[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: DINOSAUR digest 550



At 11:47 PM 1/28/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Quoth Seth:
>
> <long and relevant stuff deleted...>
>
>The commonness of the name SUE does not matter at all in trademark law. If
>it is arbitrary, non-descriptive, and original WITH RESPECT TO FOSSIL
>MATERIAL - and I believe it is - then it is potentially a valid trademark.
>I am given to understand that the BHI registered the trademark some time
>ago.
>
>Had they been able to protect their property from the federal government,
>and use it as the centerpiece of their planned museum, registering its name
>as a trademark would have been good business sense.
>
>Losing the fossil itself would not deprive them of an otherwise valid
>trademark, and that would appear to have led to an interesting negotiation.
>I can't blame them for trying to recover SOMETHING from their investment. I
>have no idea how much they asked for, so I don't know how to characterize
>the Field's apparent refusal to buy the name.

Yet if we purchase a trademarked item, we can still use the trademarked
name.  If the name only applies to the dinosaur, it should still apply
shouldn't it?  Or would it apply to ANY dinosaur found by someone in
particular?

Am I the only one who's confused??

-Randy

>
> Steve Jackson - yes, of SJ Games - yes, we won the Secret Service case
>  Learn Web or die - http://www.sjgames.com/ - dinosaurs, Lego, Kahlua!
>          The heck with PGP keys; finger for Geek Code. Fnord.
>
>
>
>