tvman said:
say you owned wigwang.com b4 it was tademarked, and then Sony came with a game of the same name and trademarked it, AFTER the fact of the .com reg, can they demand their name, or are they stuck to negotiate.......
On the other side of the coin, if you reg'd a name with the intentions of using this name for your own product and someone ELSE trademarked the same name AFTER the reg of the .com name, with either a differrent product in mind, or to try to steal the product/idea, would the person who aquired the .com b4 trademark have a stronger case, and retain rights to the use of the .com name problem free?
Just a question , Sony is just an example and wigwang is made up
I see this question in a variety of formulations about ten times a week.
This particular statement of the question is the one that I've pretty much taken to simply shaking my head and walking away from.
Here's the problem - I have no idea what you mean by the use of "trademark" as a verb in your question.
It's not because I'm dense, though. It's primarily because I have come to understand that forum folk may mean any of several different things by using "trademark" as a verb, and while the person asking the question may have something definite in mind, it is usually because that person has an implicit belief that a "trademark" is some sort of official act generally performed by a government office.
I have a dog. She is a stray dog that was taken in by my wife prior to our marriage, and when she lived in another state. She didn't get a license for the dog.
I'm something of a lazy person, and after the dog (and my wife) came to live with me, I didn't get around to obtaining a license for the dog. Eventually, I had to find some place to board the dog for a trip, and so I had to get a license for the dog. The dog was about four years old by that time.
Now, here's the point. My dog has been registered with my state as my dog for a little over a year. That's how long I've officially had my dog registered.
I've had the actual dog for three years, and the dog is five years old.
My dog was every bit as capable of biting your ass before I registered it, and my dog will remain every bit as capable of biting your ass if I don't happen to pay the registration fee for it next year.
The existence of my dog is a fact that is entirely independent of whether or not my dog is registered with the state. My registration of my dog has nothing to do with when it became "a dog", when it may or may not have been capable of biting you, or how long she has been my dog.
I think that essentially if you get them before the TM exists, you are safe.
Ah... you see the difference? Mr. Regging is careful to say "before the TM exists" instead of something vague like "before they trademarked it" or "got a trademark".
This is because Mr. Regging understands quite well that the key thing is that the existence of the TM determines priority. Mr. Regging further understands that there are more things in life than the UDRP. You would do well to grasp the things that Mr. Regging is saying here.
The problem with Mr. Regging's answer is not a fault of his understanding, or my understanding of his carefully chosen words, but of the reader's ability to understand that those words were carefully chosen.
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of folks who use trademark as a verb will understand Mr. Regging to have said "before the TM is registered" instead of "before the TM exists", again because of the fixation that the verbists have upon the act of registration.
In any event... she's quite a friendly and gentle dog who loves small children and puppies, and she would not actually bite your ass under any circumstance I could imagine...
...very much unlike her owner.
) would be kind enough to weigh in on this.
