Wow

[jberryhill]

G> 4. As you know, trademarks have to be distinctive from one another. Is it not true that all registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg?

J> 4. No

G>Here we go again - name any other factor that
G>differentiates registered trademark words from each other.

Consumer perception of distinctiveness, Garry. That is what trademarks are all about.

Now, on your assertion, repeated for years, that class is sufficient to satisfy uniqueness concerns in any country, do I get a turn to ask you questions? I have just three.

1. Do you think you would mistake a brand of fire extinguishers for a brand of sunglasses?

2. What is the international classification number for fire extinguishers?

3. What is the international classification number for sunglasses?

I'll even make it simple for you and give you two of the three answers. The answer to both 2 and 3 is Class 9.

Now, you go and justify your apparent belief that a maker of fire extinguishers has an absolute right to pre-empt your use of the same word as a brand name for sunglasses. You must be one of those trademark nazis who believes that a TM owner for fire extinguishers can preclude the availability of a common word to be used on sunglasses.

Well I disagree with you, Garry. I don't think a fire extinguisher manufacturer should have the right to do that to poor innocent sunglass makers unless they are doing something illegal - like passing off.

The fatal flaw in your scheme is your apparent worship of the trademark classification system, as if it came down from Moses on stone tablets. It is as arbitrary as any other set of rules, but you deem as "corrupt" anyone who does not pay homage to this particular idol of yours. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but the international classification system for trademarks is not the source of universal justice - or even common sense as applied to fire extinguishers and sunglasses.

And, that, folks, is the Garry Anderson game. Thank you for playing.

 

[Garry Anderson]

G> Or perhaps you agree with all this. Suppose you think it okay to have Sunrise Period

J> Go here: http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm

J> Where were YOU, Garry? Off on Slashdot flogging the same horse, right?

Very sorry John - my most humble apologies. I remember reading it at the time. I just simply forgot your position on sunrise. I will not make any excuses. I always admit when I am wrong - I could not be moreso.

The inference I was trying to make (admittedly very poorly), was that UDRP has a similar effect as Sunrise - all be it after the fact.

Most lawyers just say these were bad decisions. WIPO made the rules so they could be easily abused. You are intelligent man and must realize this is the truth. This is why I sometimes get the 'hump'.

a) domain similar to mark - every word is trademarked - there are going to be many domains similar to it. True or false.

b) rights or legitimate interests - everybody has a right to use any words for whatever legal reason they wish. True or false.

c) registered in bad faith - nearly everything can be 'interpreted' to be in bad faith. Even making justified complaint, which most would call that freedom of speech. True or false.

The likes of JT.com was 'stolen' by UDRP because the bloke was reselling it - how many businesses or people could have used that. Bad faith should have just been anything illegal.

a + b + c = an easy steal for corporations.

The UDRP was made to allow trademark overreach. Domains are not trademarks. It is not just me whom says this now.

Professor Milton Mueller said in his report, "Conclusion: Domain Names are not Trademarks". To be trademarks he states (p.27), "If this is true then the exclusivities associated with business and product names should be applied systematically to them."

http://dcc.syr.edu/markle/markle-report-final.pdf

G> "People I have communicated with in authority are all too evasive. Even top management of our own UK Patent Office (who have looked at and understand this subject) refuse to answer very simple questions. Why is that do you think?"

J> Because it is not their job.

On the 22 June 2001, they admitted to me, "...a TLD '.reg' has been well understood by the Patent Office for several years...".

They fully understood that something NEEDS to identify trademark domains.

Quote "We are responsible for Intellectual Property (Copyright, Designs, Patents and Trade Marks) in the UK."

http://www.patent.gov.uk

You are correct, only in so far as they have not been given DIRECT responsibility into this.

They are a UK government body whom have another site about UK Intellectual Property on the Internet.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk

It very clearly concerns them - why do you think they looked into problem?

There is most evident abuse of trademark law by corporations.

When these individuals avoid answering very simple questions researched by UK government body, and specially when abuse of law involved, it is an act of cowardice and dishonour IMO.

 

[Garry Anderson]

G>So you finally admit - books are "covered by copyright more strongly" - then why did you argue with me about this earlier?

D> I didn't say books are covered more strongly, I said FICTION books were as a practical matter covered more strongly because they have less facts in them.

Sorry, perhaps I should have spelt it out better for you. When I said "a work of art or unique, like a book" - I thought it obvious that this meant a unique work - this would include fiction and autobiography (which is supposedly not fiction).

D> Second, I was not arguing about that earlier with you because you weren't saying more strongly, you were saying that news wasn't covered at all and also that most news articles weren't works of art or unique.

