Slashdot Mirror
Battle over earth.com
Charles Bronson writes "A
Mass. clothing company who's producing a new line of footware
called 'Earth Shoes,' has filed suit against hobbyist Tony
Saunders, who owns operates earth.com. Despite the fact that he does not conduct commerce and he has been using earth.com since 1994, some years prior to the existance of Earth Shoes, the company claims that he is infringing upon their trademark. What trademark? Well, in 1984, the company alledgly trademarked 'Earth' and 'Earth Shoe.'"
My dad was an earth shoe advocate, and kept
them in his closet for 10 years. Finally,
my mom got em though.....
Just thought I would share this nonsense with ya:)
I don't see how the word Earth can be trademarked. It's too generic of a word. That would be like trying to trademark any other one word noun in the english language.
that trying to trademark common words and names
just isnt possible...
Wow, if I trademarked all *the* articles in *th* English language, I'd get *a* ton of royalties! :/
I wore earthshoes in the 70s and looked like a goof in grammer school. How could the company trademark them in the 80s?
When you think about what they make (dumb shoes) it makes sense they would fight like this. They're goofs.
Ron Rangel
Let's tell them what we think
about their actions, good or
bad.
This guy can't afford an attorney.
Let's change the rules.
/.
Like Windows? Seriously though. Why don't they go after earthshoe.com instead? That seems to be a better domain. I would have no idea that earth.com would be a shoe company anymore than I thought saturn.com would be Saturn car company.. make it saturncars.com or something.
The compensation for legal fees is necessary
if you want the legal system to make any sense.
As it is anyone with money to burn can use the
legal system to humiliate a person that has not
(or lacks the time to deal with that ).
Of course lawers are against such automatic
compensation because it will cut the number of
cases imensly...
news.com says the trademark was acquired 1985, but the context of the article indicates that Mondial acquired the trademark after Sanders obtained the earth.com domain in 1994. So, 1985 is probably a typo and should be 1995. Where'd Charles Bronson get 1984 from?
Apparently Earth shoes is impinging on another set of tradmarks and should expect a lawsuit to be filed against THEM. The "Unified Union of Brain Damaged and Crack Addicts" feels this lawsuit against earth.com infringes on their IP also.
teasea@work sans password.
There's got to be an uranus.gov or an uranus.mil out there somewhere.:-)
.mil site. I guess I'll name our next computer uranus.xxxx.xxxx.mil. Let's see, nslookup, ... nope, name not taken. I bet our network folks will probably reject it.
Hmmm, I work at a
This message is serving as general notice that I have applied to patent a process where oxygen it taken, used in a cellular process to extract 3ap from carbohydrate molecules and produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
From now on, all persons wanting to employ this process must obtain my specific consent (at a fair licensing fee to recoup my R&D investment) or face severe legal action.
Thank you for your acknowledgement.
I heard about this planet named Earth, it should probably change its name so it doesn't infringe on Earth Shoes patent.
Anybody have some decent contact addresses for these fuckers? I've sent nastygrams to Colgate-Palmolive, Nintendo, Archie Comics, oh, and about a dozen others that I can't recall now...would be nice to add these [probable cigarette smoking NT using Superbowl watching] MOTHERFUCKERS! :-)
Earth Shoes were indeed as he described. If
Root Shoes were also that way, that's fine,
but it does not mean the original poster was
wrong.
NOTICE:
Sun has TradeMarked DOT (as in the dot in "dot com")! and YOU (slashDOT) are in VIOLATION of Sun's TRADEMARK!!! anyone who uses a "." or the word "dot", "Dot", or "DOT" is in DIRECT violation of Sun's TradeMark! Therefore anyone writing a sentance must now ask in writing to use the "." character! from now on all sentances must end with a "!" character!
NOTICE:
that the "Java-Jacket" coffee cup holder is in VIOLATION of the "Java" trademark! a Law suit is pending that will sue anyone who has drunk coffee and called it "Java".
NOTICE:
the initials "MS" are trademark of Microsoft! the the disease formerly known as MS (Multiple-Sclerosis) will have to be re-named!
NOTICE:
The Apple is a TradeMark of Apple computers... any image depicting an apple, or anyone eating an apple will have to have written permission from Apple.
NOTICE:
VA is a trademark of Viagra Associated Research. VA Research must forfiet the url: varesearch!
NOTICE:
Bill is a Trademark of Bill Gates! all URLs with Bill in them Must forfiet!
