Fighting back against a Trademark bully!

[cyberken13]

www.floridaweekly.com

Hello everybody,

It has been a while since I’ve posted here. I wish this could have been under better circumstances but this is a moment where we are reaching out to everyone.

We are in a fight with a Trademark bully. This bully is a newspaper company which bought similar domain names to ours when they launched their publication this April; more than two years after we had launched the same idea. They also filed for a state Trademark this year on the merely descriptive name combination, which requires secondary meaning, and now they are trying to use that to bully us out of our legitimate rights and business.

It was a simple choice; back down and give in or take on the financial burden and fight back. We chose the latter and filed against them! We are asking everyone to visit Florida Weekly , read the article about the case, and download the case files we have posted there. They will provide you with a more in depth look at the case. The burden of proof is on our side and as this case unfolds it will shed light on Trademark bullies trying to pull the wool over the system that was meant to protect all of us.

Update 08/19/07:

Please, while you are there check out our support page. We will be posting some of our domains for sale there as well as offer advertising in an effort to give you an opportunity to help.

Thank you everyone.

Ken

 

[cyberken13]

"Now, mind you, you are claiming "first use in commerce" as of August 2007 in the application to the Supplemental Register in the USPTO for "FLORIDA WEEKLY":


Word Mark FLORIDA WEEKLY

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Online periodical publication dealing with news, information, and events featuring subjects of interest to residents of Florida and visitors to Florida. FIRST USE: 20040927. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050805"

You are unbelievable. A lawyer, really? Nice job misrepresenting the facts to build your argument JBerryhill. How about responding to some of the hard facts that I've given you all day, including the emails from Doug Henderson you ask for, and that you chose to ignore in favor of "denied" claims and cherry picking for procedures.

The only thing I see here are lawyer tactics in asking for hard facts and evidence and then when provided you just ignore them and move on to the next argument. Please, continue.

 

[jberryhill]

Ah, a typo, congrats. I'll leave it in my post, even.

The Complaint refers to activities in June 2005 and says that use under the Lanham act had been established. Your TM application says August 2005. Yes, it does not say 2007, but that's not the point. Your complaint and your TM application don't match up very well.

Now, yes, the use date claimed in an application is "as early as", and need not be the earliest date. But in this context, it is bizarre that they don't.

A lawyer, really?

During the day, when I'm getting paid, yes. In my spare time, on forums, I'm just another person commenting on what gets posted. I don't advertise my services on porn sites, though. (e.g. http://www.worldsexguide.com/)

How about responding to some of the hard facts that I've given you all day, including the emails from Doug Henderson you ask for

Ummm... put down the crack pipe. I never asked for any email from Doug Henderson.

I don't see any relationship between that email and your various claims of use of "FLORIDA WEEKLY" as a trade or service mark.

Give me the number of the post in this thread where I have asked for "hard facts and evidence" and then ignored them?

Specifically, give me the number of the post in this thread where I asked for any email from any Doug Henderson.

You came here asking for donations. You make a number of claims about having marketed a "FLORIDA WEEKLY" something-or-other since various times in June 2005 (in your complaint), August 2005 (in your TM application), and then re-launching an "old site" in July 2007 (back to the complaint). You have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claim of having marketed anything to anyone in 2005. Your response was "read the complaint". Well, I read the complaint, it simply says you "designed" business cards and banner ads in 2005, and has an extremely misleading reference to launching a website in November 2004, while referring to an exhibit that has a date in July 2007 on it.

WTF does an email from some guy asking to buy the domain name have to do with any of your claims to have been using "FLORIDA WEEKLY" and not "FL<seagull>RIDA WEEKLY" as a trademark in 2005?

What I have said, any number of times now, is that I haven't seen any evidence of operation of a website, aside from posting a picture, prior to July 2007.

Okay, so some guy named Doug Henderson wrote to you seeking to buy the domain name for $200, and you said "it's not for sale". So?

Looking at, say, www.frontiernet.net/~dough it seems the guy either runs a campground on Lake Michigan, or he designs web sites. It would be interesting to see the full header of the email from him, complete with the originating IP address, but I still don't see how the entire exchange is relevant to anything I have commented upon.

