At 09:59 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill,
>
>At 06:19 PM 7/19/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>Gene Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Abandonement, in legal terms, has specific meaning. Intellectual
>property
>>>>> typically must be unused (and unmarketed) for a period of 2 years or
more
>>>>> to even be considered abandoned.
>>
>>And so what law library did that come out of? Abandonment is a very
>>fact-specific issue, revolving around intent more than anything else,
>>so there are no such hard and fast rules.
>
>No, more by precedent. I understand that there are no hard and fast rules.
>
>It is also subjective. Abandonment of personal property can, in some
>cases, be claimed after 30 days.
Yes, typically by statute -- if no one claims it after proper publication,
it's
"abandoned."
>
>Abandonment of real estate is far more complicated.
Strong evidence required, and also typically statutory. What's involved in
either of those situations is escheatment to the state, as to privately owned
property. There can also be abandonment by the state or county, etc., as to
easements, which then revert to the burdened landowner. (Some jargon
there; any translation needed will be smilingly supplied.) :-)
>
>Abandonment of license, or in this case, trademark or service mark, IS more
>intent based. However, abandonment is more often an issue of omission
>rather than commission (and there are plenty of exceptions).
True.
>
>I do not pretend to be an attorney. I have been involved in several cases
>regarding abandonment where a little research and understanding of
>precendent came in handy. I don't see abandonment playing here.
>
>I would be happy to hear your comments on these observations, Bill.
You've got them! You were right on the other email too, given that the
"due diligence" you refer to is meant as a part of the USPTO process
whereby some opposer raises up and hollers, which I what I took you
to mean.
Bill
>++++++++++
>Gene Marsh
>president, anycastNET Incorporated
>330-699-8106
>