How can someone own the word "Earth"? this is amazing. If earth.com doesn't sell shoes, there should legally be no problem.
As I understand it, and be warned, I am not trademark lawyer, but I thought trademark is generally a contextual thing.
:)) the trademark 'Earth' does not extend to that usage.
I can trademark the word 'Goldfish' in relation to software publication... So my (imaginary) company Goldfish Software Inc., can sue Goldfish Developments when they use my trademark, 'goldfish' in conjunction with software publishing activities, or more specifically, using my trademark, unfairly in competition against me.
However Goldfish Records is safe unless they start to publish software...
That applys also to using other people's trademarks in advertising... I can use the Trademark 'Microsoft' in my advertising, as long as I disclaim 'Microsoft, Windows and Excel are Trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation' and that I am not using their trademark unfairly to attract extra business in competition with them.
-- Like I said I am not a Trademark lawyer, but I have read up on a little law in that area, and those are basically my conclusions...
Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Earth Shoes or whoever can claim trademark infringement from a sole-trader who is using the word earth in a completely non-competitive way, in a different market (if anyone asks he sells used fruit
Anonymous only because I forget my password and am too lazy to do anything about it...
Sycophant, dylan@linux.net.nz
If *do* get an address for them, say 1234 Moron Way, it would be a cool idea to trademark "1234 Moron Way Shoes".
If an occupied address can be "owned" as part of late trademark process, wouldn't Earth Shoes then have to move? Could be a lot of fun...
Time to remove DNS as a bad idea and go back to standard dotted quad addressing. It's apparently the only way to satisfy all these companies.
All this time, we were afraid that Bill Gates would take over the earth.
Instead, we find that a measly shoe company has.
(not anon, just not logged on)
-cswiii
I heard mention somewhere that in order to keep a trademark you have to prove that you defend it every so many years. Maybe these lawsuits aren't intended to be won, but just intended to have documentation that a trademark is being "actively defended" ? I could see maybe toys r us being a bastardly company and thinking all X R US names belong to them, but I really can't see that Earth Shoes would have any even remotely legitimate claim to earth.com. I also can't see that Archie comics would have any claim to veronica.org. Would they have tried this if earth.com was owned by a large environmental activist group? Is there some kind of legal clause that says that taking anyone at all to court over trademark matters gains them something?
Mondial comes up #2 in my list (not ordered in any way)...
1.® Kalmbach Publishing Co.
2.® Mondial Trading Co. Ltd.
3.® Escuela de Agricultura de la Region Tropical Humeda
4.® NIAGARA CONSERVATION CORP.
5.® Kalmbach Publishing Co.
6.® SHEPHERD MACHINERY CO.
7.® TONUS, INC.
8.® EARTH CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.
Did anyone else notice that Tony Sanders is the developer of image maps? He also helped develop the CGI spec, and wrote the first HTTP/1.0 compliant web server.
Finally an adult posts on slashdot.
I thought the U.S. already had that sort of compensation. We have it up here...and yes...there are a lot less of these frivolous, abusive suits.
Yes, but then who gets the _Cool_ numbers?
I hope the judge just laughs these guys and their "claim" out into the street and the gutter where it belongs. Gee, lets go trademark a bunch of url names after the fact and sue them. While we are at it, let's patent the idea of using a trademark as a domain name to sue all the big companies too, like ibm and microsoft and...
Reading from http://www.nolo.com/PCTM/4overview.html:
---
By contrast, marks that consist of common or ordinary words are not considered to be inherently
distinctive, absent a showing that consumers recognize them because of their long use. Such weak
marks receive less protection under federal or state laws. Typical examples of common or
ordinary words are:
people's names (Pete's Muffins, Smith Graphics)
geographic terms (Northern Dairy, Central Insect Control), and
---
Hold on a sec.
Isn't "earth" about as geographic a term as you can get?
Perpetual Newbie
I had my pair in the early 70s. They had the heels lower than the toe section. Supposed to emulate 'natural' walking on a beach. Ever notice how much more work it is to walk on sand, compared to, say, packed earth?
Earth shoes made walking feel like slogging through sand. Did stretch the achilles tendon though. Only thing dumber were platform shoes. I had a pair of those too. You had to be there.
The point is, the product predates this company's copyright application. There was an Earth Shoe in the early to mid 1970s.
