USPTO = United States Pretend Trademarks Office

[Garry Anderson]

The United States Registered Trademark System is a sham.

I am grateful to John Berryhill for informing me of this.

Although, I am certain he will refute this objective analysis of our recent exchange - for one thing his livelihood is linked to the Trademark System. For another, he does not want to be done by USPTO for libel.

I was blind to this before, because the logic made absolutely no sense.

I see it now that John has spelt it out for me.

Perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us if anything is untrue in this post.

After all is said and done - I am no lawyer and all this is purely my informed opinion.

I am sure everybody knows this - but will state the obvious:

When a person gets something with a trademark (goods or services) - either directly from supplier, or from reseller, or by post, or as gift, or however they got it - this trademark is meant to give the consumer assurance that it came from one supplier.

This ensures that whatever the product or service is, that it is of a certain quality.

To do this it has to be unique - this is most central of all to trademark law.

I have to inform you that US trademarks are a Zip code lottery - different businesses can use the exact same mark to sell similar product or services. Therefore, what you may think of as a trademark, can change as soon as you drive over a state line.

Specific example (with JB help): Your friend sees your favourite 'La Tapatia' tortillas on offer in a food magazine or on the Internet and buys a massive box as present for your birthday. They taste like cardboard - because they are not the same ones you like.

The authorities made a law which allowed "concurrent registrations" with the deliberately intent to circumvent the issue of uniqueness.

At least they hoped people would think that it did this. It can clearly be seen not to do so.

For those that made these laws and those in legal profession; you say a unique mark means there can be more than one. You know that unique means without like or without equal.

Sorry to say this, but it has to be said - John is one of the most intelligent people that it has been my privilege to 'discuss' these matters with. Saying that, I do not claim to have higher IQ - my observations are quite straightforward and his legal skills blow me away. But the thing is - I believe that he knows what I say is demonstrably true. Perhaps he will show where I am wrong.

This is not false comment to gain favour - as I know he will argue against me still and call me delusional or egotistic…

[jberryhill]

"Although, I am certain he will refute this objective analysis of our recent exchange - for one thing his livelihood is linked to the Trademark System."

Garry, I am a patent attorney. The small amount of trademark work I do is hardly related to my "livelihood".

15 USC 1052 authorizes concurrent registrations in the US because the US is a big place, in contrast to certain minor outlying European islands.

"You know that unique means without like or without equal."

The word is "distinctive", not unique. In South Carolina, people understand "USC" to mean the University of South Carolina. In California, people understand "USC" to mean the University of Southern California.

Lawyers, by the way, understand USC to mean "United States Code".

You have zero idea when or why 1052(d) was enacted, because, true to form, you impute evil motives to people who are more firmly rooted in this reality than you are.

Concurrent registration rights are intended to reflect the reality of consumer perceptions, such as the ones noted above.

What is really weird is that you seem to be okay with the idea of trademarks having different owners in separate countries, but the trademark system is a "sham" if one country - larger than many European countries combined - allows concurrent registrations with geographical distinctions.

For example, drive a few minutes from France into Germany, and you may find that the owners of trademarks are different. Garry is okay with that.

But if you spend four days to drive across the US - covering nearly three thousand miles - then a "Belly Buster Sandwich Shoppe" had better be owned by the same people at both ends of the country.

The artificial lines defining national borders - no matter how arbitrarily they may result from the accidents of history - make all the difference between trademark laws that Garry does or does not consider a sham. Never mind the fact that consumers in Buffalo, New York have more in cultural common with Toronto, Canada, than they do with Los Angeles. I'm sure that in Buffalo, NY they are well aware of the name of that Canadian donut shop - what's the one - it's named after some sports figure up there. But which down here in the mid-Atlantic states, people have never even heard of.

This is because Garry expects law to be prescriptive and normative - to define reality and to exert inflexible control - rather than to have law reflect what "works" in the real, more ambiguous and complex, yet practical, world that actually exists.

[jberryhill]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

- Emerson

[Garry Anderson]

I was expecting these arguments - told you so folks.

Nothing in this matter is difficult - it is all straightforward - there is no need to muddy the water.

