. This is the only way to reign in the
garbage the patent and trademark offices spit out every day, and the
even more ridiculous claims of their holders. Using the word "e-gold"
in generic form, and in other industries, is noble and just cause to
defend the English language against corporate invasion.
Adam
PS. On two practical notes regarding using e-gold in domain names:
1) If one were to own e-gold-casino, and have it direct to another
domain (e.g. wb-casino), one can claim that the domain does not
represent use as a trade name, but as a *directory* entry, and thus
cannot be infringing.
2) If one were to use the tradename (Electronic Gold Casino), and
have the domain e-gold-casino, one can argue the domain represents
a valid abbreviation.
PPS. IANAL either.
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s)
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common
viruses.
