Posted by Wayne Parham [ 66.139.42.179 ] on September 14, 2005 at 09:30:48:
In Reply to: Re: Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights posted by MQracing on September 14, 2005 at 09:09:58:
I see. So John Atwood didn't really have anything to do with the transformers we're talking about here or with the Peerless name. You were just using him as an example. Is that right?
As for aknowledgement of trademark rights by AudioRoundTable.com or me personally (or anyone else in America for that matter), the litmus test is actually pretty clear. First use in commerce. That's what determines who owns trademarks, and that's what ART recognizes because that's what trademark law says.
The complication is in trademark law itself. All the things that can damage a mark, dillution, becoming generic, misuse, etc. Since trademark law is really there to protect the public and not the trademark owner, it's kind of weird. The law is actually there to protect the public from being deceived, to keep people from buying one thing when they think they are buying another.
[ Dungeon Forum ] [ Help ]