Started By
Message
re: Randolph Duke taking it to the next level.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:50 am to Projectpat
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:50 am to Projectpat
It was me. Only let me remove 2 of the edits.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 11:52 am
2
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:53 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
It was me. Only let me remove 2 of the edits.
And to whoever this is...
quote:
Total beauty Randolph. I always liked $#@! like this because you can see the clear difference in class and intelligence between someone like you and those delusional hayseed hernias. It's nice to see that aggy is worse than originally anticipated.
Solid work.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 11:54 am
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:00 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
nice
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:37 pm to Agforlife
Oh, I get it, he's saying the trademark is unenforceable because the Date of First Use in Commerce is incorrect. Except that's largely bookkeeping data that can't be used to claim fraud unless it was material to the PTO's approval of the mark, provided it was in use at the time of filing. Hiragana v. Arena, 90 USPQ2d 1102. frickin' laymen thinking they know shite about IP law.
LINK
(And again, it's use in commerce so rando articles from other school newspapers using the phrase "12th Man" wouldn't be material to the approval of a mark.)
LINK
(And again, it's use in commerce so rando articles from other school newspapers using the phrase "12th Man" wouldn't be material to the approval of a mark.)
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:05 pm to Iosh
Here's a better quote explaining the actual law behind First Use dates. This comes from Standard Knitting v. Toyota, 77 USPQ2d 1917:
In simpler language, the TTAB (the court that reviews trademark disputes) presumes against a finding of fraud in all cases, and since we were obviously using the 12th Man in commerce by the filing date (1994) then it becomes a non-issue. Even failing that, nobody would expect a trademark attorney to do a thorough search of the Cushing library archives or whatever to contemporaneously fact-check the E. King Gill story when there were so many other sources repeating the 1922 date, so it wouldn't rise to the level of knowing misrepresentation in an opposition proceeding.
I don't know why our Seahawks settlement sucks so much, but it's not because our Date of First Use in Commerce is wrong. Or if it is, we need better lawyers, because I'm hungover and still didn't even need to fire up Westlaw to debunk this crap.
quote:
Fraud must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and any doubt must be resolved against a finding of fraud. See Giant Food, Inc. v. Standard Terry Mills, Inc., 229 USPQ 955, 962 (TTAB 1986) and cases cited therein. Furthermore, fraud will not lie if it can be proven that the statement, though false, was made with a reasonable and honest belief that it was true. See Woodstock's Enterprises Inc. (California) v. Woodstock's Enterprises Inc. (Oregon), 43 USPQ2d 1440 (TTAB 1997).
The critical question is whether the marks were in use in connection with the identified goods as of the filing date of the use-based applications and as of the filing date of the statement of use in the intent-to-use application. If the mark was in current use, then the first use, even if false is not fraud. See Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73, 76 (TTAB 1983) ("The Examining Attorney gives no consideration to alleged dates of first use in determining whether conflicting marks should be published for opposition.")
In simpler language, the TTAB (the court that reviews trademark disputes) presumes against a finding of fraud in all cases, and since we were obviously using the 12th Man in commerce by the filing date (1994) then it becomes a non-issue. Even failing that, nobody would expect a trademark attorney to do a thorough search of the Cushing library archives or whatever to contemporaneously fact-check the E. King Gill story when there were so many other sources repeating the 1922 date, so it wouldn't rise to the level of knowing misrepresentation in an opposition proceeding.
I don't know why our Seahawks settlement sucks so much, but it's not because our Date of First Use in Commerce is wrong. Or if it is, we need better lawyers, because I'm hungover and still didn't even need to fire up Westlaw to debunk this crap.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 11:28 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:22 pm to Iosh
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:29 pm to Iosh
I don't know what those words mean, but I'm impressed.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:31 pm to WhiskerBiscuitSlayer
RD is strutting back and forth on Shaggy about how because our trademark says our "Date of First Use in Commerce" was 1922 and he's CRACKED TEH CASE, our trademarks are now fraudulent, which is dumb for all the reasons listed above.
I knew that UT law degree would come in handy one day!
I knew that UT law degree would come in handy one day!
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:34 pm to Iosh
quote:
Iosh
You should post more often!
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:42 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
You should post more often!
This. We have some great posters that don't post enough.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:54 pm to WhiskerBiscuitSlayer
Need someone to lock the article immediately after removing uts vandalism.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:56 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
How do we get the article locked?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:57 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
You should post more often!
Agreed. Too many lazy retards like myself who post way too much. Need more intelligent Ags to step up.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:58 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
18:21, 1 February 2014? Randolph Duke(talk | contribs)? . . (30,401 bytes) (+367)? . .(Corrected to show first known use. I'm confused why the Wall Street Journal is not being accepted as a reliable source.)
quote:
19:06, 1 February 2014? 66.87.102.176(talk)? . . (29,871 bytes) (-367)? . .(Undid revision 593461281 by Randolph Duke (talk) WSJ articles using random obsessed internet posters as sources are not credible)
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:06 pm to Projectpat
That might have been me 
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:08 pm to Projectpat
This is also entertaining: Randolph's editing talk page
Includes various people telling him he's taking too many liberties with his "facts" to which his response is a fricking novel's worth of drivel.
I also enjoyed the warning at the bottom from a few months ago that he appears to be in an "editing war" and might get blocked from the system.
Includes various people telling him he's taking too many liberties with his "facts" to which his response is a fricking novel's worth of drivel.
I also enjoyed the warning at the bottom from a few months ago that he appears to be in an "editing war" and might get blocked from the system.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 2:34 pm to Projectpat
Is there a way to get the 12th man article locked before he inflicts more damage?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:32 pm to Gradual_Stroke
I was about to leave in the Minnesota stuff and just change him referring to himself as a source but then someone did this...
quote:
22:25, 1 February 2014? 75.108.235.2(talk)? . . (29,871 bytes) (-741)? . .(User is a avowed enemy of Texas A&M University, and is intent on destroying the good name and reputation of the institution. Vandalism. Undid revision 593493189 by Randolph Duke (talk)) (undo)
Posted on 2/1/14 at 4:33 pm to Projectpat
Posted on 2/1/14 at 5:08 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
My god this dude is obsessed beyond belief. I say we get a restraining order on him stating he his not allowed within 100' of a keyboard
Page 2 of 8
Latest Texas A&M News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News