On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 08:55:18PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
> >but that a straight sale is not possible. Bill Lovell, who claims to
> >be an IP attorney of distinction,
>
> Why is it that some people cannot carry on a purportedly intelligent
> discourse without sticking in disparaging remarks?
Damn but you have such tender, delicate skin. Should have stuck in a
smiley.
>"distinction" in the same sentence, to my knowledge, I'm unaware of where Mr.
>Kent Crispin would have got that horse pucky.
It was in fact a reflection of my own belief that you were an IP
attorney of distinction.
> Ah, the answer: Mr. Kent Crispin has been caught out blathering legal
> nonsense,
> and is looking either to find a scapegoat or change the subject.
The legal stuff I was referring to came from Mr Craig McTaggart, on
July 3:
[...]
And here's another one: you don't own your trademark either. You
hold certain rights, recognized by courts with respect to common
law trademarks, or granted by the state under statute with respect
to registered trademarks. If you stop using your trademark, or if
you don't renew the registration for it, or if the registration is
expunged, you may cease to hold those rights. It is not a matter
of 'owning' a trademark. It is a matter of holding certain rights
in relation to a certain string of characters or distinctive design
which are recognized or granted by public authorities.
Yes, trademarks appear to be capable of being 'bought' and 'sold',
but what really happens in such a transaction is that the 'seller'
promises to ask the registration authority to change the name of
the registered holder to that of the 'buyer.' Nothing is actually
bought or sold, but rather value is given in exchange for an
apparent 'transfer' of the relevant rights. No property is
transferred. _Rights_ are _assigned_. Very different.
[...]
Craig McTaggart claims to be a Graduate Student/Faculty of Law at
the University of Toronto. That's another joke, Bill.
> As for the
> above
> quote, "The claim was that this is not the case. The claim was, as I
> recall, that
> the USPTO can be somehow cajoled to transfer the registration, but that a
> straight
> sale is not possible," I've been following these threads for quite some
> time, and
> I can't recall anyone ever being dumb enought to advance that theory.
You see the quote above, where it was advanced. Let me repeat it yet
once more for your tired old eyes: "Nothing is actually 'bought' or
'sold' but what really happens in such a transaction is that the
'seller' promises to ask the registration authority to change the
name of the registered holder to that of the 'buyer.'"
I didn't look up the exact quote for my message, and it was just a 1
sentence summary of what Mr McTaggart wrote. Perhaps I did not do it
justice, but it isn't that far off.
Furthermore, it *is* true that at one time in the past you went into a
rather forceful diatribe about how trademarks were definitely *not*
property -- I can dig up the quotes to remind you of that, if you
like.
> The
> USPTO
> can't be "cajoled" into doing anything; if entities such as ICANN ever come
> to be
> as well and professionally managed, we shall all have cause to be grateful.
Whatever. I take "cajoled" as a poetic license rough synonym for
"seller promises to ask the registration authority"...it is sad, but
apparently not only are you humorless, but you have no poetry in your
soul, either. Maybe being a distinguished IP attorney makes you
give up on these human weaknesses...
:-)
In any case, as I said in another message -- I don't really care if
Mr McTaggarts theory applies to TMs or not -- that's something you
lawyers can argue about. I was interested in the general reasoning
applied to domain names.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