 

[labrocca]

I hope Ken isn't paying his lawyer by the hour. I am not a lawyer and it's so easy to spot the BS...I can only imagine what opposing counsel is going to think about this. It's utter nonsense.

"I made a graphic in paint"..."now I have rights to the domain"...lol

If that's all that's required to gain rights then every domainer can just make this claim for a C&D response. However reality sets in eventually when a court rules this to be BOGUS.

A well worded argument doesn't make a convincing argument. Evidence is required to prove your case. You simply haven't shown any that's convincing.

 

[cyberken13]

"But nobody here has seen anything to prove the proposition either.

I certainly haven't seen your email from June 2007"

This statement coupled with your repeated frustration prior to the fact I haven't posted our evidence in this forum led me to the reasonable assumption that you wanted to see these emails. So, I provided them. FMG has already admitted to them. Yet you chose to ignore them and the bulk of post #91, among others. You choose what you want to respond to and I choose what evidence I want to post here.

"I don't advertise my services on porn sites, though."

The ICA referred my lawyer to me and Marc teaches law at Barry Univ. in Orlando. As far as I know some of the best known and respected people in this industry manage porno domain names. I'm certain you even associate with them from time to time. Last I checked the adult industry is not illegal. So, just what are you trying to say?

August of 2005 is simply the date my lawyer chose for our Federal trademark application. We were within our rights to chose that date. I don't find anything wrong with it.

The emails solicited by FMG through Doug Henderson are very relevant as is everything else I've stated here. You need to brush up on your reading of WIPO and Federal case decisions. You can start by first reading about the refusal of their USPTO trademark application and the examining attorney's comments. They will be very insightful to you. Why don't you post that here as well.

 

[jberryhill]

You can say "we began marketing" at the birth of Christ, and nobody here, especially me, is going to provide anything to contradict that. But nobody here has seen anything to prove the proposition either.

I certainly haven't seen your email from June 2007, nor have I seen the documents assigning alleged trademarks between and among you and various Semoran entities. Accordingly, I surely cannot comment on these things.

Excuse me... make that June 2005 - the date when you claim to have begun these extensive marketing campaigns with business cards and banners.

(although I have now commented on the June 2007 emails after you posted them, so I still don't get your point. Yes, some guy named Doug Henderson inquired about purchasing the domain name for $200 and you brushed him off. That proves... what... about your trademark claim?)

Last I checked the adult industry is not illegal.

Indeed, Ken, I have represented adult publishers. I do not advertise legal services on porn sites. Do you see the difference?

Nor do I propose scripting porn movies on the International Trademark Association mailing list:
http://www.biglist.com/cgi-bin/wilm...ts.inta.org/0710/msg00161.html?line=34#hilite


I'll just have to settle for being little-known and disrespected in the industry.

Why don't you post that here as well.

When they wander into Namepros and ask for money, you bet I'll give their claims a good going over. Another thing I am is cheap.

You seem to believe that my skepticism of your claims means I believe theirs. This is going to come as a shock to your system, Ken, but I have seen plenty of situations where both sides of a dispute have been gilding the lily.

The emails solicited by FMG through Doug Henderson are very relevant

Yes, they are relevant to the fact that you don't seem to have done much of doodley with the domain name until you were contacted by FMG. After you got the c&d letter, you slapped together a website and then started claiming it was part of some elaborate plan that started with your purchase of a server in April 2004, despite the fact that you had to change servers twice to handle the "traffic" of some 500 hits a month - mostly generated by widespread pimping of your "victim" status.

However, the fact that you obtained the domain name back in 2004 makes it absolutely clear that you weren't cybersquatting. Why you then had to go and muck it up with dubious claims to all sorts of imaginary marketing activities is the deep mystery to me here.

Read the bold part again, if you don't catch it the first time. You aren't a cybersquatter, Ken. That fact does not make everything you say true.

August of 2005 is simply the date my lawyer chose for our Federal trademark application.

...and you swore to it. Don't pass the buck:

SIGNATURE /Kenneth Lima II/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Kenneth Lima II
SIGNATORY'S POSITION MGRM
DATE SIGNED 08/19/2007

And it is also your lawyer which chose as the "specimen of use" a calendar page from "Altamonte.com" which does not, in fact, show "FLORIDA WEEKLY" used as a mark anywhere on it?

