@ProofofUse Well, then you agree with me. Everyone knows that characters and symbols can be trademarked for specific uses/contexts. So what?
-
-
@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. -
@claypar111@ballard_ip Not correct. The question was: Should she be able to trademark her birth year? Without caveats, the answer is no. -
@claypar111@ballard_ip I stand by all tweets: 1. Number itself too generic. 2. "1989" logo okay. 3. "1989" for specific uses/contexts okay. -
@justinamash@ballard_ip Congressman, any time a tm is granted is for specific uses and contexts. No one asked for actual rights to a year. -
@claypar111@ballard_ip Exactly. And that's why I replied with "No." - 2 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.