You misrepresent. I said, "News, in itself, cannot be copyrighted" which I thought you understood. You will also see I said, "They are entitled only to what has been called "thin" copyright protection."

D> As I said then and as I repeat now, news articles are just as much works of art or unique as any book.

Most people would swap a news article for a work of art or book. If you mean in law - they are entitled only to what has been called "thin" copyright protection.

G> So perhaps it is you are not as expert or sure of yourself as you say you are. At least I am more honest, admitting that I could be wrong.

D> I *am* right, so I am not going to claim I could be wrong. There are things under debate in copyright law, but the points you are arguing are not under debate, they are wrong.

Sorry - I had not seen anything in law which asserts "thin" copyright protection for news article against comment or criticism over a forum.

D> As I pointed out above and you ignored, the debate is about less serious offenses like *linking* to a news article, NOT copying the entire thing. If copying the entire thing might be ok, then linking would obviously be fine, but it's not obviously fine, so copying the entire thing is obviously not OK.

Unless the purpose was to usurp the article, I would hardly think it an offence to link anywhere.

G> copyright.gov says there are no limits laid down in law on percentage of a work allowed. Which is why I think a small passage from book ("covered more strongly") will contain "more richness of protected expression" than an entire news article.

D> Copyright.gov goes by what the law says as written, not by the case law. There is plenty of case law showing that you can only copy as much as you need to, and only for one of the uses on the approved of list, like educational uses, reviews and parody. You don't need to copy the entire thing if you can link to it.

Case law is based on what the law says as written. Your spin on this does not account for simple things - like how do you comment when the link has gone.

G> With only "thin" copyright protection, I see no problem if only a few articles are copied.

D> Your "thin" protection never excuses copying entire articles (except for the few cases when there is no creative writing at all and just 100% factual data). The thinness of it means you can reword it more easily, not copy it outright.

You may be 100% right. Perhaps it is my problem that I am not convinced - because I have not seen anything which says you cannot copy the whole of news article to make comment or criticism.

This is not like killing somebody with a frozen salmon and saying there is nothing in law that I cannot do that.

G> August 2000: Government 'experts' said vCJD transmission through blood was, if anything, only a "theoretical" risk. I said at the time this was a load of bull*.

D> Whatever. Completely irrelevant.

You said I "made it more than clear that you don't care about what the laws say, what an expert has to say in the matter, or even just common sense".

So it is not irrelevant at all. I told you this to point out that experts are not always right. Expert just means they know more than most on a particular subject.

Expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Expert

It is niave to say they are ALWAYS right.

I simply question their assertions.

G> I think it is very good common sense not to take important things what you are told at face value.

D> If you were arguing that linking to another site was perfectly fine and someone was telling you that cases have gone against it so you were obviously wrong, you may have a point. But this is completely different, because we don't have cases on either side of this issue. It's completely one sided. And you are completely on the wrong side.

There are no cases on the side of fair use for comment or criticism on forum - because none have been made to test it.

G> Even the difficult things. Take the invasion of Afghanistan for example.

D> Completely and totally irrelevant.

You talked about common sense. I brought it up to show that I am perfectly capable of this. Nobody has challenged my argument.

G> Major fact: nothing you have shown me gives maximum percentage allowed, of news article, for comment or criticism on a public forum.

D> This is so stupid.

D> How about this for an example: Normally you aren't allowed to speed. The speed limit is the limit of legal speed, hence the name. But usually there's a fudge point where you can get away with it by going over the limit slightly. It's the exception to the rule. And sometimes you can get away because it's just a teensy tad over, and sometimes you can go even more over if you give a good excuse when pulled over by a cop, but there are no hard and fast rules.

You would say "Completely and totally irrelevant" - but I can see things as relevant to an argument.

Anyhoe - this is purely because of speedometer accuracy. Mechanical/electronic tolerance - absolutely nothing else.

D> I can't show you a rule that says you can copy 10% but not 15%.

Like you say - I believe there is no hard and fast rule - just guidelines for police.

Quote: There are guidelines in place which is an 'allowance' for speedo inaccuracies (this was verified by Colin Philips the Chief Constable of Cumbria) which is usually 10% plus 2. This means that for a "true" 30mph you are actually allowed to do 35mph before you're considered committing an offence. Of course it is only an idiot that sits there with his speedo on that limit thinking he'll get away with it - that's not the point. Speed limits are usually there for a very good reason and should be stuck to. Zero tollerance was talked about but the resources required to do this make it impossible - there would be hundreds of thousands of people "done" for speeding every day.

http://www.mivec.co.uk/lawtips/lawtips.htm

Point being - if you stick to 30 MPH in 30 zone - you will not be done.

