Section 1 says PI must be clearly identified to be such. This is the heart
of our disagreement.
Right, Weldon, and here's the problem I have with Chris' interpretation. The PI Definition says (with some intervening words removed):
"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity...
By Chris' readings, product lines, product line names, logos, and identifiying marks including trade dress would PI without declaration, but any other type of trademark must be identified as PI to be PI. That seems WAY arbitrary. Why would I need to declare the registered trademark for my company as PI, but I would not have to declare the unregistered common law trademark on my product line as PI. Why would my company's logo be automatically protected, but my company's name (which is not a product name or product line) requires a PI designation?
The seeming arbitrariness of that notion compels me to take a contrary reading.
Apparently you feel the same way.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
