[Community] urgent trademark matter

[Gabe Wachob]

For the other legal-backgrounded folks out there, do the US TM anti-dilution
statutes impose any new maintenance and/or protection requirements on TM
holders? Or are the anti-dilution statues merely giving TM holders new
rights (without any new responsibilities for protecting the TM)? 

 

Joaquin - what is your question based on? I missed today's call. 

 

            -Gabe

 

  _____  

From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
[mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Joaquin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Identity Commons
Subject: Re: [Community] urgent trademark matter

 

Thanks, Aldo, for the quick response.  




>From what I know of trademark law, "policing" of a mark is critical as to
continued rights in the mark. However I'm not aware that such rights would
be lost for failure to do so within a week or two. I can look it up but I
think the policing "standard" is one of good faith.


Please do look it up.  This is exactly what I am asking about.  Of course,
we don't want 'Identity Commons' to suffer the fate of 'Asprin'.  Bur I
can't believe (until someone tells me different) that this requires urgency.


I promise that I won't take anything you write or point to as legal advice.

Cordially, Joaquin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20061213/31588d19/attachment.htm