I'm sorry I wrote that to you as a private post.
OK:
The right to use a trademark is recognized as a kind of property, of which
the owner is entitled to the exclusive enjoyment to the extent that it has
been actually used. Hamilton-Brown v. Wolf Bros, 240 US 251 (1916).
see the other cases discussed in chapter 2:14 of McCarthy's entitled
"Trademarks are property rights."
I think it's an unnecessary comma.
If I say what I want and you say what you want, they'll cite the US supreme
court case first.
I'm sorry you're bored.
At 07:05 PM 3/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 09:19 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>"A trademark, even a registered one, is not a property right, like a
>>>copyright or patent, but merely an identifier of source. Others can
>>>use the same mark to identify their product, provided there is no
>>>likelihood of confusion." Door Systems Inc. v. Pro-Line Door
>>>Systems, Inc., 83 F3d 169, 173, 38 USPQ2d 1771, 1775 (7th Cir.
>>>1996).
>>>
>>>What can I say? This particular cite happens to be 7th Circ., but similar
>>>ones abound.
>>>
>>>Bill Lovell
>>>>
>>
>>I think there is an alternate reading to this passage. The Court may be
>>saying not that a registered trademark is not a property right but that it
>>is not a property right like a copyright or patent (in that unlike a
>>copyright or patent, more than one party can use the trademark right). In
>>other words, the property right is in the trademark when used as a
>>particular identifier of source, as opposed to a property right in the
>>exclusive use of that trademark. A trademark right is clearly a property
>>right, it's just a weird one. I think the problem is the comma between the
>>word "right" and "like." It doesn't belong there.
>>>
>Ah, but it does. But I'm not going to get into a comma war -- we're all
>bored enough with you and MM. You say what you want to say in court
>and I'll say what I want to say. End of discussion.
>
>See how easy it is, Milton?
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