Actually Appple computers licensed the name from Apple Corp. with the agreement that they could not enter the music business. Apple also licensed Macintosh from the manufacturer of Macintosh Amplifiers.
Anyone who watched "Mr. Show" will find great laughter when they read this article.
...would you buy a shoe from this company Earth Shoe? How much are you worth? Earth Shoe workers unite, you are pathetic.
I wonder if I can trademark the word "shoe" and slam a multimillion-dollar lawsuit on Earth Shoes?
This is true. What we need to do is avoid statutory tort reform and just get judges on the bench who have an ouce of common sense. The judge should simply be able to, in the case of a frivilous lawsuit, issue a verdict commanding the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for all costs incurred by the suit. He should not, however, be required to do so by statutory law.
Common law is a much more reasonable solution to most problems than statutory law. A "one-size-fits-all" bill passed by a legislature simply can have too many loopholes for it to be worthwile, and simply ends up costing everyone money instead. Regulatory commissions are also unnessecary to this end. If a business is somehow defrauding its customers or somehow causing the customer to incur damages unbeknownst to him at the time of the use of the product, a simple lawsuit and verdict is a much better remedy than statutory interference.
We need to hunt these @#$%ers down, rip off their nipples and beat them to death with the wet end. This copyrighting smeg is getting old.
So how long before we need millions of dollars just to have a conversation with our neighbor?
Didn't this used to belong to some kind of porn site until NASA spanked them into oblivion? :)
Huh?
So you're saying I should be able to trademark a name after now that already has a url in use and THEN go back and sue them for using my name? I don't care what you want to call it, I call it wrong...
So when will you countersue?
I'll gladly assist you in posting a boycott anouncement for Earth Shoes and Earth Wear. They brought it on themselves. Let's finish it together.
honorable1@hotmail.com
If big stupid companies keep up the paste, let's say I register the domain name "www.i_love_vodka.com", will I get sued in 4-5 months because a company claims to own the rights to the expression "i love vodka" ?
When? Well my unedjicated guess would be when the trademark office starts saying "No! You can't trademark that!!" and then hit a button under their desk and the people fall down the trap door and are eaten alive by a pack of lions.
If that doesn't happen, I don't see any end to these patent/trademark issues Slashdot is always posting.
No! Earth has gotten away with this blatent abuse of this obvious trademark for far too long already. It's about time those inhabitants paid for what's rightfully this shoe company's trademark.
The earth.com guy says Mondial bought the name which some other company registered in '85 after he registered earth.com in '94.
That's what I got out of it anyway.
Then we'll have people just registering numbers. IBM will sue anyone with '123' in their IP. That reminds me, better sign up for some trademarks on all the digits. That'll cover me.
Amusingly enough, Apple Records once tried to sue Apple Computer. If I recall correctly, Apple Computer agreed that their computers would never be used as recording devices...that's where the system sound "Sosumi" comes from.
Posted by Tony.Sanders:
You cannot imagine how much better my day is bacause of all the supportive messages I have read. The humor has helped a lot also.
Here is one in return:
Doh! They spelled my name wrong!
It's "Sanders".
If this forum is still around tomorrow I will post some of the details that people seem to be confused about. As you might expect I tried to spend this weekend *not* thinking about this so I didn't bring home my special copy of "The Complaint" papers this weekend.
For those wishing to look into this topic more there are several good sites out there.
www.domain-name.org
Domain Name Rights Coalition
www.domains.org
American Association of Domain Names
lawoffices.net/tradedom/sempap.htm
Domain Names and Dilution
www6.annap.infi.net/~jwaldron/overview.html
Trademark act of 1946 (amended 1994)
I will clarify some of the non-technical bits:
The lawyer for Mondial contacted me late last year. He said his client had a trademark on "Earth" and they wanted the domain. We didn't agree. Earlier this year he called again and threatened legal action, I asked to speak with someone at Mondial, he said ok but they never called.
Monday Feb 12, 1999 I was served papers (A Summons) filed in Mass. and stamped Nov 1998. It's 6 pages, plus an ugly print out of one of my web pages and a few trademark registration papers (one for Earth Shoe and 2 for Earth, the older of which, I was told by their lawyer, they had recently acquired).
I will post the lawyers contact info when I verify that it's within my rights to do so (I don't want to get sued again). But since the papers were filed with the court in Mass. you should be able to figure it out with a phone call.