There are many cases of drivers taken to court for speeding violation - but not one of forum a owner taken to court for news article copyright violation.

D> Common sense is being able to rate things to the degree that they are reasonable. You are off the freaking deep end completely smothering in unreasonable and are too clueless to tell.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

G> I even admire John for his skills. I think I hold my own here

D> Smothering in misplaced ego as well.

Again, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

But I thought handled the John turning my arguments against me and his putting the onus on me to answer the base question I put to him - all quite well.

Never mind - I will try not to be too hurt by your remarks ;-)

 

[Garry Anderson]

J> Consumer perception of distinctiveness, Garry. That is what trademarks are all about.

And you think I do not know this?

J> Now, on your assertion, repeated for years, that class is sufficient to satisfy uniqueness concerns in any country, do I get a turn to ask you questions? I have just three.

J> 1. Do you think you would mistake a brand of fire extinguishers for a brand of sunglasses?

No.

J> 2. What is the international classification number for fire extinguishers?

Will take your word - class 9.

J> 3. What is the international classification number for sunglasses?

Again, will take your word - class 9.

J> I'll even make it simple for you and give you two of the three answers. The answer to both 2 and 3 is Class 9.

Ta - saved me time.

J> Now, you go and justify your apparent belief that a maker of fire extinguishers has an absolute right to pre-empt your use of the same word as a brand name for sunglasses.

Ha ha ha ha - yes yes yes - a good one - brilliant joke - I like it.

This is EXACTLY what I am saying.

They should not have absolute right to pre-empt your use of the same word.

I have argued that EXACT same thing since end of 1999.

You CAN come around my house for drinks. I saved a good bottle of champs for special occasion. This is it - we agree on the base argument!

J> You must be one of those trademark nazis who believes that a TM owner for fire extinguishers can preclude the availability of a common word to be used on sunglasses.

MyName.extinguisher.us.reg

MyName.sunglasses.us.reg

Who could NOT tell them apart?

MyName.com redirected to MyName.extinguisher.us.reg - MyName.us redirected to MyName.sunglasses.us.reg - both as certificate of authentication.

Or can use directly, as directory and certificate of authentication.

J> I don't think a fire extinguisher manufacturer should have the right to do that to poor innocent sunglass makers unless they are doing something illegal - like passing off.

Yes - we agree again.

J> The fatal flaw in your scheme is your apparent worship of the trademark classification system, as if it came down from Moses on stone tablets. It is as arbitrary as any other set of rules, but you deem as "corrupt" anyone who does not pay homage to this particular idol of yours. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but the international classification system for trademarks is not the source of universal justice - or even common sense as applied to fire extinguishers and sunglasses.

I was most well aware of that fact. This is why I name the actual product or service to allow flexibility should classification system change. It is only common sense to do it that way.

J> And, that, folks, is the Garry Anderson game. Thank you for playing.

If we agree, then the "game" was a draw.

I hope you have not been too disappointed in playing

 

[jberryhill]

"The likes of JT.com was 'stolen' by UDRP because the bloke was reselling it - how many businesses or people could have used that. Bad faith should have just been anything illegal."

Garry, the reason why the jt.com resulted in a transfer is very succinctly stated in the decision:

"The Respondent failed to file a Response to the Complaint."

Nothing. Nada. If you don't care, and you don't show up, you lose. That's hardly surprising.

"Professor Milton Mueller said in his report..."

Garry, READ Milton's report, including the acknowledgments for the sources he used. Do you see a familiar name there?

The fact of the matter is that you refuse to recognize that the overwhelming majority of "dictionary word" cases are won by domain name registrants who bother to respond. Also, the majority of respondent-requested three-member panel disputes are won by the domain name registrant - you could not have failed to miss that fact in Milton's article, since I suggested he break down the numbers that way.

A draw? You lost on the use of "classification" as a failsafe distinctive criterion between trademarks, and you want to saddle a company like Samsung - which manufactures everything from earthmoving equipment to electric razors - with thousands of duplicative domain names that each call for a lot of typing. Naming "the actual product or service" doesn't work for many trademarks. What is "the actual product or service" for a trademark like Panasonic?

Now, if you are going to use the name of the "actual product or service" for each of these country-specific .reg domains, what language are you going to do that in?

 

[Garry Anderson]

And here was I, silly enough to have thought we agreed, that nobody had "absolute right to pre-empt your use of the same word".

J> Garry, the reason why the jt.com resulted in a transfer is very succinctly stated in the decision: "The Respondent failed to file a Response to the Complaint."

J> Nothing. Nada. If you don't care, and you don't show up, you lose. That's hardly surprising.

