At 11:39 AM 1/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 18-Jan-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>>And further, ADR is available now, at the consent of both parties. Any
>>>MANDATED ADR, where neither party can elect not to be a part of the ADR,
is a
>>>violation of their rights.
>>
>>>There is no need to mandate ADR, provisions for it exist on our laws
already.
>>
>> The New York Stock Exchange's arbitration system would be an example of
>> manadatory ADR held to be constitutional.
>>
>
>No one said mandatory ADR was unconstitutional. But in the case you present,
>the case law has been fleshed out rather completely IN COURTS.
>
>This provides the necessary background for ADR to be effective in a
particular
>area.
>
I would argue that the case law for likelihood of confusion analysis is
completely fleshed out. An entry level examiner at the US Patent and
Trademark Office is competent to render a preliminary opinion when
comparing two marks and their intended goods and services. Absence of
precedent is certainly not an issue if the DN steps forward and indicates
the area of intended use (as every tradmeark applicant in the world has to do).
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