Posted by Tony.Sanders:
Ok, there is the text of the lawsuit.
www.earth.com/underfire/complaint.txt
I'm missing the exhibits which are my whois info, a print out of my "about earth.com" web page and the trademark registrations which can be had from http://trademarks.uspto.gov/ -- in other words, stuff that is already online.
I hope a couple of people will pick it up and mirror it in case my site goes down and I hope
that people will continue to spread the word about this.
-- Sanders
Brilliance is typically the act of an individual, but incredible stupidity can usually be traced to an organization. -- "More Programming Pearls", Jon Bentley
I think that first come first serve is the only fair way to deal with domain names. Its just too much of a pain and too costly any other way.
Go to Yahoo, and search on Mondial.
I found 63 different Mondials in various businesses (including footwear). Methinks they should be careful where they tread (sorry) unless they would like the same treatment.
In fact, I did mistake one of the links for them (turned out to be a shoe componants company based in Italy). Seems they may be ACTUALLY diluting someone's trademark themselves!
Unfortunatly, none of those hits appear to be the relevant party so I still don't know where to send the nastygram.
Launch a counter-suit, claiming harassment. (The company -knows- you can't trademark common names, so their suit surely counts as harassment.) Might as well throw one in for damaging property, too. (A site name is property, and associating it with those shoes is probably damage.) Chances are, the company is playing chicken with the legal system (who folds last, wins) - so raise the stakes.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If I remember correctly, "Earth Shoes" were designed in 1957 by a Scandanavian yoga instructor. They were first sold in the U.S. in 1970 and they reached their peak of popularity in 1974. The company went bankrupt in 1977.
They were made with low heels and wide toes and were intended to more closely conform to the "natural" requirements of the foot.
It is so '90s that the '70s are being rehashed for profit by corporations with uptight lawyers.
G. O. D.
Guaranteed overnight delivery.
You see their trucks on the road all the time. I'm surprised they don't have the domain www.god.com yet...
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
No, this isn't a joke. nasa.com is really owned by the people who own suck.org Here's the whois entry:
Owner:
The Epicenter Network
Address:
1344 Broadway, Suite 211
Hewlett, New York 11557
US
Last Updated:
August 18, 1997
Administrative Contact:
SUCK-Domain Holdings (HNH2-ORG) operations@SUCK.ORG
800-697-2437
Fax- - 800-697-2437
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
SUCK-Auditing (HNA-ORG) audit@SUCK.ORG
800-697-2437
Fax- - 800-697-2437
Billing Contact:
SUCK-Domain Billing (HNB-ORG) payables@SUCK.ORG
800-697-2437
Fax- - 800-697-2437
Name Servers:
NS1.SUCK.ORG 205.166.250.23
NS2.SUCK.ORG 205.166.250.33
It looks like they reserved earthshoes.com and earthshoes.net. back in Oct.1998 (but they still haven't set up any names or sites).
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
Of all the plain-sounding names out there, nither time.com nor earth.com talk about Time or the Earth. I think the NIST in Boulder, Colorado ought to get time.com. As for earth.com -- cdrom.com ought to get it.
Earth Shoe
Don't need a lawyer on this case. Unless of course you want to counter sue for malicious prosecutionEarth
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
derGott, God of nothing
They were shoes that had the heel slightly lower than the toe. It wasn't a huge difference, and there was supposedly had some health benefit to this arrangement - better posture, more foot comfort or something. I was a kid in the mid-70's when they made a big media splash. I thought they sank without a trace in the 80's, but I guess I was wrong.
Eric
A search on Four11 turns up the following addy for a Michel J Meynard in Massachusetts: 102414.567@compuserve.com, odds are it's him. No telling if it's still a current address though.
I can't find any direct connection between MM and Mondial, so no telling what this guy's role is. He may just be the web developer, but from the sound of "Michel Meynard Inc." he sounds just like the kind of ego-maniac that thinks he can trademark the word "Earth". That's just my opinion though.
If you think about it, any inhabited planet even remotely like this one is probably named something that translates to "dirt".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As has been noted, Earth Shoes were in their heyday in the '70s. I've been scanning in old newsletters from WORT (Madison, WI community radio station) as part of an archival project, and there are several Earth Shoes ads in those newsletters. If anyone's interested see this link as well as some of the other newsletter links, they're logically named. Beware, the images are kinda big (~400 KB or so) and I'm not done cleaning them up. From the brief news.com article it appears this new company ``acquired the [Earth Shoes] trademark'', which probably means the old Earth Shoes trademark was no longer valid, or the new company bought it. My honey tells me the original Earth Shoes were uncomfortable as hell. They sure were ugly!