And the WIPO 'monkey' in charge could not see that it was an obvious case of trademark overreach that should have not been brought in the first place.

Perhaps the person who owned jt.com thought he stood no chance of keeping his property from being stolen by these big bullies.

J> Garry, READ Milton's report, including the acknowledgments for the sources he used. Do you see a familiar name there?

It was Milton's conclusion.

J> The fact of the matter is that you refuse to recognize that the overwhelming majority of "dictionary word" cases are won by domain name registrants who bother to respond. Also, the majority of respondent-requested three-member panel disputes are won by the domain name registrant - you could not have failed to miss that fact in Milton's article, since I suggested he break down the numbers that way.

Bigger problem - and a lot more serious - you refuse to recognize that corporations are violating the law.

You know there are many "dictionary word" cases that have been 'stolen' - aided and abetted by WIPO. Here is an old list: video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT... I have no doubt you will pick a few out.

J> A draw? You lost on the use of "classification" as a failsafe distinctive criterion between trademarks, and you want to saddle a company like Samsung - which manufactures everything from earthmoving equipment to electric razors - with thousands of duplicative domain names that each call for a lot of typing. Naming "the actual product or service" doesn't work for many trademarks. What is "the actual product or service" for a trademark like Panasonic?

J> Now, if you are going to use the name of the "actual product or service" for each of these country-specific .reg domains, what language are you going to do that in?

Oh my - you will see these answered in the 'feeble excuses' used by critics.

When you say, "You lost on the use of "classification" as a failsafe distinctive criterion between trademarks" - you know that this field contained the product or service of the mark. They HAVE TO BE DISTINCTIVE - therefore you misrepresent me.

To answer your questions here.

FYI: in my last job (at one of the largest food manufacturing plants in Europe) my responsibilities included the running of stand-alone and networked data capture systems (including some programming) - and the automation of turning large amounts of data into information.

The USPTO has a record of all Panasonic goods and services - this database could simply be ported to DNS.

panasonic.telecommunication.us.reg
panasonic.industrialrobot.us.reg

Directory services e.g. apple..us.reg would give a list of all apple trademarks registered in US.

Multiple entries for different languages can be used for the classification e.g. Apple Computers in Canada would be both apple.computer.ca.reg and apple.ordinateur.ca.reg.

 

[jberryhill]

[woops, that last one got out before I was finished. continuing...]

Naming "the actual product or service" doesn't work for many trademarks. What is "the actual product or service" for a trademark like Panasonic?

Now, if you are going to use the name of the "actual product or service" for each of these country-specific .reg domains, what language are you going to do that in? Or is the "Garry Anderson personal unpublished non-ambiguous non-conflicting class list" authoritative in each of several languages. After all, in Canada, you will need to use both French and English, and in Switzerland, you will need to use more than that.

Finally, you are going to have to break up the "country" designation to deal with national registrations which do not have national effect, since you have also oversimplified that area, about which you apparently are unaware. Take a look at the USPTO database for "BELLY BUSTER SANDWICH SHOPPE", US TM Reg. No. 2157966. It is registered on the Principal Register of US trademarks.

Now, do you see where it says "Registration is limited to the area comprising all of the states of the United states west of the Mississippi River"? The reason is that someone else has rights east of the Mississippi River. There are thousands of US registered trademarks which have geographic distinctiveness restrictions, Garry. Just what do you propose to do? Make up another ad-hoc rule for dealing with that?

One of the advantages of not knowing much about a subject is that it certainly provides a lot of room for making up rules for "the world as it ought to be", in blissful ignorance of "the world as it really is".

So, on the one hand, you tell me that trademarks can be unambiguously differentiated by class, but you won't point at a list of classes by which you intend to do this unambiguous differentiation. Since you reject the international classification system for this purpose, you want to use the "actual names of the goods and services". So, if the "actual goods and services" are, for example, opthalmological diagnostic charts, then you expect a TM owner to be confined to:

<trademark>.opthalmologicaldiagnosticcharts.us.reg

...and you expect people to be able to type that. Of course, since you have no fixed definition of "class" for a trademark, having abandoned the numeric classification system, then your flexible rule will come back with, "No, they can use 'charts'".... unless, of
course, the same TM is used for navigational charts by another TM owner (which are certainly distinguishable from opthamalogical charts).

And chemicals and drugs... you expect people to know, off the top of their head, things like:

teflon.polytetrafluoroethylene.us.reg ?

lucite.polymethylmethacrylate.us.reg ?

Now, maybe you might say that:

lucite.pmma.us.reg

would be okay. Of course, then you are going to have to deal with the Plastic Molders and Manufacturers Association over PMMA.

