Am I going soft??

[Garry Anderson]

John - of course - everybody expects that US registered trademarks means that any business can use the mark to sell their own goods - duh!

I see you do not deny any of the other points.

Lew - sorry, should have explained better. It was because primarily directed at John.

John seems to have forgot: A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac...rade_defin.htm

Revised:

EVERYBODY expects when seeing a particular product or service ***with specific registered trademark***, registered in their own country, that it comes from one basic supplier - that it is unique.

For example:

When you see a can of U.S. registered Campbell's® beans and pork - you expect it came from THE Campbell's® that you believe - and not from some unhygenic hut in Puerto Rico using the same or similar mark (e.g. cambells).

[jberryhill]

"I see you do not deny any of the other points."

The mere fact that there are only so many hours in a day to play your silly game is by no stretch of the imagination consent to any dumb proposition you put forth.

What is your point, Garry? That you want someone to disprove a statement about what "EVERYONE expects"?

No, nobody who has read 15 USC 1052(d) expects US registered TM's to be unique. Your pet theory of domain names doesn't work, and now you are angry about what the law is.

Hire some lobbyists and change it, Garry. But it's been that way since at least the 1940's.

Until then the Univ. of South Carolina gets all of the rights of federal registration east of the Mississippi river, and the Trojans get all of those rights west of the Mississippi river.

If your challenge du jour is to disprove what "EVERYBODY" expects, then a single counterexample disproves your hypothesis.

Ok. Brace yourself.

I do not expect it.

You want to know some more nutty facts of life about trademarks in the United States? Tell someone from the east coast to go to a supermarket in the west and pick up some Hellman's mayonnaise or some McCormick spices.

[Garry Anderson]

John - I KNOW that you do not expect it.

As a man of high intelligence - you WANT TO ignore what registered trademarks are all about.

LEST YOU FORGET:

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, THAT IDENTIFIES AND DISTINGUISHES THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF OTHERS !

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ta...trade_defin.htm

It is obvious that you will never admit this - so we will leave it here.

For others, who may not have 'got it' yet - who is U.S. registered trademark 'La Tapatia'® tortillas?

FACT IS you cannot know - the trademark DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF ANOTHER !

[wyvern]

John,

It's time to save that brain of yours for more important matters than trying to slow the flow of the same drivel time after time. Logic will play no part in stemming this tide, so why bother? Move your blanket up the beach a bit and enjoy the scenery.

[Garry Anderson]

Wyvern - your support of John has nothing to do with logic.

U.S. registered trademarks are supposed to DISTINGUISH THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF ANOTHER.

You either cannot understand this fact - or more likely - you give John unobjective support for his lack of candour.

You do not know which U.S. registered trademark 'La Tapatia'® tortillas I am talking about either - do you?

So then - are you also afraid to face the fact that U.S. registered trademarks do not DISTINGUISH THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF ANOTHER ?

As this is demonstrably true, you cannot deny this - and you have mental ability to understand:

It is my opinion that only stubborn numbskulls or cowards are afraid to admit statement of FACT - THE U.S. REGISTERED TRADEMARK SYSTEM IS A SHAM.

[jberryhill]

"you WANT TO ignore what registered trademarks are all about"

They are "about" whatever national law defines them to be "about". US national law permits concurrent registration after
having conducted a concurrent use proceeding between the parties, in which the parties must establish that the geographic or other limitations are sufficient to prevent consumer confusion.

"For others, who may not have 'got it' yet - who is U.S. registered trademark 'La Tapatia'® tortillas?"

It depends on where you bought them, since the two parties have exclusive rights in respective and distinct geographical territories. Just because you have some personal fixation on national borders, not all of which are internationally agreed, is hardly a problem to the relevant consumers in the relevant markets. "La Tapatia" distinguishes a brand of tortillas from other tortillas just fine in each of the markets where it is used. What the concurrent registrations DO NOT permit is for there to be two brands of "La Tapatia" tortillas in the SAME market. So, yes, the brand serves its distinguishing function anyplace in the US where one might buy tortillas.

The point that the distinguishing function of a trademark is to be applied to relevant consumers in a relevant market, is completely lost if you are stuck in Plato's cave somewhere.



"so why bother?"

Oh, I need another 29 DNForum bucks to buy what I want from the store. I can either ask for donations or play the Garry Anderson game.

