Can you please expand a little bit on your dilution comment?
My hot take on Tam: bye bye, dilution. Also, narrow holding leaves lots for later, including the rest of Sec. 2 bases for refusal
-
-
-
I'm sure I'll have more shortly but if disparagement is viewpoint based then dilution is too: pre-Tam writing: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1336/
-
In essence, if it's OK for a trademark to disparage people, then it's equally OK (or more OK) for a trademark to tarnish another trademark?
-
Right, absent meeting standards for defamation/trade libel which preclude relying on nonfactual statements/opinions about the mark
-
Thank you for clarifying/elaborating!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If using a TM is exercising free speech, doesn't granting quasi-exclusivity over a disparaging term (as much as TM law allows) problematic?
-
You'd think, but that can be got around if nonconfusing & noncommercial uses by others are ok
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The rest of Sec. 2? What would be left?
-
False connection (courts are unlikely to require materiality, even if they logically should); maybe the GIs; likely the flags/state insignia
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Whoa! You think dilution? Hmmm. Interesting .... would be nice
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
What about opening the door for a parody defense at the TTAB?https://twitter.com/proofofuse/status/862335887987941378 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really? I think Dilution is about as safe as Washington Football is now.
-
I guess the "slippery slope" ends at the Trademark Office becoming the Copyright Office, and barely conducting a substantive examination?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, more on the dilution take
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.