Ed and all,
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Ed and all,
> >
> > Ed Gerck wrote:
> > ...
> > > 3. Outside of those list of categories, nope, the TM is not valid. For example,
> > > if "DOGS.COM" was not registered in the US as a TM for a dancing team then that
> > > use is open. As another example, the BAYARD case I mentioned is both a Belgian
> > > TM for sport rifles and a Brazilian TM for sport shirts -- as ruled in
> > > litigation some 10 years ago (the fact that both are linked to Bayard families
> > > was not relevant for the decision, though).
> >
> > An interesting point and comparison, but not relevant to the original question
> > here Ed.
>
> Jeff:
>
> I will just comment on this item of your "reply" -- since the rest of your "reply"
>is negated by extension.
>
> It is quite clear that you never registered a trademark, good ol' hand Jeff! Let
>alone study the subject..
Quite the contrary. However I did so through or General council and for the
11th time just recently as a matter of fact with respect to TLD's. So,
unfortunately your assertion here is without merit, all be it puzzling.
>
>
> Trademarks are nothing outside of their registered categories and the issue in my
>item #3 above is the thorniest one facing anyone registering a trademark and
>thinking 10 years in the future -- what could that TM apply to in 10 years, in my
>business line?
Good question, and likely defies a reasonably accurate answer, as 10 years
out is very difficult to predict especially in legal matters of this nature as we
have just seen from the USPTO.
> -- where will it create market value? -- where can it be legally bootleged, if I am
>not careful? If I sell sport rifles, will I also later on decide to sell sport
>apparel in general such as shirts, etc? Anyone that has registered a trademarked was
>faced with such questions -- and should thus know the consequences of ignoring it.
Agreed completely and this was and is my point, but seem to be a departure
from your original point Ed.
>
>
> This item alone is the single most relevant item to the original question, and your
>statement the single most common misconception in trademarks -- that a trademark
>applies to any product, any service, equally.
I did not and do not say that at all, and thus I see your confusion. Nor
did I imply it either BTW.
>
>
> Try "FORD" -- the car company? the model agency? the consulting group? an acronym
>elsewhere? All trademarks, all equally valid in the US, all in different categories.
Not categories, but classes of Mark Ed. And also agreed, which was my
point in part. I was not in agreement with your assertion of Jurisdiction
NOT classification of Mark.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
