- Joined
- Sep 1, 2003
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 0
The United States Registered Trademark System is a sham.
I am grateful to John Berryhill for informing me of this.
Although, I am certain he will refute this objective analysis of our recent exchange - for one thing his livelihood is linked to the Trademark System. For another, he does not want to be done by USPTO for libel.
I was blind to this before, because the logic made absolutely no sense.
I see it now that John has spelt it out for me.
Perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us if anything is untrue in this post.
After all is said and done - I am no lawyer and all this is purely my informed opinion.
I am sure everybody knows this - but will state the obvious:
When a person gets something with a trademark (goods or services) - either directly from supplier, or from reseller, or by post, or as gift, or however they got it - this trademark is meant to give the consumer assurance that it came from one supplier.
This ensures that whatever the product or service is, that it is of a certain quality.
To do this it has to be unique - this is most central of all to trademark law.
I have to inform you that US trademarks are a Zip code lottery - different businesses can use the exact same mark to sell similar product or services. Therefore, what you may think of as a trademark, can change as soon as you drive over a state line.
Specific example (with JB help): Your friend sees your favourite 'La Tapatia' tortillas on offer in a food magazine or on the Internet and buys a massive box as present for your birthday. They taste like cardboard - because they are not the same ones you like.
The authorities made a law which allowed "concurrent registrations" with the deliberately intent to circumvent the issue of uniqueness.
At least they hoped people would think that it did this. It can clearly be seen not to do so.
For those that made these laws and those in legal profession; you say a unique mark means there can be more than one. You know that unique means without like or without equal.
Sorry to say this, but it has to be said - John is one of the most intelligent people that it has been my privilege to 'discuss' these matters with. Saying that, I do not claim to have higher IQ - my observations are quite straightforward and his legal skills blow me away. But the thing is - I believe that he knows what I say is demonstrably true. Perhaps he will show where I am wrong.
This is not false comment to gain favour - as I know he will argue against me still and call me delusional or egotisticââ¬Â¦
I am grateful to John Berryhill for informing me of this.
Although, I am certain he will refute this objective analysis of our recent exchange - for one thing his livelihood is linked to the Trademark System. For another, he does not want to be done by USPTO for libel.
I was blind to this before, because the logic made absolutely no sense.
I see it now that John has spelt it out for me.
Perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us if anything is untrue in this post.
After all is said and done - I am no lawyer and all this is purely my informed opinion.
I am sure everybody knows this - but will state the obvious:
When a person gets something with a trademark (goods or services) - either directly from supplier, or from reseller, or by post, or as gift, or however they got it - this trademark is meant to give the consumer assurance that it came from one supplier.
This ensures that whatever the product or service is, that it is of a certain quality.
To do this it has to be unique - this is most central of all to trademark law.
I have to inform you that US trademarks are a Zip code lottery - different businesses can use the exact same mark to sell similar product or services. Therefore, what you may think of as a trademark, can change as soon as you drive over a state line.
Specific example (with JB help): Your friend sees your favourite 'La Tapatia' tortillas on offer in a food magazine or on the Internet and buys a massive box as present for your birthday. They taste like cardboard - because they are not the same ones you like.
The authorities made a law which allowed "concurrent registrations" with the deliberately intent to circumvent the issue of uniqueness.
At least they hoped people would think that it did this. It can clearly be seen not to do so.
For those that made these laws and those in legal profession; you say a unique mark means there can be more than one. You know that unique means without like or without equal.
Sorry to say this, but it has to be said - John is one of the most intelligent people that it has been my privilege to 'discuss' these matters with. Saying that, I do not claim to have higher IQ - my observations are quite straightforward and his legal skills blow me away. But the thing is - I believe that he knows what I say is demonstrably true. Perhaps he will show where I am wrong.
This is not false comment to gain favour - as I know he will argue against me still and call me delusional or egotisticââ¬Â¦