Commodore trademark has a new daddy

[dammy]

http://www.commodore-amiga.org/en/forum/2-welcome-mat/11285-some-more-good-news-to-end-2011#11285

[dammy]

So that's a big annoucement for them? ....ooooo...kaayy...  Now what?

No, this is not the big announcement.   Haters should rest up, they will need all their strength when the announcement hits.

[dammy]

THE announcement...the worst kept secret in Amiga history.

What is THE announcement then?

Also you keep saying "haters" and it has never crossed your tiny, little mind that there are REASONS for that.

Because haters have to hate.

[dammy]

Serioisly, and I mean this as genuine advice, you and other C=USA people would be very well advised to stop with the news of announcements. It's one thing to put out a bit of hype but going on and on about how there's going to be an announcement just gets everybody fed up and not interested.

You're getting a reputation for hyperbole much more than a reputation for products, is that really what you want?

Seriously, go reread the article and see who posted it.  Hint, it wasn't C=USA staff nor myself.  When THE big announcement hits, I will post it to Amiga.org's News for approval less Barry or Leo beat me to it.

[dammy]

The main purpose of this site is the Classic Amiga and it's descendants, which of course is not Commodore USA, which simply has the license to the trademarks.

So you are saying Commodore has no right to be talked about on the front page anymore?

[dammy]

I know. Do you? Or are you just pretending?

Why don't you tell us then?  Perhaps I don't know, come on, spill the beans!

Nah, haters don't have to hate, hate is born out of a reason, dear me...are you for real?

Then why are haters still having to hate?  C=USA has offered an olive branch, seems the haters rather spit on them instead of accepting that olive branch.

[dammy]

Can't say. I am not supposed to.

So then you are going to be celebrating with us then when the official news is announced!  Excellent, I was hoping once you gave up on the hate, you would be a solid C=USA supporter.  

Why don't you just accept that because of what CUSA has done in the past some people can't accept olive branches. There are still some people left who have principles you know...

For those people, since you evidently are going to be celebrating with us on the great C=USA news you are not are apart of them, are going to be hating life as well as C=USA after this announcement until they too can accept the futility of hating the inevitable.

[dammy]

When the thing in question is the success/continued existence of a company that has spent nearly its entire existence not simply ignoring, but harassing and belittling the only people who might ever have been interested in it (despite repeated claims that that's "not the target market," followed by attempts to re-court the community,) I'd hardly call it "inevitable." "Improbable," more like.

Then why not just ignore these threads?  I know there are plenty of threads I ignore because I have zero interest in.

[dammy]

Good luck defending that one, it was abandoned a _long_ time ago.

URL if you have one handy.

[dammy]

There is no URL, as the checkmark never was a registered trademark. But it's still a trademark  that you can defend, provided you actually use it in your products.

Here's a challenge for you, dammy: What was the last time, the checkmark was used in a product? (everybody: It's a challenge for dammy, please let him answer this one).

Common Law still applies, just makes it tougher to defend is all.

[dammy]

That's a non-answer, dammy.

Yes it is a answer.  You may not like it, but that is your problem.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712

And you seemed to have missed the second part of my posting, so let me repeat it here:

No, I didn't miss it. I just don't care.

[dammy]

We all know that one can defend non-registered trademarks, I already acknowledged that three days ago.

So why are you stuck on this subject then?

But to be defendable, it has to be in active use - that's why I pointed you to the Wikipedia article, which says "five years". I'm all interested in more precise documentation, but your above link is useless in this context.

Why would I trust Wiki for a legal opinion?

If you don't care, why do you make claims about AInc/CUSA being able to defend it? To determine if they are able to defend it, you need to know the mark's last use in commerce.

So, once again: If it's not registered and you don't know when it was last used commercially, on what grounds do you claim that anybody owns enforcable rights regarding this mark?

Then do as you wish, I don't have a pony in that race.   That would be up to C=USA and it's legal department to deal with and I'm pretty confident C=USA won't give an inch with out a court battle.  You want to risk that, fine by me, Wal-Mart has tons of popcorn on the shelves.

[dammy]

source[/url]

#6

From the cheap seats where I'm at, I don't see the above as the reason for the delay.  But as far as the above link, it is popcorn time at the Roman Coliseum.  Better find a seat in a hurry, looks like the lions have just been released.