Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Jun 18, 2014.
Oh nows you're offended. Play it up, play it up drama
We are a multi-cultural society. We are not supposed to be an anti-cultural society.
In all honesty, for marks on commercial goods (particularly apparel) the primary benefit is CBP importation bans, and Lanham Act counterfeiting treble damages (both of which are dependent on federal registration). Going out and suing every Tom, Dick and Harry who uses the mark in state court to recover their profits on the sale costs far more than you're likely to ever recover - but you pretty much have to do it anyways to avoid the argument that you've acquiesced in infringing uses or surrendered the right to exclusive use.
Without federal registration, the question becomes how long Snyder is willing to continue pouring money down that hole to try to enforce fairly weak common law rights. There's a reason people register their trademarks in the first place, and it isn't just because they felt like cutting PTO a check.
Isnt this why we don't allow the trademark of ethnic/racial slurs that may demean a particular culture?
Why doesn't the Federal Government do what they are supposed to do, like going after Trademark Infringement and Copy Write Laws with CHINA? Was this not the intent for the formation of this Government Agency?
Oh, nows you don't care. Play it down, drama.
It's humorous watching a bunch of non-lawyers try to argue the law with someone who is (obviously) an actual lawyer. Newsflash, your intuition about what the law should be has no bearing on what the law actually is. You might not think it's right that a trademark that has been in use for decades can be taken away, but the fact is it absolutely can be for any number of reasons, including racial disparagement. No amount of foot stomping is going to change that.
It's the job of lawyers and judges to argue and interpret the meaning of law. The general public has no role in the process. If you don't like the result, there is a legislature you can lobby to have it changed.
Yes. What TM has demeaned a particular culture? Indians? Braves? Seminoles? And, yes, you are right, we do not allow such- well, um, obviously you are wrong. The mark on topic in this thread was allowed- for 47 years, and then cancelled because of the wind direction, not because it was not allowable.
I am a cracker. Please cancel the mark for Cracker Barrel. I am offended and deserve compensation.
Well, actually, you are very wrong with your last paragraph. But, you have a great point about the distinction of intuition and the law. I wish more Americans understood it. As for arguing with lawyers, lawyers are not exactly the smartest people in the room in spite of what they tell you about themselves. There are some really smart lawyers. Most did not go to law school because they are smart, however. You can major in anything and go to law school. You can graduate law school and not know a thing about practicing law. Most lawyers have only 2 years of legal training in law school before they have clients. Most have had one class in the area of law in which they practice. Most are not resilient, are loners, and are cynical. Google lawyer personality. Know your lawyer better than he/she knows self.
And, the truly good smart lawyers have clients.
Why don't you sue then?
Because unlike the PC crowd and the sophisticated lawyers at an AMLAW BS 100 law firm, I realize how stupid that is.
I don't understand the point. One poster mentioned that there was once a trademark for N$#ger Babby Oranges. That was allowed once too. Is culture static or something?
So basically, you arent actually offended by the Cracker Barrel brand, and you also dont mind telling other people what they shouldnt find offensive, and calling them stupid if they do.
The fact that it isn't static proves that rights should be protected regardless of changing culture. The Pandora's box of defining rights based on cultural norms is one you do not want to open.
Well, if you will actually read what I wrote, you will see that you are a twister of words to suit yourself. The English language construct dictates that "Stupid" describes your proposed action of suing Cracker Barrel over being offended, more specifically, the actions of others suing to have an NFL team lose its rights to a name. "Stupid" does not describe the state of being offended in my sentence, persons who are offended, and makes no commentary on the state of being offended or whether something is offensive. Your tactic of changing your opponent's words to argue a mythical point is not going to hold water for the astute reader.
So who defines these rights? Oh wait, rights are defined by people and their culture. So what you are suggesting is both absurd and impossible.
Ok, sorry. Only the people who are offended but choose to file suit over it are being stupid.
Alas, this is true, except your last sentence. You see, in America, we formulated certain protections for rights that are to withstand the whims of time. If our Founding Fathers (sorry if that offends you, but too bad) believed that it would be absurd and impossible to do so, we would still be a part of Great Britain.
Suing over being offended is stupid, period. The civil justice system needs to be preserved. Suing over damages and suing over inhibited rights is legitimate, not over being offended.