Dang. I predict FMG is not the only one who is going to be running around with an initial refusal from the USPTO in short order.

You can start by first reading about the refusal of their USPTO trademark application and the examining attorney's comments.

Yes, the Examining Attorney issued an initial refusal of their bullshit trademark claim on the ground of geographic descriptiveness.

On this, I'm supposed to buy into your bullshit trademark claim? And send you money? What, your claimed mark ISN'T geographically descriptive, but theirs IS?

I see two parties making bullshit claims here.

You need to brush up on your reading of WIPO and Federal case decisions.

Well, let's see... in the time since you started asking for donations, I've won one federal case in Maryland, one state case in California, and

ONE
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1059.html

TWO
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html

THREE
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1038.html

FOUR
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1038.html

FIVE
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0676.html

WIPO proceedings (and two at NAF, and one .co.uk at Nominet).

You can make whatever comments you'd like to about me, Ken, but it doesn't do anything for your credibility on these marketing efforts of yours in June 2005.

I can see how this turned into "the settlement that got away" though...

 

[labrocca]

Damn..you just opened a can of whipass on him. Thoroughly spanked.

However, the fact that you obtained the domain name back in 2004 makes it absolutely clear that you weren't cybersquatting. Why you then had to go and muck it up with dubious claims to all sorts of imaginary marketing activities is the deep mystery to me here.

If I remember correctly he is trying to get Florida-Weekly to shut down it's operations. Maybe his lawyer told him a good defense is a good offense. I can't explain any of this either. He has blown a perfectly good opportunity to sell a domain name. The only people benefiting in this situation are the lawyers.

despite the fact that you had to change servers twice to handle the "traffic" of some 500 hits a month

I chuckled when I read that too. Every reason he gives to establish his TM is pure garbage.

Sometimes I just think people don't have people skills or maybe it's just common sense. Something simple is missing here though. I been able to successfully negotiate tons of domains even when I get a C&D from the buyer. And guess what...no courts and I don't hire a lawyer.

Ken...I just can't wait to read more of your responses. They are worth their weight in gold for entertainment.

 

[jberryhill]

I been able to successfully negotiate tons of domains even when I get a C&D from the buyer. And guess what...no courts and I don't hire a lawyer.

I can vouch for that, you cheap bastid.

If I remember correctly he is trying to get Florida-Weekly to shut down it's operations. Maybe his lawyer told him a good defense is a good offense.

The air is thick with the scent of testosterone.

Many, many folks contact me in a state of high moral outrage over c&d letters.

There's a couple of things an attorney can do with that. However, your own blog makes it clear that filing a lawsuit wasn't even your idea.

So, let's recap - You got a c&d letter. It was a bullshit claim on its face. You bought the domain name in 2004, and you weren't doing a darned thing wrong.

They threatened a lawsuit. So, in order to "show them" you filed one. In state court. Making reference to the Lanham Act. So it was removed to federal court.

Not only was your opponent irredeemably evil at the start, but they hired evil lawyers. They then got a second set of "good lawyers" who, you believed, had negotiated a settlement everyone could live with.

The settlement fell apart. Now, those "good lawyers" have turned evil, and have filed false statements and counterclaims.

Counterclaims.... in other words, you started with a frivolous c&d letter, and this has now escalated into a situation, partly of your making, in which you can't walk away from this thing even if you want to, no matter what it is going to cost you. The threat of a suit bothered you so much, that you've worked yourself into a situation where, yes, now you have to defend against federal cybersquatting claims in, yes, a lawsuit.

Once again, to be clear, you did nothing wrong by obtaining and keeping the domain name but you really need to think about how you got from day one to today, why your circumstances have become what they are, and what nudged you along that path.

 

[Mike]

It's one thing to come to NP and talk about a legal scenario.
It's another to come in here and ask for donations and then get "pouty" if the dough doesn't roll in.
It's wise to stick to the facts and give us the benefit of the doubt that we're indeed smart individuals and are conducting research before we hand over a single cent.
It's DEFINITELY unwise to get into a verbal match with an attorney that has status, success and knowledge in an industry where you, Ken, obviously have no business of being in.
That should be simple enough, eh?

IB
(This is not spoken as a mod, but just as a NP member - keep this in mind)

 

[labrocca]

Excellent breakdown John.

