At 09:11 PM 1/22/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 02:20 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>As for Mr. Lovell's comments on NSI, I have repeatedly stated that NSI's
>>dispute resolution proceeding works an injustice because it performs no
>>likelihood of confusion analysis. It does not have the expertise to take
>>advantage of the developed caselaw - we would not have had a juno.com
>>situation if it did.
>
>On this issue one could not fit a single DNA molecule between the
>opinion just stated and mine. :-)
>From the spectators view, I couldn't even find room for a hydrogen
molecule. <grin>
>percentage, unless it were made up of attorneys who specialize in
>trademark law (and even then . . . wow . . . 3 attorneys in one room?!!).
I would expect that would result in at least six different legal opinions
<grin>
.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