Leigh
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
Oops. Candy bar. Pluto(TM)'s taken too. (Disney character)...Saturn(TM) and Mercury(TM) are out. Damn cars. Jupiter, anyone?
No matter how you slice it, Nasa is screwed.
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
trademark 'com' 'org' and 'net' and sue every person who holds a domain on the 'net. the insanity must end! mandatory death penalty for idiocy!
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Time after time, people who have just stumbled onto this whole "internet thing" fail to understand that this medium is more than just another chance for commercial exploitation. This used to be an intellectual medium encourage the sharing of thoughts. Now it simply encourages buying. Reminds me of the Europeans coming over to America and treating it as their own 'undiscovered' property, without regard to the fact that there was already an established civilization there long before-hand.
Now those of us who were here to enjoy the earlier days of the 'net (and thus to appreciate it) are being shoved out of the way so those who truly deserve to exploit every possible medium (businesses) take over.
I wonder whatever happened to good, honest business? I'm all for a capitalistic society, but let's try to temper it with good judgement instead of trying to patent and own everything.
Just out of curiosity, I decided to try and count everything within arm's reach of me that had a logo, trademark, or other stamp of ownership:
Not counting hardware, I have 47 items with a logo or advertisement. The only item within reach that escapes some type of claim or advertising is a blank piece of paper with a URL written on it.
Now, I'm off to patent birth as a concept and practice, the alphabet, and clapping.
A group of college students studying law or donated legal expertise from elsewhere, combined with the proving boycotting/petitioning strength of Slashdot'ers could be a beautiful thing.
I would envision a small group of people elected to review requests for assistance in defending a domain name, and if it appears that an injustice is indeed occuring, then it would be passed on to the legal-team and Slashdot readers to make an organized effort on behalf of the domain owner to retain his purchased name.
Totally non-profit. Totally non-government. Just a group of people with weight to throw-around to counter the mafia-types who try to lean on the little guy.
Q: What do you call 1,000 dead lawyers?
A: A good start.
Well, In "Bread And Circuses" Spock mentions an add for the "Jupiter 8" (an automobile, presumably). So it looks like Jupiter may be out, too. (At least in the Star Trek universe. :-) Oh, Well...)
(2) "Earth shoes" sound a little, well, crumbly... and prone to sprouting... and difficult to clean...
(3) Perhaps we could take this to its logical conclusion and copyright the name "The And But Why Internet Store", then sue everyone who uses "and", "but", "why", "the", "internet" or "store" in their name?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This poor guy can't afford an attorney (Such is the case with many situations like this) Would some kind hearted lawyer donate his time to this cause? It would be most appriciated. I don't know the guy, but I DESPISE corperate bullying like this.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
. . . er, trouble(tm).
Just for grins, I checked, and every one of the following words is a domain:
in.com
the.com
beginning.com
god.com
created.com
the.com
heaven.com
and.com
the.com
earth.com.
and.com
the.com
earth.com
was.com
without.com
form.com
and.com
void.com . . .
Okay, screw this, I'm copyrighting the letters
'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', and 'y'. Anyone who
uses them better pay me royalties, or I'll sue.
A copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
E copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
I copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
O copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
U copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
Y copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello
All rights reserved.
'...' copyright (C) 1999 Chris Costello, patent pending.
The name 'Chris' is a trademark of Chris Costello industries.
What, you mean like "Apple"?
You can trademark a common noun, but only in a very specific context. Apple Computer can, for example, sue other computer hardware and software outfits for using "Apple", but would have a hard time attacking apple farmers or Apple Records.
Sounds to me that these Earth Shoes people have no case, and they're trying to see if the expense of retaining an attorney will be enough to scare this poor guy out of his domain name.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I knew I should of became a lawyer. I could make money on these stupid lawsuits.
-Brook Harty
Well it seems stupidity on Internet is reaching its top. Some years ago we had a well known company trying to trademark the name Windows. Also we had another one trying to do the same thing on x86 numbers.
We have passed this one only to wait for a bunch of green horns, who passed more than 2/3 of their lies away from anything related to computers.
It is pretty clear that they will get burned on it. Just imagine someone trademarking the word "God" (property of Heaven Industries).