Sure, I can just see how things like:

ALSA.AmyotrophicLateralSclerosisSupportGroup.us.reg

is going to be a tremendous improvement over alsa.org.

Don't tell me you can use:

ALSA.nonprofit.us.reg instead, because then you will create the impression that the Alpaca and Llama Show Association www.alsashow.org) has obtained trademark registration - which they have not.

So, please explain in detail how in:

Trademark.class.country.reg

...you intend to develop a verbal multi-lingual class structure, since you now admit that international classification won't work (although you appear to have now abandoned the "class" idea in favor of the "actual goods or services"); or deal with intra-country geographical distinctiveness limitations.

Like the perpetual motion inventor, you have this perfect solution to all the world's problems. The only trouble is that a corrupt and conspiratorial establishment of experts has failed to sit up and proclaim the genius of Garry Anderson in solving a "problem" which has thus far affected some 7,000 domain names out of around 40 million. Anyone that bothers to point out that the UDRP is a much better proposition to domain name registrants than being sued in distant courts is a part of this evil conspiracy to suppress your magic solution, involving a definition of "class" that you can't quite seem to pin down.

"When you say, "You lost on the use of "classification" as a failsafe distinctive criterion between trademarks" - you know that this field contained the product or service of the mark. They HAVE TO BE DISTINCTIVE - therefore you misrepresent me."

So who, exactly, is going to be put in charge of coming up with the "class" designation of yours, and determining whether a mark is distinctive for that "class"? WIPO? You?

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
Sorry, perhaps I should have spelt it out better for you. When I said "a work of art or unique, like a book" - I thought it obvious that this meant a unique work - this would include fiction and autobiography (which is supposedly not fiction).

This site needs a smilie of a guy bashing his head against a wall ...

News articles are ALSO unique works. Both by the legal and normal definitions. Trying to say otherwise is just stupid, hence my point at the time when you first said it that you knew nothing about copyright law.

Most people would swap a news article for a work of art or book.

This is nonsensical.

The only thing a book has over a news article (and presumably why people would prefer it, as you assume they would) is length, and because determining how much you can copy from a work and still be fair use is based upon how much of the original it is, being shorter means the news article would be more protected than the book is.

If you mean in law - they are entitled only to what has been called "thin" copyright protection.

Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion. Thin protection does not mean copy the whole thing if you want.

Unless the purpose was to usurp the article, I would hardly think it an offence to link anywhere.

But the point is there are examples of case law prohibiting linking to news articles without permission. So here is concrete proof that what you *think* is OK is not legally OK. Copying an entire article and reprinting it verbatim is a far more serious offense than simply just linking, so your wholly unsupported opinion that it's fine is even more wrong than your opinion that linking is OK.

Case law is based on what the law says as written.

It's based on, but more than. So you can read the law itself and say, "huh, I don't see anything about this," whereas case law could have (and often does) have a whole list of precedents that have already clarified the matter, either directly or by comparison.

Your spin on this does not account for simple things - like how do you comment when the link has gone.

Already accounted for a long time ago. Reword the article in your own words, for one. Find another place that covered the story that still has a page up, for two. It's irrelevant to this conversation because the link was in fact still working, for three.

Perhaps it is my problem that I am not convinced - because I have not seen anything which says you cannot copy the whole of news article to make comment or criticism.

Yeah, I would say that is your problem. Fair Use is based upon having a good reason to do whatever it is you are doing that gets around normal copyright rules. Comment and criticism never requires republishing a whole article word for word, as you can always reword the facts and discuss it that way, or copy individual small points, or just talk about it and trust the readers to understand based upon context.

I told you this to point out that experts are not always right. Expert just means they know more than most on a particular subject.

True. That also means that if a non-expert is going to contradict an expert and expect people to listen, he should provide evidence to back it up. Instead you want the people whose opinions are more likely to be right based upon their background and knowledge to be on the defensive and take the extra mile to prove to you, the non-expert, that they are in fact right.

It is niave to say they are ALWAYS right.

Nobody said they were... although in this case it's pretty clear cut, for all the various reasons already pointed out.

There are no cases on the side of fair use for comment or criticism on forum - because none have been made to test it.

And no cases have been made to test it because any lawyer who looks at it knows they have no chance of winning (based upon the kinds of things that have gone to court, like disputes over linking) so they will highly recommend their client settle.

Not to mention, with the DMCA law, it wouldn't even get that far. I have had ISPs yank entire sites from people who had stolen one of my articles and refused to take it down. I didn't have to go to court because the ISP just suspends the copyright violator. I already won, no need for a judge to get involved.

