Rep. @JustinAmash doesn't understand #trademark law. And he's a lawyer. Media reporting this story is also clueless. http://kdvr.com/2015/12/14/congressman-troubled-by-taylor-swifts-attempt-to-copyright-1989/ …
-
-
Actually,
@justinamash, I can vouch for@ProofofUse. He understands#trademarks quite well. So far he's winning this argument. Quite well. -
@RonColeman@ProofofUse She can trademark "1989" logo and "1989" for specific uses/contexts. What's the disagreement? -
@justinamash@RonColeman that's not what you initially wrote:https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/676532065291141120 … -
@ProofofUse@RonColeman That's consistent. Number itself is too generic, just as "Apple" is too generic outside specific uses/contexts. -
@justinamash@RonColeman Yes, APPLE is generic for "apples." What is 1989 generic for? Please be specific as to the uses/contexts. -
@ProofofUse@RonColeman It's a generic descriptor for the year and events that took place in that year. -
@justinamash@RonColeman You don't know what a generic mark is. Here's a good treatise: http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/McCarthy-on-Trademarks-and-Unfair-Competition-4th/p/100027710 … I can offer cheaper options. -
@ProofofUse@RonColeman I understand it quite well. Thanks. I'll save myself the legal fees. - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.