@ProofofUse @RonColeman I understand it quite well. Thanks. I'll save myself the legal fees.
-
-
Replying to @justinamash
@justinamash@ProofofUse@RonColeman Congressman, big fan. You’re wrong though. “1989” can serve as a#trademark http://goo.gl/Cma6cj1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ballard_ip
@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.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @justinamash
@justinamash If you agree "1989" can serve as a TM "for specific uses/contexts" then that's correct. Seems like you said something different1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ballard_ip
@ballard_ip@justinamash Yes, he shifted his stance and altered his words when he realized he was losing the argument.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @claypar111
@claypar111@ballard_ip Not correct. The question was: Should she be able to trademark her birth year? Without caveats, the answer is no.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @justinamash
@claypar111@ballard_ip I stand by all tweets: 1. Number itself too generic. 2. "1989" logo okay. 3. "1989" for specific uses/contexts okay.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @justinamash
@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.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @claypar111
@claypar111@ballard_ip Exactly. And that's why I replied with "No."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @justinamash
@justinamash@ballard_ip Very generic response to a question that you ultimately have no say in.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@claypar111 @ballard_ip Yeah, my one-word reply was mostly intended to be funny. Media thought it was serious and made a bigger deal of it.
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.