Speed limits are usually there for a very good reason and should be stuck to. Zero tollerance was talked about but the resources required to do this make it impossible - there would be hundreds of thousands of people "done" for speeding every day.

Exactly like the kinds of copyright violations that are routine but still illegal.

Point being - if you stick to 30 MPH in 30 zone - you will not be done.

And if you stick to not copying things you won't violate copyrights.

You are good at making my points for me. To bad you can say these things but not think about whay they mean logically.

 

[Garry Anderson]

J> Naming "the actual product or service" doesn't work for many trademarks. What is "the actual product or service" for a trademark like Panasonic?

As stated - panasonic.telecommunication.us.reg - panasonic.industrialrobot.us.reg etc.

J> Now, if you are going to use the name of the "actual product or service" for each of these country-specific .reg domains, what language are you going to do that in?

As stated - Apple Computers in Canada would be both apple.computer.ca.reg and apple.ordinateur.ca.reg.

J> Or is the "Garry Anderson personal unpublished non-ambiguous non-conflicting class list" authoritative in each of several languages. After all, in Canada, you will need to use both French and English, and in Switzerland, you will need to use more than that.

What are you on - non-ambiguous non-conflicting class list? This is simply adopting the trademark system for the Internet. See question above for languages.

J> Finally, you are going to have to break up the "country" designation to deal with national registrations which do not have national effect, since you have also oversimplified that area, about which you apparently are unaware. Take a look at the USPTO database for "BELLY BUSTER SANDWICH SHOPPE", US TM Reg. No. 2157966. It is registered on the Principal Register of US trademarks.

J> Now, do you see where it says "Registration is limited to the area comprising all of the states of the United states west of the Mississippi River"? The reason is that someone else has rights east of the Mississippi River. There are thousands of US registered trademarks which have geographic distinctiveness restrictions, Garry. Just what do you propose to do? Make up another ad-hoc rule for dealing with that?

My ghast is flabbered.

Quote: a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm

Repeat: "exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"

Show me another BELLY BUSTER SANDWICH SHOPPE.

BELLY BUSTER SANDWICH SHOPPE has "exclusive right to use the mark nationwide".

Failing that - if you wish to prove your argument. Show me one trademark used for the same product/service in a different parts of the country - by two seperate businesses.

J> One of the advantages of not knowing much about a subject is that it certainly provides a lot of room for making up rules for "the world as it ought to be", in blissful ignorance of "the world as it really is".

It is a fool that says he knows everything.

J> So, on the one hand, you tell me that trademarks can be unambiguously differentiated by class, but you won't point at a list of classes by which you intend to do this unambiguous differentiation. Since you reject the international classification system for this purpose, you want to use the "actual names of the goods and services". So, if the "actual goods and services" are, for example, opthalmological diagnostic charts, then you expect a TM owner to be confined to: <trademark>.opthalmologicaldiagnosticcharts.us.reg

Too wooly - I would prefer specific example.

J> ...and you expect people to be able to type that.

If <trademark> has a <trademark>.com - people could just type that in.

They would be redirected to <trademark>.opthalmologicaldiagnosticcharts.us.reg as certificate of authentication.

Or people could simply type <trademark>..us.reg for directory services.

J> Of course, since you have no fixed definition of "class" for a trademark, having abandoned the numeric classification system, then your flexible rule will come back with, "No, they can use 'charts'".... unless, of course, the same TM is used for navigational charts by another TM owner (which are certainly distinguishable from opthamalogical charts).

As stated this is simply adopting the trademark system for the Internet.

J> And chemicals and drugs... you expect people to know, off the top of their head, things like: teflon.polytetrafluoroethylene.us.reg lucite.polymethylmethacrylate.us.reg

As question but one above - teflon.com redirection and directory services.

J> Now, maybe you might say that: lucite.pmma.us.reg would be okay. Of course, then you are going to have to deal with the Plastic Molders and Manufacturers Association over PMMA.

Do you mean lucite.thermoplastic.us.reg?

J> Sure, I can just see how things like: ALSA.AmyotrophicLateralSclerosisSupportGroup.us.reg is going to be a tremendous improvement over alsa.org. Don't tell me you can use: ALSA.nonprofit.us.reg instead, because then you will create the impression that the Alpaca and Llama Show Association www.alsashow.org) has obtained trademark registration - which they have not.

What is ALSA registered trademark number?

J> So, please explain in detail how in: Trademark.class.country.reg ...you intend to develop a verbal multi-lingual class structure, since you now admit that international classification won't work (although you appear to have now abandoned the "class" idea in favor of the "actual goods or services"); or deal with intra-country geographical distinctiveness limitations.

The class field always was for the product or service.

