Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

> Additionally, the act of a trademark office rejecting a trademark
> application would be the most common example of the denial of acquisition
> of a right, pre-use.

Nonsense.  If the PTO rejects for descriptiveness, etc., you can still use
the term in commerce.  What does a PTO rejection prevent you from doing?

"Pre-use?"  If I want to put "Dog Food" on a can of dog food, I can do so
today.  Yah, my trademark application will be rejected. I can still put "Dog
Food" on the cans.  I don't get your point.

("denial of a right to exclude others from acting" .ne. "denial of a right
to act")

Even if the substance of the comment made any sense, you are still talking
about the context of an individualized adjudication by an authoritative
body, and not a power grab by S.C. Johnson Wax to prevent fraternities from
using the word "Pledge" or 20 other variations on that word.  THAT is what
is under proposal here.

Of course, "Palage" looks and sounds an awful lot like "Pledge", so I guess
he has no problem being pre-empted by furniture polish.  After all, there is
nothing like an attractive veneer.