John is being disingenuous - we are talking about separate countries national REGISTERED trademarks.

He says I am okay with France and Germany having similar trademarks. Duh - Yes - because they are different COUNTRIES - each with own REGISTERED trademark system. Why does he think we have them (rhetorical).

He KNOWS in every country: To be registerable, a trademark must be not similar or identical to any earlier marks for the same or similar goods or services.

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

Except in America - where they changed the law to pervert this root basic concept.

J> 15 USC 1052 authorizes concurrent registrations in the US because the US is a big place, in contrast to certain minor outlying European islands.

As far as his "geographical distinctions" goes - the United Kingdom comprises of several countries - yet every single registered trademark is unique from all others - all over the UK.

NATIONAL registered trademarks are not regional - because of the obvious reasons already mentioned.

If a business is purely local, like "Belly Buster Sandwich Shoppe", there is no legal requirement to register a trademark (see apple example on wipo.org.uk).

Before a business can register a national trademark, they first have to see that it is not being used by another business with similar goods or services. If not available, then they have to change it.

J> The word is "distinctive", not unique.

It is times like this that I get the hump with you John. Of course, everybody knows trademarks have to be "distinctive".

He calls it "reality of consumer perceptions". I call it perverting the law to pretend you resolve problem.

John, like those that made these corrupt laws, fails to address most central issue - the uniqueness of trademark. They think they can get around this by ignoring it.

Okay then - we will take it as read that he and US lawmakers are afraid to answer the issue of uniqueness. I would call it cowardly - but it is up to others to make their own judgement on that.

We shall use his argument of "distinctiveness".

Let us use the box of US trademark 'La Tapatia' tortillas that your friend bought you as present for your birthday (that taste like cardboard). How are they "distinctive" from your normal US trademark 'La Tapatia' tortillas?

John has shown that he is completely unable to explain how something, which has the US registered trademark symbol, is "distinctive" from similar goods or services.

J> In South Carolina, people understand "USC" to mean the University of South Carolina. In California, people understand "USC" to mean the University of Southern California.

Oh, please John - sometimes I really despair.

You even try cloud the issue with USC "United States Code" - totally different goods or service.

Universities here in UK have UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CHICHESTER, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE etc…

Nothing prevents US Universities using their USC as unregistered trademarks - does it?

Nobody can show that my remarks are anything more than straightforward analysis.

As can be seen from my contact with US authorities and lawyers - everybody is afraid to address the central issue of uniqueness.

It is a fact: United States Registered Trademark System is a sham. You cannot trust that any product or service, with US registered trademark, to say it comes from a specific supplier. US trademarks are a joke.

I believe John will not be able to disprove that FACT - because it is clearly and demonstrably true.

[namedropper]

Garry Anderson said...
The United States Registered Trademark System is a sham.

...thus cementing his well-deserved reputation as a netkook.

John, he isn't worth your time. People this far off their rockers don't respond well to logical debate, and I can't imagine there's anyone here who takes him seriously at all after all his rambling in this and other threads, so there's no good reason to reply to him at all.

[Garry Anderson]

You are funny Danny boy.

Only cowards ignore reasoned debate.

I will prove it to everyone.

Give me even one line from my post - taken in context - that is NOT logical debate.

[jberryhill]

Yes, I know Dan, but it's still kind of fun. For example, what do you think he will do when he finds out about the "honest concurrent use" provisions of Australian, UK, and the laws of other commonwealth countries?

It's almost too tempting not to find out. So here goes.

"He KNOWS in every country: To be registerable, a trademark must be not similar or identical to any earlier marks for the same or similar goods or services."


Garry, this is the law in Australia:

http://xeno.ipaustralia.gov.au/D:/Ex...ntyEightRelLeg

Section 44 Identical etc. trade marks

1. Honest concurrent use - Paragraph 44(3)(a)

In order to overcome grounds for rejection under subsections 44(1) or 44(2) of the Act, an applicant may, under paragraph 44(3)(a), lodge evidence to establish honest concurrent use of their trade mark.

