[wg-b] trademark rights do NOT trump speech

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

>...and the Brach's case specifically permitted the union to use the name.
>With that "similarly", you are extending the implication of the case beyond
>its holding, which was limited to expressly allow what you are arguing it
>doesn't.


I would take it one step further and state that the use of the 
employer's name was not enjoined, not simply "granted."  This means 
that the union had the implicit right to use the employer's name any 
way it so chose.  The court affirmed that interpretation.

Once again, hand waving and attempts to create new expansive rights 
for trademark holders leads to flailing and ad hoc quoting of 
irrelevant case law.