The basic issue which is being ignorred is this:
Under the guise of "protecting one's mark" those who hold trade/service
marks are pushing beyond the boundaries of their rights.
They do this by refusing to acknowldge that their own rights are limited
and by refusing to acknowlede that there can and do exist rights of others
in the same character string.
They do it by taking active and agressive steps to supress the rights of
those others to use that character string.
Look at Pokey - that was not protection, that was overt agression.
What Milton has done is to illustrate that Pokey was not an isolated
incident.
Rather, what he as done is to demonstrate that it is symptomatic of highly
agressive behaviour by trade/service mark holders to protect their own
rights by pillaging and burning the surrounding territory, in particular
by attempting to supress the legitimate rights of those others in the same
character string.
One need not argue about techniques of statistical analysis to know that
the Pokey case was bad.
One need not go into deep statistics to know that two such cases is very
bad.
And one need not have an advanced degree in statistics to see that a few
dozen such cases scattered around the country is an indication that there
is a problem.
The fact of the matter is that those with trade and service marks are
building moats around their rights to protect those. The problem is that
they aren't digging the ditch or building the walls on their own property
-- rather they are doing it on the property of their neighbors.
--karl--
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