-------------

You see, Dan, the fun thing about Garry is that he just makes it up as he goes along. The doctrine of honest concurrent use dates back to the 1800's, was developed in the UK, and became part of common law long before the US national trademark statutes were written (more on the history of the Lanham Act later).

He says, "Except in America - where they changed the law to pervert this root basic concept", and it is really pretty funny, because he doesn't know who wrote the US trademark laws, when, why, or how many other countries have a concurrent use doctrine of one form or another.

I guess what Garry meant was "Except in every English-speaking country on the planet", or something to that effect.

So, he has this thing of filling in the blanks in his own knowledge with a network of evil corrupted authorities and lawyers who are responsible for everything he does not understand or know.

He also does not seem to know that national registration provides presumptive national rights, but 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.

But Garry provides an amusing foil for explaining aspects of trademark law with which other folks may be unfamiliar.

[Garry Anderson]

OH PLEASE, John - like I did not know about PRIOR USE - duh!

Again you try muddy the water - quote:

"He also does not seem to know that national registration provides presumptive national rights, but 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."

ONE REGISTERED TRADEMARK USER STILL.

Let me think - what will you muddy water with next?

J> But Garry provides an amusing foil for explaining aspects of trademark law with which other folks may be unfamiliar.

Thank you kind Sire. But - if I may be so bold Sir John - you parry the thrust of my argument:

You cannot trust that any product or service, with US registered trademark, to say it comes from a specific supplier.

Here is your foil, M'Lord ;-)

[Mr Webname]

Hey I'm not involved in this debate, other than as an observer, but JB do you have exclusive rights tothe comment:-

"So, he has this thing of filling in the blanks in his own knowledge with a network of evil corrupted authorities and lawyers who are responsible for everything he does not understand or know."

or can anyone use that - it sure fits many instances I come across and I'd like to be able to use it in the future!
:-D

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
I will prove it to everyone.

Give me even one line from my post - taken in context - that is NOT logical debate.

None of your posts are logical. In this case, just seeing the subject line before even opening the thread everyone can see that.

[namedropper]

Originally posted by jberryhill
But Garry provides an amusing foil for explaining aspects of trademark law with which other folks may be unfamiliar.

Good point. Carry on then.

[Garry Anderson]

Originally posted by namedropper
None of your posts are logical. In this case, just seeing the subject line before even opening the thread everyone can see that.

Case proven for everybody Dan - you have not gave one line from my post - have you?

;-)

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson

Dan - you have not gave one line from my post - have you?

Actually, yes, I did. I gave the subject line, as well as *all* of the rest of the lines.

I don't have to pick one and then watch you spend 50 more nonsensical lines trying to defend it. You have already been unable to defend your statements from John's arguments, and the subject line alone proves you are a crackpot.

[Garry Anderson]

D> Actually, yes, I did. I gave the subject line, as well as *all* of the rest of the lines. I don't have to pick one and then watch you spend 50 more nonsensical lines trying to defend it. You have already been unable to defend your statements from John's arguments, and the subject line alone proves you are a crackpot.

Crackpot? - blinking cheek.

Most normal people seem to understand that the text of a post supports the subject line.

Which is why I asked you for any line from my post - to explain it to your single celled brain.

It is fact - the USPTO allows US businesses with similar marks to produce similar products. That is total stupidity. The US registered trademark system is a sham - one big joke.

You cannot comprehend this simple fact.

The only assumption can be is that US lawmakers are monkeys.

By failing to answer - you only have proven yourself coward Danny boy ;-)

[Garry Anderson]

As nobody has been able to disprove this hypothesis - even resident experts (and it is demonstrably true).

In Summary:

When person gets something with the registered trademark of a specific country (goods or services) - either directly from supplier, or from reseller, or by post, or as gift, or however they got it - this trademark is meant to give the consumer assurance that it came from one supplier.

Registered US trademarks do not do this - because multiple US businesses may register the same mark for similar products.

People will not know if a US registered trademark is owned by more than one business selling similar product - they cannot be trusted.

It can logically be concluded therefore that the US registered trademark system is a sham.

Case proven and demonstrated John ;-)