Maybe Ken needs to read up some...
http://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0345479173/

 

[jberryhill]

Excellent breakdown John.

Why, thanks, you "forum troll" you.

Say, Jesse, all of those green things and stars under your name... is that your "forum troll rating"?

 

[Bill]

Say, Jesse, all of those green things and stars under your name... is that your "forum troll rating"?

Yikes, people are now calling it the troll rating!

http://www.namepros.com/faq.php?faq=namepros#faq_rep_system
http://www.namepros.com/faq.php?faq=namepros#faq_postbit_stars

Let's cool down folks and get back on topic!

Thanks,

-Bill

 

[cyberken13]

"And it is also your lawyer which chose as the "specimen of use" a calendar page from "Altamonte.com" which does not, in fact, show "FLORIDA WEEKLY" used as a mark anywhere on it?"

At the bottom of that specimen for Altamonte.com our Florida Weekly banner ad is clearly displayed. Your oversights Berryhill continue to mount.

"Indeed, Ken, I have represented adult publishers. I do not advertise legal services on porn sites. Do you see the difference? Nor do I propose scripting porn movies on the International Trademark Association mailing list ..."

What I see are unprovoked (and way off topic) insults about the lawfirm which represents me. How unprofessional. We went to the ICA for a referral and after meeting Marc we decided to hire him. That's it.

I did not wander into NamePros. I was already a member here before any of this. You know what makes those emails relevant Berryhill and it's not what you're claiming here now. We'll save that for the Judge. Better yet, why don't you bring your arguments down to the Middle District and place them before our Judge. We'll also sit down and go over your recent comments here with my lawyer.

What are all these recent comments about donations by everyone? My last post relating to donations was back on 9/14 (#52). We asked for help. It didn't happen. End of story. There are also "misquotes" and ill conceived representations about facts that you all know nothing about. Tread lightly.

 

[jberryhill]

At the bottom of that specimen for Altamonte.com our Florida Weekly banner ad is clearly displayed. Your oversights Berryhill continue to mount.

Bullshit, Ken. The claimed mark is a word mark "FLORIDA WEEKLY" in standard characters.

The Examining Attorney should reject that specimen because the words "FLORIDA WEEKLY" aren't on it.

What is shown on that banner is the "FL<seagull>RIDA WEEKLY" logo. You can try to impress the heck out of me with your expertise, but you do not understand that when you are claiming a word mark, you have to show the claimed words, as words on the freaking specimen.

The specimen further needs to show the mark "on or in connection with the goods or services" offered. The specimen shows a banner ad on an unrelated calendar page - it does not show the words and it does not show them on the goods or services.

Here you go, sunshine:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/0800.htm#_T80712

807.12 Mark on Drawing Must Agree with Mark on Specimen or Foreign Registration

37 C.F.R. §2.51 Drawing required.

(a) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.[/b]

http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/0800.htm#_T80703e

807.03(e) Standard Character Drawing and Specimen of Use

If the applicant submits a claim of standard character format, the mark shown in the drawing does not necessarily have to appear in the same font style, size, or color as the mark shown on the specimen of use. However, the examining attorney must review the mark depicted on the specimen to determine whether a standard character claim is appropriate, or whether a special form drawing is required.

If the examining attorney determines that the standard characters are displayed in a distinctive manner that changes the meaning or overall commercial impression of the mark, the examining attorney must process the drawing as a special form drawing, and require the applicant to delete the standard character claim. As with all drawings, the mark on the drawing must be a substantially exact representation of the mark used on the specimen in an application under §1 of the Trademark Act. 37 C.F.R. §§2.51(a) and (b); TMEP §807.12(a).

You filed for a standard character word mark - that is the drawing. Your specimen fails to show the claimed words on it.

You believe a drawing of a seagull is a "substantially exact" representation of the letter "O" in some font known only to you.

Good luck with that.

ANYONE ON NAMEPROS - Look a the .jpg that Ken attached and tell me where you see the words "FLORIDA WEEKLY" in standard characters, of any font, as claimed in his trademark application - right there where he drew the red box and arrow.

My last post relating to donations was back on 9/14 (#52)

Well, it is still there. I'm sorry you don't like the scrutiny of your claims, but if the other side were here seeking support, they'd get the same scrutiny.

Tread lightly.

