@justinamash then why shouldn't she own a trademark on 1989? @KDVR
@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. -
@justinamash@ProofofUse@RonColeman Congressman, big fan. You’re wrong though. “1989” can serve as a#trademark http://goo.gl/Cma6cj -
@ballard_ip Thanks. On which point do you disagree with me? I've said she can trademark a "1989" logo and "1989" for specific uses/contexts. -
@justinamash If you agree "1989" can serve as a TM "for specific uses/contexts" then that's correct. Seems like you said something different -
@ballard_ip@justinamash Yes, he shifted his stance and altered his words when he realized he was losing the argument. - 6 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.