I thought that most obvious to trademark lawyers.

Or does apple.computer.us.reg mean all of class 9 to you?

J> Like the perpetual motion inventor, you have this perfect solution to all the world's problems.

Duh - sorry - no I haven't.

J> The only trouble is that a corrupt and conspiratorial establishment of experts has failed to sit up and proclaim the genius of Garry Anderson in solving a "problem" which has thus far affected some 7,000 domain names out of around 40 million.

I do not claim to have higher IQ than you. My problem solving abilities is simply asking questions that go to the root.

You are being disengenuous by understating the "problem" - what about all the people that cave in when they get the letter from lawyers. $100,000 threatening letter would make anybody give up.

What about the more serious problem - violation of trademark law?

J> Anyone that bothers to point out that the UDRP is a much better proposition to domain name registrants than being sued in distant courts is a part of this evil conspiracy to suppress your magic solution, involving a definition of "class" that you can't quite seem to pin down.

WIPO UDRP rules allow corporations trademark overreach - I thought you would see that as a problem. They want to change the rules to make this even easier for them.

This is not my "magic solution" - WIPO knew it already - it was self-evident. The "class" field was always product or service.

J> "When you say, "You lost on the use of "classification" as a failsafe distinctive criterion between trademarks" - you know that this field contained the product or service of the mark. They HAVE TO BE DISTINCTIVE - therefore you misrepresent me."

J> So who, exactly, is going to be put in charge of coming up with the "class" designation of yours, and determining whether a mark is distinctive for that "class"? WIPO? You?

Once again, this is simply adopting the trademark system for the Internet. The product or service is already decided on the current trademark system.

 

[jberryhill]

"BELLY BUSTER SANDWICH SHOPPE has "exclusive right to use the mark nationwide"."

No, Garry, they don't. A FAQ on the general aspects of registration does not replace the outcome of an administrative concurrent use proceeding. READ the registration. They only have the exclusive right west of the Mississippi.

Try this. Go to the USPTO database and search on {"west of" and mississippi}. It happens all of the time.

Here is a geographic limiter for US Reg. No. 1821543 for "Izzy's" for pizza:

"REGISTRATION LIMITED TO THE AREA COMPRISING THE STATES WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDING NO. 792 WITH SERIAL NOS. 73/448,288; 73/448308; 73/448,310; 73/448,370; 73/448,371; 73/448,372; AND 73/451,970."

You don't know what you are talking about, Garry. Yes, registration is effective nationwide UNLESS it says differently right on the registration certificate. What is truly amazing is that you can read a geographic limitation that is right in the registration data for a mark, and then simply refuse to believe the words in front of your face - instead going to some general faq page.

They get even more complicated than that. Take Reg. No. 2407529 for "USC" for the University of South Carolina (i.e. NOT the University of Southern California):

"Registration limited to the area comprising the states of Wisconsin, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Arkansas, Louisiana, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Florida, Rhode Island, Delaware, the District of Columbia and Alaska. Concurrent Use proceeding No 1089 with application serial no. 75/138304."

NOW LOOK AT THESE TWO US FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS CLOSELY:

US REG NO. 2319979
WORD MARK: "USC"
G&S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
OWNER: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

US REG NO. 2407529
WORD MARK: "USC"
G&S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
OWNER: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

SAME CLASS, SAME SERVICES, SAME COUNTRY, SAME MARK, BOTH REGISTERED AT THE USPTO.

Now you can babble all you want to in your rubber room about how they each have nationwide exclusive rights because they both have federal registrations for the same mark on the same services, but you will continue to be dead wrong.

This is possible because the California University's registration has this statement, converse to the one in South Carolina's:

"registration limited to the area comprising the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Hawaii. Concurrent Use proceeding No. 1089 with application Serial No. 75/116291."

Consider your ghast flabbered, but your premise that mark.class.country.reg is sufficient to distinguish among nationally registered trademarks is WRONG.

"Failing that - if you wish to prove your argument. Show me one trademark used for the same product/service in a different parts of the country - by two seperate businesses."

US REG NO. 2407529 and US REG NO. 2319979. Memorize them. Tattoo them on your skull.

Quod Erat Demonstratum

http://www.johnberryhill.com/anderson.wav

You owe me five pounds.

 

[GeorgeK]

lol John. Reading this thread reminded me of:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame21.html

 

[jberryhill]

Word Mark HOMETOWN HEALTH PLAN
Registration Number 2367315
G & S: health care services
(REGISTRANT) MASSILLON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HEALTH PLAN

Word Mark HOMETOWN HEALTH PLAN
Registration Number 2367316
G & S: health care services
(REGISTRANT) Washoe Health System

---------

Word Mark LA TAPATIA
Registration Number 2094085
G & S: tortillas
(LAST LISTED OWNER) BIMBO BAKERIES USA

Word Mark LA TAPATIA
Registration Number 2092391
G & S: tortillas
(REGISTRANT) LA TAPATIA TORTILLERIA

----------

How many do you think he needs before the concept soaks in, George?

