Re: Bake-off as trademark
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> Tue, 07 November 2000 00:10 UTC
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id TAA04057 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:10:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atkielski.com (atkielski.com [161.58.232.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA17606 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from contactdish (st-lambert-101-2-atkielsk.adsl.nerim.net [62.4.19.136]) by atkielski.com (8.8.8) id AAA04117; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:25:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <012301c04848$e3fba960$0a00000a@contactdish>
From: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <Pine.HPX.4.02.10011061341530.21134-100000@diablo.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Bake-off as trademark
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:25:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> In 1994 a competitor to Interop trademarked the generic > word "shownet" as a purely hostile move, forcing Interop > to stop using it because it had not previously been > trademarked and the theory was that it would take to much > time and money to fight. Whose theory was that? At least in the United States, that makes little sense. In the U.S., you must show that you have been consistently using a trademark and identifying it with your product or service in order to claim proprietary status for it, and if you have not been actively using and protecting it, or if someone was actively using it before you did, your trademark is unlikely to stand. Maybe Interop should have fought it. Trademarks are not like patents or copyrights. You must actively use and protect a trademark, or it can lose its special status. And you can only register it _after_ you have established it as a trademark, not before (in the U.S.--in Europe, you can register before you use it, which is kind of bizarre and much more restrictive). > Thus, it is now called "InteropNet" and yes, it's heavily > trademarked. It's either a trademark or it's not. There are no degrees of trademark (other than registration).
- Re: Bake-off as trademark John Stracke
- Bake-off as trademark Henning G. Schulzrinne
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Tim Salo
- Re: Bake-off as trademark James Aldridge
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Bob Braden
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Randy Bush
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Mike_Borella
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Herman Silbiger
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Ole J. Jacobsen
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Jeff Weisberg
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Bill Manning
- RE: Bake-off as trademark Rosen, Brian
- RE: Bake-off as trademark Rosen, Brian
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Scott Brim
- RE: Bake-off as trademark Bernie Volz
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Henning G. Schulzrinne
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Anthony Atkielski
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Masataka Ohta
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Jim_Stephenson-Dunn
- RE: Bake-off as trademark Michael Francois
- Re: Bake-off as trademark hardie
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Keith Moore
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Marcus Leech
- Re: Bake-off as trademark John Stracke
- Re: Bake-off as trademark Paul Hoffman / IMC