(no subject)

Date: 25/5/11 19:05 (UTC)
Honestly, I doubt this would pass muster at the TRO, if they're actually paying attention. This is a descriptive mark, and Disney hasn't established a secondary meaning in the mark, so the should be facially disqualified from registering it. Of course, that would require the regulator to be doing a good job of screening marks.

I do agree that TMs, in particular, shouldn't be treated as property. They should be dealt with mostly on unfair competition lines, not via assigning some inherent value to the mark itself and protecting that.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30