[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal

Neither of these instances is on point.

A trademark office uses an *examiner* who applies expertise to a specific
application based on evidence submitted and his/her knowledge of law and
precedent. The same is true of the preliminary injunction. A judge looks at
evidence regarding a specific case before issuing an injunction.


Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> Additionally, the act of a trademark office rejecting a trademark
> application would be the most common example of the denial of acquisition
> of a right, pre-use.
> At 03:41 PM 4/14/00 -0400, Hartman, Steve wrote:
> >The law does provide for what you call "preemptive restraints" on the use of
> >words in the form of preliminary injunctions in trademark infringement
> >suits. (I cant' name one country where this isn't true, but there probably
> >are some.) Prior restraints in the US of spoken and written words are
> >extremely rare, but that applies to the use of words solely as language. The
> >IPC proposal does not affect the use of words on a website.(And in other
> >countries, Great Britain comes immediately to mind, prior restraint of the
> >written word is not uncommon.)
> >
> >
> >Steve Hartman