Patents will only be canceled if someone petitions it. Just like in the case of this trademark. The USPTO didn't just up and decide to do so on their own.
So you think it's perfectly fine if the Federal government allows a trademark for a dating service called "Republican Connection", but prohibits one called "Lesbian Connection", because the word "lesbian" is offensive to someone? Or allows a trademark for a cemetary called "The Arms Of God", but denies one for "Atheist's Rest" on the grounds that a specifically atheist cemetary is an offensive concept?
Sure. Trademarks are not a right and they are only granted at the behest of the framework that Congress created.
Is there any line, or can the Government capriciously grant or deny any trademark for any reason because "[trademarks] are not a right"?
The USPTO can do whatever it wants within the statutory framework laid out by Congress.
I'm not saying that "Redskins" would fall under an equal protection jurisdiction, but your response seems to slew too far in the opposite direction.
My response aligns with 100+ years of statutory law and much case law.
But there is no reinterpretation. The clause about not allowing disparaging copyrights is more than a century old, has plenty of case law behind it and this is not the first time that has been used to deny or revoke a trademark.
Though they are technically in Washington DC, one would suspect that the Equal Protection Clause would say otherwise.
Maybe only those ignorant of statutory and case law. Trademarks derive from Congress' Commerce Clause power. They are not constitutionally protected. The Trademark statutes even specifically mention that trademarks that are disparaging to both those who are living or dead can be denied and cancelled.
There is even recent case law In Re Geller 13-1412. You can even read the ruling here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/i... where there is also lots of other case law citations to back up their ruling.
It's not. These people are just completely ignorant of both statutory and case law around trademarks. Trademarks are not First Amendment speech. Never have been never will be. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and the Trademark Act. Congress could revoke every single registered trademark if they wanted to be simply abolishing the Trademark act.
As I posted in another part of this discussion thestatutes on trademarks has allowed for both the refusal of trademarks that are disparaging.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
That's great, but Trademark law is not based on the First Amendment so what you brought up basically has no relation to the case at hand. Trademark law statute explicitly allows for the refusal or revocation of disparaging trademarks. This has been part of statutory law for decades.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
It's not an Equal Protection issue. Trademarks only exist because Congress passed laws to create them under their Commerce Clause authority. They are not a right.
Trademarks are not free speech and never have been. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and its statutes. Trademarks fall squarely under the Commerce clause not the First Amendment.
Trademarks have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Trademarks are not and have never been First Amendment speech. The entire constitutional basis of a trademark is the Commerce clause and Congress and its delegated authority can regulate trademarks as they please.
Trademarks are not a constitutional right. Congress didn't even pass laws to issue and regulate trademarks until 1870. Trademarks are not free speech and have never been considered so.
Actually the Supreme Court held the furst Trademark Act of 1870 to be unconstitutional because the Copyright Clause did not give them the power to protect and regulate trademarks. The Trade Mark Act of 1881 that used thr Commerce Clause as its basis was then considered constitutional.
I had no idea that I could be arrested for walking up to a Native American and using a racial slur and stating I was happy for what happened to their people in the past.
They'll hand it over to the US government which will share it to its 5 Eyes buddy the Canadian government. No different than what the UK and the US governments due to get around domestic laws on surveillance.
Apple didn't even say "may". They said "in rare cases". Sure, that is CYA wording but twisting that into saying it is prone to overheating is simply baiting.
Slashdot Mirror
Disqus already exists and it's terrible.
Article: Something about patent trolls
Post: Patent trolls should be strung up by their thumbs!!!
+5 insightful
Or make the "hilarious" joke about patenting the process of filing patents.
Patents will only be canceled if someone petitions it. Just like in the case of this trademark. The USPTO didn't just up and decide to do so on their own.
So you think it's perfectly fine if the Federal government allows a trademark for a dating service called "Republican Connection", but prohibits one called "Lesbian Connection", because the word "lesbian" is offensive to someone? Or allows a trademark for a cemetary called "The Arms Of God", but denies one for "Atheist's Rest" on the grounds that a specifically atheist cemetary is an offensive concept?