 

[Cash Is King]

Originally posted by bidawinner
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=389995&section=news

This could get very interesting

Did you mean the story or the posts in this thread? :laugh:

 

[Garry Anderson]

John - you have just told us all that the USPTO have totally f*ck*d up.


Quote: "SAME CLASS, SAME SERVICES, SAME COUNTRY, SAME MARK, BOTH REGISTERED AT THE USPTO."

Trademarks in EVERY COUNTRY are a DISTINCTIVE sign which identifies certain goods or services - indicated by a UNIQUE trademark.

The USPTO has made a FUDGE to violate the central concept of trademark law.

National trademarks have to be unique - for the reasons we all know.

You are correct - my ghast is flabbered.

 

[Garry Anderson]

It suddenly hit me.

That is why the US authorities (USPTO & DoC) have been so blinking evasive in their replies - they know they screwed up.

 

[jberryhill]

Your psychological defenses against error are impressive, Garry.

Given counterexamples to your central thesis, you conclude that everyone else is wrong.

They did not screw up. They merely followed a portion of the law - passed by congress - that you have not yet gotten around to reading. Concurrent registration is authorized by law, and it is not a "screwup" on the part of the USPTO to carry out the law pertaining to concurrent registrations. The USPTO was not unaware of the two pending applications for "USC". Please note the portion of the registration limitation of each one which expressly refers to the other.

Now read the LAW, which you are so fond of capitalizing, Garry:

-------

15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052. - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it -

[...]

(d)

Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive: Provided, That if the Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception is not likely to result from the continued use by more than one person of the same or similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such persons when they have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their concurrent lawful use in commerce prior to [a set of various computable dates]

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

Do you see that? "Concurrent registrations may be issued". That's what the LAW says. Yes, it does not accord with your view of what the law should say, but that is what it says. Every "expert" who told you otherwise, in an obvious attempt to get you to leave them alone, was wrong, and the answers to your pet questions #3 and #4 are an authoritative "No, because 15 USC 1052(d) expressly states otherwise".

So, given the fact that the USPTO is required to carry out the law, and the law requires the USPTO to make a determination to issue concurrent registrations "under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used", then how do you conclude that the USPTO "screwed up".

After all, if they do not follow the law, then they are "corrupt", right?

You have your pet thesis. Given several counterexamples to your thesis, you continue to maintain that the counterexamplese are the result of error on the part of someone else. That was predictable.

Now, you have to confront the black-and-white law itself, which permits concurrent registrations.

Ah, yes, I'll spare you the trouble... "The US Congress and the President screwed up..."

No doubt the fault ulimately lies with the US population as a whole, for having elected these representatives.

Garry, do you ever get the feeling that the entire world is crazy and you are the only sane person?

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
John - you have just told us all that the USPTO have totally f*ck*d up.

Oh, yes, because when the USPTO contradicts what you say, they are the ones who are wrong, not you.

 

[jberryhill]

"You are being disengenuous by understating the "problem" - what about all the people that cave in when they get the letter from lawyers. $100,000 threatening letter would make anybody give up."

I thought your problem was with WIPO and the UDRP. The $100,000 maximum statutory damages for cybersquatting under US law have nothing to do with WIPO. Before, you were complaining that the WIPO system is "corrupt" because it is in "violation of law". The US cybersquatting act, and the 100K damage provision, IS law.

Why, if we only had the UDRP system under WIPO, and no cybersquatting law, then you wouldn't see those kinds of threatening letters, since the UDRP does not provide for damages.

So, which is it? Are you upset with the UDRP or the law?

 

[Garry Anderson]

"Concurrent registrations may be issued".

Yes - pathetic - isn't it. Those that made this law did so with deliberately intent to circumvent the issue of uniqueness.

At least they hoped people would think that it does this.

It does not.

J> No doubt the fault ulimately lies with the US population as a whole, for having elected these representatives.

You overstate because you know what is coming, don't you John ;-)

D> Oh, yes, because when the USPTO contradicts what you say, they are the ones who are wrong, not you.

Well - simple enough to test.

This certainly deserves new thread: http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42578

P.S. I pay my debts. Your money will be in the post by next week.

 

[Garry Anderson]

So, which is it? Are you upset with the UDRP or the law?

Obviously both.