My recollection that there was an important distinction between e-gold (with the hypen) and egold (without the hypen) appears to be incorrect.
I was recalling all the ruckus over e-cash and ecash, with several parties each claiming trademarks and prior use over the term "ecash" (without hypen), while both ecash and e-cash were already in common usage as generic terms, and in several dictionaries. I suggest that E-Trade, E-Gold and ECash (DigiCash) merely got lucky with the USPTO, and that the issue of the e- prefix being descriptive may give them trouble with regards to future infringment cases. "We hasten to add that this holding does not represent a per se rule that any mark beginning with "E-" is automatically descriptive. However, if the mark is used in connection with goods or services involving electronic commerce, and the matter that follows the "E-" prefix is merely descriptive of the goods or services, the resulting composite is generally merely descriptive as well." (U.S. Patent Office) Noteworthy EWORDS: ECASH eCash Technologies, Inc. v. Mark Guagliardo dba eCash.com http://www.casp.net/ecash.html The domain name ownership was not overturned, as the defendent registered the domain prior to the trademark. The counterclaim to revoke the plaintiff's trademark is dismissed on the basis that registration of a domain name alone does not itself create a trademark (hence no prior use). E-TICKET Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Airlines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385 (TTAB 1999) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that "E-TICKET" had become a generic term for electronic ticketing services, so it refused to allow said term to be registered as a trademark by United Airlines. (could not find online text) ECERTIFIED The trademark application for "ECERTIFIED" was denied on the basis that the term is merely descriptive. http://www.sussmans.net/cases/unpublished/September01/75596169.htm#_ftn1 EAUTO EAuto, Inc. v. E Auto Parts, Inc. http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0121.html Arbitration acknowledged the argument that EAUTO may be a generic term, and that there are no trademark rights to assert, however unfortunately "the panel need not reach that issue" because the defendent demonstrated clear prior usage, and that E Auto Parts is "an obvious abbreviation of its former name European Auto Parts." E-CHAIN The trademark application for "E-CHAIN" was denied on the basis that the term is merely descriptive. http://www.sussmans.net/cases/unpublished/September01/75684389.htm Adam --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use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.
