- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 12
"Some trademark legal scholars have speculated that this reverse domain hijacking may be met with cancellation of the company's mark under the doctrine of trademark misuse."
And courts have specifically rejected that speculation. Again, your ignorance is showing, e.g.:
Juno Online Services, LP v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684,
44 USPQ.2d 1913 (ND Ill. 1997)
http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Juno_v_Juno.html
(scroll down to the section on "trademark misuse", if you want to know something about the law, instead of Garry's fantasies)
"Perhaps a court may choose to recognize a new cause of action in a situation in which the mark holder does attempt to destroy its competitors through the use of its mark. However, this is not such a case. While, Juno Online does claim that Juno Lighting tried to use its government granted marks to put Juno Online out of business, there is no factual allegation backing up this conclusory statement. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant's purpose in asserting its rights under the NSI policy was to derive a competitive advantage over Juno Online, which, on its face, would be an absurd allegation considering that the two entities are involved in completely different businesses."
---
Back to Garry:
"However, the US Patent and Trademark Office has never canceled a mark yet based on trademark [mis]use. Nonetheless, cancellation of patents and copyrights have occurred based on misuse, and it may be a matter of time before a similar precedent is set in trademark law."
At this point, your display of ignorance becomes monumental. The USPTO can only do what the statute permits it to do, and "trademark misuse" is not a statutory ground for administrative cancellation in the USPTO. Courts, on the hand, can cancel a trademark registration for any reason they choose, and have done so. For example, the Freebies.com UDRP dispute was indeed followed by a court case in which the court decided to cancel the trademark registration (although not based on a "misuse" theory):
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ptc.nsf/0/c23e18a49a17f33785256ce8008396e2?OpenDocument
The "Freebies" trademark is generic for items that may be obtained freely and thus cannot be infringed by the Internet domain name "freebie.com," the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled Feb. 27 (Retail Services Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, E.D. Va., No. 02-1111-A, 2/27/03).
The court cancelled the term's trademark registration, which was directed to print publishing, based on the owner's use of the mark on the Internet after its print business came to an end. The court also reversed an arbitration finding of a cybersquatting violation by the defendant because generic marks are ineligible for protection under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act.
-----------
Do you understand that? The court reversed the UDRP decision and cancelled the trademark registration.
If it seems like I am attacking you, rather than the things you say, it is only because you are such a reliable source of reams of absolute misinformed legal nonsense. As Dan pointed out, this has the potential to do actual harm to people who might not know better.
And courts have specifically rejected that speculation. Again, your ignorance is showing, e.g.:
Juno Online Services, LP v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684,
44 USPQ.2d 1913 (ND Ill. 1997)
http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Juno_v_Juno.html
(scroll down to the section on "trademark misuse", if you want to know something about the law, instead of Garry's fantasies)
"Perhaps a court may choose to recognize a new cause of action in a situation in which the mark holder does attempt to destroy its competitors through the use of its mark. However, this is not such a case. While, Juno Online does claim that Juno Lighting tried to use its government granted marks to put Juno Online out of business, there is no factual allegation backing up this conclusory statement. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant's purpose in asserting its rights under the NSI policy was to derive a competitive advantage over Juno Online, which, on its face, would be an absurd allegation considering that the two entities are involved in completely different businesses."
---
Back to Garry:
"However, the US Patent and Trademark Office has never canceled a mark yet based on trademark [mis]use. Nonetheless, cancellation of patents and copyrights have occurred based on misuse, and it may be a matter of time before a similar precedent is set in trademark law."
At this point, your display of ignorance becomes monumental. The USPTO can only do what the statute permits it to do, and "trademark misuse" is not a statutory ground for administrative cancellation in the USPTO. Courts, on the hand, can cancel a trademark registration for any reason they choose, and have done so. For example, the Freebies.com UDRP dispute was indeed followed by a court case in which the court decided to cancel the trademark registration (although not based on a "misuse" theory):
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ptc.nsf/0/c23e18a49a17f33785256ce8008396e2?OpenDocument
The "Freebies" trademark is generic for items that may be obtained freely and thus cannot be infringed by the Internet domain name "freebie.com," the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled Feb. 27 (Retail Services Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, E.D. Va., No. 02-1111-A, 2/27/03).
The court cancelled the term's trademark registration, which was directed to print publishing, based on the owner's use of the mark on the Internet after its print business came to an end. The court also reversed an arbitration finding of a cybersquatting violation by the defendant because generic marks are ineligible for protection under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act.
-----------
Do you understand that? The court reversed the UDRP decision and cancelled the trademark registration.
If it seems like I am attacking you, rather than the things you say, it is only because you are such a reliable source of reams of absolute misinformed legal nonsense. As Dan pointed out, this has the potential to do actual harm to people who might not know better.
rg.uk - Comments on WIPO Interim Report (12 April 2001) to UN WIPO