Is that a threat, Ken?

Look, I'm not the one looking for help with your case on a public mailing list:

You know what you said above about a potential 2(f) claim by FMG?

From: Marc J. Randazza [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:16 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: (INTA List) Record time to Acquired Distinctiveness

What is the fastest that anyone has seen a descriptive word mark achieve
"acquired distinctiveness"? Personal experiences, citations, rumors, (or
beer) are all helpful.

____________________________
Marc John Randazza
Attorney at Law
Weston, Garrou, DeWitt & Walters
781 Douglas Avenue
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

Gee, Ken, why do you suppose your attorney has a sudden interest in how quickly someone can mount a 2(f) claim in the face of a descriptiveness refusal from the USPTO?

If it makes you feel any better, I did post an answer to his question on that mailing list.

Attorneys from your opposing counsel's firm ALSO read that mailing list. Do you think they are retarded?

There you go. But, for crying out loud, as Labrocca said, it's a mystery why you keep responding here, or why your attorney is seeking help on an identifiable case on a public mailing list.

Please consider "The First Rule of Holes".

And as for:

ill conceived representations about facts that you all know nothing about.

Are these the "hard facts" you have posted, or some other set of facts which, obviously, we don't know anything about?

 

[DNQuest.com]

I did not wander into NamePros. I was already a member here before any of this.

Actually, you joined at point 26, when you conceptually imagined you online magazine.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I did a lil reading and found this noted in the "refused" TM registration (which by the way is not a total refusel os one would lead to beleive).

The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.

They are basically saying that there is no other TM this application would infringe upon.

They even go to great lengths to say how the application could possibly be approved with some changes.

 

[jberryhill]

They even go to great lengths to say how the application could possibly be approved with some changes.

Well, you left out the reason it was refused - i.e. geographical descriptiveness.

IF the applicant were able to come up with evidence of "acquired distinctiveness" under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, or otherwise persuade the Examining Attorney, it would be registered.

Now, showing five years of continuous and substantially exclusive use is a prima facie case for acquired distinctiveness, but it is not the *only* way to do it. That's why the question was posed on the INTA list for examples of applicants who had done so on less than five years of use.

 

[giudice]

The attached evidence from the Internet shows that the primary significance of the term “FLORDIA” in the mark is the name of a geographic location. Purchasers are likely to believe the services originate in that geographic location because applicant is located there, and the goods likely concern Florida issues. Thus, there is a presumed services-place association in this case. In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2001); In re U.S. Cargo, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1702 (TTAB 1998); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998); In re Chalk’s International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991); In re California Pizza Kitchen, 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1989); In re Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., 214 USPQ 848 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §1210.04.



The mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the applicant and its goods because of the term “FLORDIA” in the mark, and despite the presence of the term “WEEKLY.” This term is generic for the applicant’s newspaper goods, and thus incapable of serving as an indicator of source. Please see the attached Internet evidence of the generic significance of this term, showing that it is the common commercial name for newspapers that appear on a weekly basis. The addition of a generic or highly descriptive term to a geographic term does not obviate a determination of geographic descriptiveness. See In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2001); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998); In re Chalk’s International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991); In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989); In re California Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988); In re Cambridge Digital Systems, 1 USPQ2d 1659 (TTAB 1986); In re BankAmerica Corp., 231 USPQ 873 (TTAB 1986); In re Application of Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., 214 USPQ 848 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii).



The three major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are: (1) to protect only marks that are distinctive enough to serve as indicators of a unique source; (2) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods or services; and (3) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the registrant. This thus enables businesses and competitors to have the freedom to use common descriptive language when merely describing their own goods or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382, 383 (C.C.P.A. 1968); Armour & Co. v. Organon Inc., 245 F.2d 495, 114 USPQ 334, 337 (C.C.P.A. 1957); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1526-1527 (TTAB 2001); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1448 (TTAB 2000).

Avoiding the §2(e)(2) Merely Geographically Descriptive Refusal​

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register. However, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq. Please note that amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.



To amend to the Supplemental Register, the applicant need only provide a written request to do so. Although Supplemental Register registration does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:



* The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
* The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);
* The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
* The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.