Unfortunately this thing is happening because some people have turned a federal organ in the US into a small street bazaar. As far as I see nowadays any stupid idea, plagiate, dream/nightmare, schizo seems to be possible to register or trademark while you pay for it. Some of the last issued "certificates" of respectability are already creating some serious damage and may undermine what a patent/trademark is made for. At least personally I can't hang on a patent issued by a organ who "certificates" new perpetuom mobiles and clear plagiates that even violate international copyright laws.
Will this nonsense ever end?
All I see is a company who wanted to register earth.com and found out it was already taken.
Some companies are just snobs to the highest level.
Earth Shoes are sandles. I have a pair sitting
here next to my Playstation. A Walmart special.
They are pretty cool, but I would be happy to
write a letter saying I won't buy a new pair this
summer if they are going to try to kill the domain of the guy that invented image maps!! (on his web site).
He ran the Inet-Access mailing list for years and years until Avi Freedman took it over, I think in mid-1998.
He was an excellent list administrator - always did a fine job. My ISP FAQ is/was based on messages on that list.
D
True... I hadn't even looked at it that way. A company can spend thousands of dollars sueing just to bully a person into giving up his/her rights. A person who is limited on the financial side will give up those rights very quick when considdering the costs of a lawsuit.
I find this thought pretty scary... I thought one of the rules of internic were that once your domain-name was approved it was yours. Aren't domain-names distributed on a first come first serve bases, and wasn't that company virtually unknown at the time that the domain was registered?
I think that any judge with a bit of common sence would understand that something as general as a noun in the English language, even if it's associated with some famous product, doesn't have to be that trademark. Names that aren't really nouns in a language are very elligable trademarks (eg. Nike, Coca Cola), but trademarking words from an existing language (eg soap, soup, chicken, earth) seems to me like an attempt at stretching the use of trademarking far beyond the original intent.
We live in a society where money easily outdoes the rights of the individual, even though we are supposed to be protected against such things by the law.
I did a quick check of the US PTO database and found several registrations for EARTH including one that *preceeds* Mondial Trading Companie's trademark registration by quite a bit.
:-)
Earth Chemical also has an active trademark registration that preceeds Mondial's by 8 years and date of first use preceeds Mondial's by 39 years! Thus this company below could sue Mondial
Word Mark
EARTH
Owner Name
(REGISTRANT) EARTH CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.
Owner Address
3218-12 SAKOSHI AKO, HYOGO-KEN JAPAN CORPORATION JAPAN
Attorney of Record
SIMOR L MOSKOWITZ
Serial Number
73-083859
Registration Number
1069253
Filing Date
04/14/1976
Registration Date
07/12/1977
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Register
PRINCIPAL
Affidavits
SECT 8.; SECT 15.; COMBINED SECT 8 AND SECT 15.
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Renewals
1ST RENEWAL 1997.06.17
International Class
005
Goods and Services
INSECTICIDES AND OTHER VERMIN DESTROYERS; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1931.05.01;
DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1931.05.01
Dear Earth Shoes,
Thank you for showing me how fucking retarded your company is. I will be sure to buy my next pair of shoes from your competitors.
Bowie J. Poag
What about the obvious examples?
Apple, Macintosh (a type of apple), Newton, Windows, Word, Excel, Access, and even Trash Can (owned by Apple.)
Jeez, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody has "Trademark" trademarked.
fine print:
All trademarks illegally used, and meant to cause harm to their holders. Go ahead and TRY to sue me.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
It's a load of crap. This is the sort of capitilistic garbage we have come up with in America? Screw that cheeseball shoe maker. May Nike crush them.
The resources are out there to learn the difference. It would make your arguments more persuasive if you would at least argue about the right legal rules governing the issues at hand.
In particular, see:
Findlaw's Trademark Page
Nolo Press's Trademark Page
Fortunately, there are many attorneys who know a lot about the subject who feel as pissed about trademark abuse and are actually doing something about it. Lets all hope they are successful -- the Slashdot community should help where possible!
I wore Roots, which were essentially the same design. Great shoes, well made, long lasting, and comfortable as hell.
.....maybe I will try to find some now!
Your honey may not have worn them enough to stretch her calves. When I alternated between roots and boots, my legs never ached.
--- Bill
I like it when people leave links. (really) I don't always have time to go to these pages and read though....
/. ID.
There's no real point to this post, I am really just testing out my new
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
SUN anyone?
Last time I checked they owned www.sun.com