But, yes, I receive more unsolicited questions and inquiries by email and other sources than I reasonably have time for responding, so it probably is not a good use of my time to answer Garry's to the end of being called various names.

[Garry Anderson]

J> They are "about" whatever national law defines them to be "about".

J> It depends on where you bought them.

Once again - they are "about":

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, THAT IDENTIFIES AND DISTINGUISHES THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF OTHERS !

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac...rade_defin.htm

This is US national trademark system. It is the trademark - NOT THE ZIPCODE - that identifies the source.

USPTO does not say about US trademarks:

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others - ALONG WITH THE PLACE IN AMERICA IT WAS BOUGHT.

Does it?

What about resellers - what about end user who is also consumer - would you check which part of the UK a product came from before you trust the UK registered trademark is the one you want?

I want you to prove me wrong about your lack of candour.

[Garry Anderson]

To those that have still not got it and think me slightly rude - I assure you this approach is warranted.

To explain what I say:

A reseller could render Johns, "It depends on where you bought them" argument mute.

National magazines, Internet etc. render Johns, "It depends on where you bought them" argument mute.

If somebody bought them for you, you are still consumer of goods, renders Johns "It depends on where you bought them" argument mute.

When I asked John, "would you check which part of the UK a product came from before you trust the UK registered trademark is the one you want?" - the idea of British person checking US Zip Code before buying US registered trademark is equally ludicrous.

We expect that when we see ANY COUNTRIES registered trademark - that it "IDENTIFIES AND DISTINGUISHES THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OF ONE PARTY FROM THOSE OF OTHERS" (USPTO).

The idea that anybody would allow two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for similar product is absolutely absurd.

Which is why I could not see this FACT until John spelt it out - I am grateful to him.

Now I fully understand US authorities for the last 3+ years - it is FACT - their registered trademark system is a sham.

[mole]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
Now I fully understand US authorities for the last 3+ years - it is FACT - their registered trademark system is a sham.

So what's a better alternative? :huh:

[Garry Anderson]

Hi Mole ;-)

The better alternative is the one that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others - like the USPTO says their one does - as used in other countries.

The one where one mark is not registered out to more than one supplier of particular type of goods.

As John says, "in the case of a prior unregistered user, then the prior unregistered user may continue use, exclusively, within the geographic area constituting the user's market at the time registration was obtained."

Therefore, nothing stops an honest prior user from continuing unregistered - with the other one as SINGULAR registered trademark - to prevent confusion between them.

[jberryhill]

"Which is why I could not see this FACT until John spelt it out"

Uh, no, you mean until you said that there was no such thing as concurrent registrations, and you were proven wrong as usual.

If you get your picture of law from the FAQ answers at the USPTO website then, yes, you are not going to know what the law says.

"National magazines, Internet etc. render Johns, "It depends on where you bought them" argument mute."

Garry, please go look up the definitions of the words "mute" and "moot" in a dictionary. And you still have obviously not taken my suggestion to read up on the origins and history of concurrent use, or the reasons why the US has a concurrent use statute.

You are also not going to learn what other countries have provisions for concurrent registration, are you?

Your understanding of the purpose, scope, and limits of national registration systems is, shall we say, novel. I further take it that there are no INTERnational magazines that render "it depends on where you bought them" to matter. Of course, the internet is international, so your comfort with the fact that registered trademarks might mean different things in different countries, seems odd. Of course, the US bought various chunks of its territory from France, Russia, and others, so it is not as if national borders themselves are static.

But it is not the purpose of the UK trademark registration system to provide me here in the US with any information at all. What is particularly goofy here is how anyone would know what country any product bearing an (R) symbol came from. Several countries use the (R) symbol to designate registered trademarks. Now since you are perfectly comfortable with the idea that the same mark might be registered to different entities in different countries, then what do you do when you see an (R) symbol?

My goodness, it looks like another sham:

http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/t120054.htm
"PLEASE NOTE: Several foreign countries use the letter R enclosed within a circle to indicate that a mark is registered in that country. Use of the symbol by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper."

Holy cow! Someone call the foolish consistency police! Forget about figuring out the origin of a product bearing a US registration symbol - it might not even be a product that came from the US!

"The idea that anybody would allow two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for similar product is absolutely absurd."

No, that idea is written into the US Lanham Act. Obviously a majority of 434 members of the US Congress and the US president decided that it was not absurd.

[Garry Anderson]

J> Uh, no, you mean until you said that there was no such thing as concurrent registrations, and you were proven wrong as usual.

