At 09:19 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>"A trademark, even a registered one, is not a property right, like a
>>copyright or patent, but merely an identifier of source. Others can
>>use the same mark to identify their product, provided there is no
>>likelihood of confusion." Door Systems Inc. v. Pro-Line Door
>>Systems, Inc., 83 F3d 169, 173, 38 USPQ2d 1771, 1775 (7th Cir.
>>1996).
>>
>>What can I say? This particular cite happens to be 7th Circ., but similar
>>ones abound.
>>
>>Bill Lovell
>>>
>
>I think there is an alternate reading to this passage. The Court may be
>saying not that a registered trademark is not a property right but that it
>is not a property right like a copyright or patent (in that unlike a
>copyright or patent, more than one party can use the trademark right). In
>other words, the property right is in the trademark when used as a
>particular identifier of source, as opposed to a property right in the
>exclusive use of that trademark. A trademark right is clearly a property
>right, it's just a weird one. I think the problem is the comma between the
>word "right" and "like." It doesn't belong there.
>>
Ah, but it does. But I'm not going to get into a comma war -- we're all
bored enough with you and MM. You say what you want to say in court
and I'll say what I want to say. End of discussion.
See how easy it is, Milton?
Bill Lovell
