RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Then your understanding is flawed. USPTO has only recently reversed itself
to the position that you now wave before us all. They have made no commetary
on cases and trademarks that were awarded prior to the recent reversal. Even
you, John, must understand the grandfathering of prior standing agreements
and registrations. Even you, can not be that obstinate, can you?

The USPTO must first acknowlege that the prior position was in error and
refund the fees and costs, plus contingent liabilities and expenses for
allowing the registrations. Otherwise, the prior registration/contract
stands, in spite of the new rulings.

As usual, IANAL, don't listen to me, go find a lawyer, pay them money,
listen to thier advice.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of John
> Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM
> To: cambler@iodesign.com
> Cc: william@userfriendly.com; wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com;
> kendall@motif1.obs-us.com
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements
>
>
>
> > I'm not talking about the TLD as a trademark. I'm talking
> > about the TLD as infringing on SOME OTHER trademark.
> >
> > Example would be .ibm - ignore the dot, and "ibm" is a
> > trademark, no?
> >
> > Regardless, the USPTO's guidelines do not have the force
> > of law, as I understand it. They're guidelines, unchallenged.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher Ambler
> > chris@the.web
>
> But, unless I understand it wrong, it is the USPTO that
> decides what is or
> what isn't a TM in the US. If the USPTO says it isn't then it
> isn't. You
> can't go to a judge saying that someone is infringing on a
> trademark of yours
> and find that the USPTO says that it ISN'T a trademark, and
> expect to win...
> (unless you strike it lucky with a clueless judge).
> Hmmm... I wish I knew what the lawyers of IOD think of IOD
> (something along
> the lines of "we LOVE the money of IOD").
>
> Yours, John.
>