> >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).
"Protection" does not give license to trespass.
Mark owners know the basic groundrules -- they have learned to coexist and
not go around suing one another when they hold the same word in different
areas.
You are right about the balance.
And in finding that balance, it is very good to avoid classifying people
using highly colored, pejorative words like "conterfeiter".
--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____________________________________________