Please note that if registration of the mark is sought on the Supplemental Register, the Office will require applicant to disclaim “WEEKLY” because such wording is generic in the context of applicant’s goods/services. In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 196 USPQ 7 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, Inc., 229 USPQ 766 (TTAB 1986); In re Carolyn’s Candies, Inc., 206 USPQ 356 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

[labrocca]

Anyone else get a headache reading the post above mine?

 

[Mike]

Anyone else get a headache reading the post above mine?

You actually read the whole thing? :lol:

After the first few lines my brain immediately switched to "Paging Dr.Berryhill" ...

IB

 

[Badger]

As much as I always enjoy reading John's somewhat succinct rhetoric, this thread has become more than a little confusing.

Not because it isn't interesting in the voyeuristic sense of the word but more because I simply don't understand why the OP seems to want to fight on, seemingly against anyone.

On a serious note, I firmly believe that life is for living and that conflicts and disputes are a waste of everyones time and should be avoided at all costs. I live my life by this rule and thus far it's served me well. However, I understand that some cannot detach themselves from their pride being dented and will fight on no matter what. Why the OP didnt just file a simple reply to the C&D is anyones guess, as its pointed out, it was a simple "oh, just go away and stop trying to hijack my name" reply. And why then he's taken a new fight to those trying to help him here is anyones guess.

There are things in your life worth fighting for, name calling, lame threats, minutia and irrelevance not withstanding. Pride always comes before a fall..

My lay advice in this very learned forum is to get out of the law suit as fast as possible, lighten up and live the rest of your life as if every day was your last.

 

[DNQuest.com]

giudice
First Time Poster!


Trader Rating: (0)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
NP$: 0.00 (Donate)


Very interesting first time post.. gee, I wonder if he has any vested interest inthis case??? hmmm, I wonder what his IP address, I wonder if it is similar to any other users here?? hmmmm very interesting indeed. I wonder where I saw this before?

http://www.floridaweekly.com/legal/USPTO refusal of FMG trademark.doc

In no way am I implying anything, just found it a coincedence. But what I don't understand is what position the poster is taking?? Or is it just for informational purposes?

 

[labrocca]

On a serious note, I firmly believe that life is for living and that conflicts and disputes are a waste of everyones time and should be avoided at all costs. I live my life by this rule and thus far it's served me well.

Agreed whole-heartedly. And most normal people imho would agree. It's rare that you find another person that just wants to be an asshole over things. It happens but normally given a couple days people tend to come to their senses. What's funny is this matter has gone so far south that the devil himself doesn't want to deal with it.

You actually read the whole thing?

Tried a few times...failed. Yoda would not be pleased.

 

[evilopinions]

Ken,

If I were you I would shut my mouth and talk to John personally about the case instead of arguing with him on something that he was born to do...

And yeah the way that this thread is catching speed , I see no reason why lawyers on the oppsoite side take hints from John's post and gain advantage...you are already in a situation why are you trying to dig deeper...

+ you came for help...If you seek help , the first rule is listen....Unless of course you know what you are doing and you do not need help but just wanting publicity

 

[jberryhill]

I wonder where I saw this before?

It's the full text of the refusal from the USPTO of FMG's application. What it says is:

1. The proposed mark is geographically descriptive.

2. If you have an argument against that, let's hear it.

3. Otherwise, you can amend to the supplemental register, disclaim the word "weekly", and then wait until you have sufficient evidence that the mark has obtained meaning among consumers as a mark.

I see no reason why lawyers on the oppsoite side take hints from John's post and gain advantage.

I doubt it. FMG is not entitled to the domain name on the apparent facts of the situation. That much has always been clear.

What has happened, though, is that rather than having an argument between a trademark claimant (FMG) and the registrant of a prior, defensible, descriptive domain name (Ken), this thing has been transformed into an argument between two competing trademark claimants.

Very interesting first time post.. <...> I wonder if he has any vested interest inthis case?

I believe "Giudice" is the Italian derivate of the Latin "iudex", which may refer to a judge, or to a court generally.

My Italian, though, is probably not as good as some other folks...

I doubt it is anyone involved in the case. While attorneys, for example, are generally encouraged to participate in public forums about legal issues, it is considered poor form to do so and not to disclose one's role in the matter.

 

[liquidcherry]

Yoda would not be pleased.

A Jedi's strength flows from the Force, read again you must labrocca!