I could not take in the fact that the United States authorities would be that stupid - it was unfeasible.

I mean - what monkey brained moron would allow two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for same type of product?

Do these red bottomed baboons not realise what trademarks are used for?

I was talking about NATIONAL magazines in the US - they would render your argument MOOT.

J> You are also not going to learn what other countries have provisions for concurrent registration, are you?

The US is the only country that I have found that gives the exact same registered trademark to two different businesses selling same type of product. Can you show me any other as stupid?

Other countries do as you say - "in the case of a prior unregistered user, then the prior unregistered user may continue use, exclusively, within the geographic area constituting the user's market at the time registration was obtained."

Again - you do your usual obfuscation bit - mixing different countries registration systems together.

G> The idea that anybody would allow two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for similar product is absolutely absurd."

J> No, that idea is written into the US Lanham Act. Obviously a majority of 434 members of the US Congress and the US president decided that it was not absurd.

They are obviously stupid and naive, believing what the 'experts' told them.

FACT (not opinion) - any national registered trademark trademark system that allows two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for similar product is a SHAM.

SHAM - Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine; a spurious imitation.

A fact proven if you were to give GW Bush the two different packs of U.S. registered trademark 'La Tapatia'® tortillas - first tell him not to choke on them - then asked him:

"How does this registered mark identify and distinguish the source of the goods of one party from those of the other?"

Answer - THEY CLEARLY DO NOT.

[jberryhill]

The US president in question is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[Garry Anderson]

John, it matters not whom was US president at the time.

It is FACT that the US registered trademark system has been a SHAM ever since.

Like I say; give GW Bush the two different packs of U.S. registered trademark 'La Tapatia'® tortillas - first tell him not to choke on them - then asked him:

"How does this registered mark identify and distinguish the source of the goods of one party from those of the other?"

Answer - THEY CLEARLY DO NOT.

These registered trademarks fail to fulfil function. Only a disengenious person would have the nerve to deny this demonstrable proof.

As such this makes a mockery of the whole US system - how are people to know which other US registered trademarks have several different businesses sharing them?

[jberryhill]

"how are people to know which other US registered trademarks have several different businesses sharing them?"

But, Garry, you haven't answered the preliminary question of how are people to know a "US registered trademark" when they see one?

The presence of an ® does not mean that it was registered in the US. It might be registered in any other country that uses an ® for registrations under its national system. Now, if you are fine with the idea that different countries may have the same mark registered for different goods, then I don't see how you deal with the larger issue of figuring out whether an ® indicates a US registered trademark or a registered trademark in some other country.

[Garry Anderson]

Yet again - that is all you can do. Your usual obfuscation bit - mixing different countries registration systems together.

Why am I not at all surprised?

Why not confuse matters further by including unregistered trademarks?

a) Is not the declared purpose of US registered trademarks to identify and distinguish the source of the goods of one party from those of the other - yes or no?

b) How does allowing two or more different businesses to share the exact same registered trademark for similar product fulfil this aim - when the result is clearly the complete opposite?

It seems on your flawed logic, all trademarks could be registered in any other country; therefore, they can all be registered in the US.

For registered trademarks to fulfil purpose of identifying source - each mark has to be unique to that business for that product:

e.g. only one business can use 'Apple' for computers; only one business uses 'Apple' for tobacco etc.

It is most obvious that each country is closed system - so please stop using that feeble excuse.

Do the honourable thing by coming clean - admit the truth:

The US registered trademark system is a sham because different businesses can register the exact same mark for similar product.

[jberryhill]

a) no

b) false premise -----> false conclusion

No, it is not at all the "purpose" of the registration system to identify and distinguish goods in the marketplace. That is the general function of trademarks. The registration system provides certain procedural advantages and presumptions in the event a trademark claim is asserted.

But I'm not the one "mixing different countries registration systems together". You had asked earlier on how anyone could tell two packages of tortillas apart if they both had an ® on them, since they could be sold internationally. My question is simply how you would know to which country that ® pertained in the first place, and you are doing a fine job of avoiding that question.

[Garry Anderson]

Again your obfuscation:

a) Whether you call it function or purpose - that is what registered trademarks do.

Registration ADDS, "certain procedural advantages and presumptions in the event a trademark claim is asserted".

b) We were talking about the UNITED STATES registered trademark system.

You are doing an extremely poor job at hiding your mixing of different countries registration systems together.