T0Morrow@aol.com wrote:
>
> I'd written,
>
> >> Again, the question as regards infringement (though not dilution) is
> whether
> >> or not the use is likely to confuse consumers as to the source, origin, or
> >> affiliation of ExI. Some uses of "Extropian"--even by huge, for-profit
> >> corporations--may not go that far. Consider, for example, "Not Extropian
> >> Cremation, Inc."
>
> By way, I suppose, of counterexample, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >[The owner of internic.com] has succeeded in court to force internic.com
> >to put a disclaimer
> >on every one of its pages that Network Associates, internic.net, and the US
> Gov't
> >are not affiliated with internic.com.
>
> But, of course, those two parties were in exactly the same line of business.
> Consumer confusion really did look likely. The MacDonald's examples to which
> Mike later alluded better prove his point, I think, that aggressive trademark
> holders can push the fuzzy boundaries of consumer confusion a long way. As
> Mike says,
>
> >It tends to be a matter of who has the most money.
>
> Mike adds an important but not dispositive element to the analysis:
>
> >In general though, it is the intent to which the name is used which
> >decides the acceptability of its use. Using
> >a name for a purpose which overlaps that of the original trade name owner is
> >definitely treading on thin ice.
>
> I'd massage that point to say that intent *can* prove very important but that
> it does not alone resolve the question of infringement. Courts use a mult-
> factor test, only one element of which considers intent. Innocent parties can
> be held liable for duplicating non-distinctive marks. Contrarywise, even
> parties who intentionally duplicate an existing mark can be found to have put
> it to a non-infringing use. (Again, I caution that I am not here addressing
> dilution.)
>
> >Given that ExI is, shall we say, not the most
> >well endowed think tank, someone could probably start a company called
> >Extropian Holistic Nose Pickers, Inc. and not give a fig about what ExI
> >thinks or says about it, since it seems like they probably can't afford
> >to contest it in court.
>
> In theory, a contigency-fee attorney might take ExI's case. A party suffering
> infringement can recover damages, the defendant's unjust profits, costs of the
> action, and, in extreme cases, treble damages and attorney's fees.
>
> T.0. Morrow
> t0morrow@aol.com
> http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.HTML
Hello from the suburbs of beautiful downtown Beaubier, Sask:
I, personally have been a list member for a bit more than 2 years.
I will give you all a very short summary about what our venture is all about. We are a small cap venture with about 1 million $ can. of fixed production assets located in a sparse close knit farming community pretty near to the junction of the north-south Montana/North Dakota state line junction and the international boundary between Canada and the USA.
Our aim is to revitalize a marginalized local agriculture product base into a knowlege based product line of leading edge research based products which we feel will become known world-wide.
Morris Johnson
Chief Knowledge officer
Extroian Agroforestry Ventures Ltd.