Sure. Trademarks are not a right and they are only granted at the behest of the framework that Congress created.
Is there any line, or can the Government capriciously grant or deny any trademark for any reason because "[trademarks] are not a right"?
The USPTO can do whatever it wants within the statutory framework laid out by Congress.
I'm not saying that "Redskins" would fall under an equal protection jurisdiction, but your response seems to slew too far in the opposite direction.
My response aligns with 100+ years of statutory law and much case law.
But trademarks are not free speech, they are an invention of Congress via the Trademark Act through their Commerce Clause powers.
But there is no reinterpretation. The clause about not allowing disparaging copyrights is more than a century old, has plenty of case law behind it and this is not the first time that has been used to deny or revoke a trademark.
Though they are technically in Washington DC, one would suspect that the Equal Protection Clause would say otherwise.
Maybe only those ignorant of statutory and case law. Trademarks derive from Congress' Commerce Clause power. They are not constitutionally protected. The Trademark statutes even specifically mention that trademarks that are disparaging to both those who are living or dead can be denied and cancelled.
There is even recent case law In Re Geller 13-1412. You can even read the ruling here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/i... where there is also lots of other case law citations to back up their ruling.
Now that the USPTO has shown it can cancel intellectual property, how about canceling some patents?
You didn't know that they could cancel trademarks? They've had that power for more than a century.
Trademarks are free speech issues.
No they aren't. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress through its Commerce Clause power which they used to pass the Trademark Act.
It's not. These people are just completely ignorant of both statutory and case law around trademarks. Trademarks are not First Amendment speech. Never have been never will be. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and the Trademark Act. Congress could revoke every single registered trademark if they wanted to be simply abolishing the Trademark act.
As I posted in another part of this discussion thestatutes on trademarks has allowed for both the refusal of trademarks that are disparaging.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
That's great, but Trademark law is not based on the First Amendment so what you brought up basically has no relation to the case at hand. Trademark law statute explicitly allows for the refusal or revocation of disparaging trademarks. This has been part of statutory law for decades.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
It's a equal protection issue.
Case law citations?
The government is arbitrarily deciding what is "good" speech from what is "bad" speech.
Trademarks are not speech. Never have been.
It's not an Equal Protection issue. Trademarks only exist because Congress passed laws to create them under their Commerce Clause authority. They are not a right.
Trademarks are not free speech and never have been. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and its statutes. Trademarks fall squarely under the Commerce clause not the First Amendment.
What do patents have to do with trademarks? The two are completely distinct things.
Trademarks have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Trademarks are not and have never been First Amendment speech. The entire constitutional basis of a trademark is the Commerce clause and Congress and its delegated authority can regulate trademarks as they please.
Trademarks are not a constitutional right. Congress didn't even pass laws to issue and regulate trademarks until 1870. Trademarks are not free speech and have never been considered so.
Actually the Supreme Court held the furst Trademark Act of 1870 to be unconstitutional because the Copyright Clause did not give them the power to protect and regulate trademarks. The Trade Mark Act of 1881 that used thr Commerce Clause as its basis was then considered constitutional.
Trademarks are a right? Since when?
I had no idea that I could be arrested for walking up to a Native American and using a racial slur and stating I was happy for what happened to their people in the past.
You can't.
Why can't we see both as equally dangerous? Why the false dilemma?
Five Eyes intelligence sharing will always be used to end run domestic laws.
They'll hand it over to the US government which will share it to its 5 Eyes buddy the Canadian government. No different than what the UK and the US governments due to get around domestic laws on surveillance.
Butthurt over what? Care to show that even 1% of 1% of iPhone users have even voiced such a complaint?
Apple didn't even say "may". They said "in rare cases". Sure, that is CYA wording but twisting that into saying it is prone to overheating is simply baiting.