At 08:49 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 05:43 PM 7/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Gene and all,
>>
>> Of course you are correct. However I was eluding to the fact that
>>CORE "Could" make this claim given the circumstances in order
>>to strengthen their position, and cast a shadow over IOD and their
>>claim to .WEB from a legitimate "Use" position.
>>
>> It should also be noted that I did not see a TM filing listed on .WEB by
>>IOD, though there very well may be one. However there is one pending
>>from a CORE member with the USPTO.
>>
>
>If the USPTO is true to form, their due diligence will uncover prior use as
>a "service mark", therefore rendering the CORE application null and void.
The USPTO does not do independent searches out in the market place for
prior use, either in trademarks or indeed patents. It is up to someone
opposing
a trademark issuance to file an Opposition; that is why trademark and service
mark applications, once they pass muster based on records within the USPTO
itself, are "published for opposition" so that any opposers not already aware
of the filing can file an Opposition. (I'm not involved in the case, and
am not
advising about it, but I do feel obliged to correct common misconceptions
like
this one.)
>
>>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.
It may also be noted as another part of basic trademark law that in the U. S.
trademarks and service marks are earned by use in commerce, not by filing
registration applications.
Bill Lovell
