 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G13t90.194@lugnet.com... (...) servicemark (...) services (...) users (...) contain (...) word (...) This contradicts an email I got from a Webring representative a couple years ago, saying (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Do you still have that e-mail? That would be a good thing. "Web ring" is an extremely descriptive mark, and if you realllly wanted to go to court, you might be able to argue fair use. But I certainly don't think it's worth that! (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) To the extent that that e-mail forms a contract (which is relatively weak), and that e-mail has no specific provisions for review or renewal, I suspect you could continue using "webring" for the site(s)/system(s) described in that e-mail (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Oops, looks like I misspoke(wrote). I just went back to the USPTO search page (URL) searched again with the "Registered" radio button selected (instead of "Both") and it didn't show up there, but showed up under "Pending." Thus, it appears (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
"Matthew Miller" <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message news:slrn8sdf01.lvi.....bu.edu... (...) years (...) separate (...) rights. (...) Unfortunately, I don't believe I do. (...) Yeah, not worth it. I noted that before so that I could acknowledge it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
|
