At 05:08 PM 1/2/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>
>> 5. Organizations primarily concerned with the interests of trademark owners
>>
>> Definition: An organization representing trademark interests, defined
>> as entities primarily concerned with trademarks or
>defending
>> business against counterfeiting.
>Conterfeiting only says that one is using a mark in contravention to the
>legitimate scope of the mark.
>
>What this definition is implying to me is a colored use of the word to
>imply that one who opposes the extention of a mark beyond its legitimate
>scope is a "counterfeiter".
Agreed. Particularly in the Pokey.org case, where the word actually has a
colloquial meaning that pre-dates the cartoon character, the assumption
was egregious. This polar view where one is either a mark holder or a
counterfeitor is invalid, prime facie. It can not be allowed that a word is
taken out of common use simply because someone manages to get a mark on it.
As that would be the ultimate result of such a view. There must be a
third-alternative view that is neutral, un-offensive, and safe. This view
is recognised by law and is the reason why the law is written the way it
is. I, for one, an satisfied with the status quo. I would not care for the
Internet to define a supra-tradmark environment which is above the law and
more restrctive, for non-mark holders, than any existing national statute.
This is my difficulty with the NSI names conflict policy.
A more specific example comes to mind, an egregious abuse of trademarks.
Linux was developed, and labeled, long before some scum-bag file
application for trademark on the word "Linux". Said scum-bag immediately
files cease-and-desist motions against Yggdrasil, for the "Linux Bible"
product, plus compensation demands (of course). It took about a year for
the case to prevail, on the grounds of proven prior use (thus invalidating
the original TM filing). Linus Torvalds now owns the Linux mark. In the
meanwhile, use of the Linux name placed many companies at risk.
>One could say with equal pejoritivity that a mark owner who asserts
>his/her mark beyond the legitimate scope of that mark is a thief of
>common/public property.
The unfortunate thing about this last point is the US requirement to
agressively protect the mark or it is lost (ie the Kleenex case, someone
needs to over-turn it, IMHO).
Happy New Year to all and IANAL.
___________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
-- Thomas Jefferson
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
