[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Protections for Noncommercial gTLDs.
From: Martin B. Schwimmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Protections for Noncommercial gTLDs.
> The use and ownership of generalmotors.union by an entity not connected
> with or endorsed by General Motors may be held to be an infringing use.
> Brach van Houten Holding v. Save Brach's Coalition, 856 F. Supp. 472, 31
> USPQ2d 1786 (ND Ill 1994).
Mr. Schwimmer obviously didn't read the case that he cites here, and this is
precisely what is often disappointing in discussions where lawyers throw
around citations without any discussion of the case, as if the mere citation
In fact, the case explicitly states the OPPOSITE of what Mr. Schwimmer says
"The Complaint and instant motion do not seek to prevent the defendant from
using the name 'Brach's;' they seek only to enjoin the defendant's use of
the Brach's logo." 31 USPQ2d at 1789.
So, Mr. Schwimmer, when the day comes that domain names are replaced by
domain logos, perhaps your cite would have some relevance in connection with
the use of names, which are what is under discussion here. Otherwise, your
attempt at pulling our collective leg here falls flat on its face.
And, if it is not clear enough to you or anyone else, the order from the
case (at 1790) specifically goes out of its way to state:
"[W]e will issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from using
the Brach's logos.... This injunction does not prohibit the defendant from
using the word 'Brach's'."
Now, if you are going to demand citations when someone disagrees with you,
it would be extraordinarily helpful if you didn't mis-characterize the ones
you provide. This would be particularly helpful given the fact that there
are few other participants in this discussion who just happen to have the
entire corpus of USPQ and USPQ2 a few feet away from their desks.