USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2000-10 > 0972923095


From: Lesley Shockey <>
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Archives - Mark
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:24:55 -0500
References: <F186E2sCRBHZXFZ0stg0000186c@hotmail.com><4.3.2.7.2.20001029224723.02591320@pop.citynet.net><4.3.2.7.2.20001030075430.0258d790@pop.citynet.net><4.3.2.7.2.20001030092154.0258ab90@pop.citynet.net>
In-Reply-To: <001501c04284$3de97440$0101a8c0@hppav>


I do not believe that Linda wants to retain the exclusive use of
"USGenWeb", and don't know why anyone is trying to make people
believe that. Have you read the messages that Linda sent to the
Board and TM committee?

Linda has stated:
"I'm going to amend my application to not include "USGenWeb"
exclusively,
only as the whole name. The only thing I'm waiting for is the AB to
decide what and when they will apply for. Once they do that, I can
amend
to clear the way for them. If I do that before they are ready, any
Tom,
Dick or Harry can register any name with USGenWeb in it."

I have no reason to doubt the above statement. I have always found
Linda to be truthful and honest in all of my dealings with her and
to be totally dedicated to the success of the The USGenWeb
Project. The only ones that I am aware of that has said otherwise
have been a part of the ones trying to take certain portions of the
project or close friends of those same persons.

Les


At 09:15 AM 10/30/00 -0600, GingerH wrote:


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lesley Shockey" <>
>To: "GingerH" <>; <>
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 8:49 AM
>Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Archives - Mark
>
>
> > At 07:30 AM 10/30/00 -0600, GingerH wrote:
> > >So you are of the opinion that any individual should be able
> > >to go out and TM the term USGenWeb as part of anything,
> > >so long as it is not the phrase The USGenWeb Project?
> >
> > No, that is not my opinion. I do believe that the only protection
> > for any portion of the project currently is Linda's filing for
> "The
> > USGenWeb Archives". Her filing may not be perfect but it is all
> > that the project has at this time. It is my understanding that
> > Linda is supportive of the board filing for the trademark of "The
> > USGenWeb Project". This filing for this trademark should present
> > no problems as long as there is no protests filed regarding the
> use
> > of the name. Once the trademark is obtained, if others should try
> > to file for a trademark using USGenWeb as a part of the phrase,
> > then the board or person responsible for the Project's filing
> would
> > need to protest the filing. All of the proper steps have been
> > outlined before including not claiming exclusive rights to the
> > words "The" and "Project".
>
>What Linda wants is to retain the exclusive right to use the term
>USGenWeb, no matter what transpires in future. Try asking her
>to see what kind of answer you get. She's always claiming how
>honest she is.
>
> >
> > >Not being argumentative but just trying to understand your
> > >reasoning. Also, where does that leave the Bylaws, which say
> > >the term USGenWeb is reserved to The USGenWeb Project?
> >
> > Question. Is this supposed to mean that the permission granted to
> > Linda Lewis to use the name "The USGenWeb Archives" has been
> > revoked? I know that some have tried to move portions of the
> > Projects but I do not think that Linda has ever done anything but
> > try to insure that the Project remains as a whole unit instead of
> > being busted into smaller projects for the benefit of certain
> > individuals.
>
>Actually, at this point, revoking permission for Linda to use the term
>USGenWeb, without some more stringent terms attached, is probably
>the best shot we have at retaining the exclusivity of our name. Since
>she has stated that she would not withdraw her application. Not that
>it's likely to happen with this AB. I have seen NO indication that Ms.
>Lewis gives a fig about what happens to the project as a whole as
>long as she retains control of the Archives and the exclusive the
>right
>to use the name USGenWeb. Her actions have shown me that she
>would sell every CC in this project down the river in a heartbeat in
>order to preserve her Archives project and right to use the USGenWeb
>name. Collecting data in the name of The USGenWeb Project is a
>little more likely to get results than asking folks to contribute
>to the
>Time To Do project, wouldn't you agree. Name recoginition is all
>important, ask any business person.
>
> >
> > I find the divide and conquer is becoming quite a distraction to
> > the Project, causing many to become disillusioned and that their
> > years of hard work has been wasted. There are times when I wonder
> > if I would not be better off giving up as the State Coordinator of
> > "The WVGenWeb Project" for my own well being.
>
>Divide and conquer is exactly what is happening here. I've often
>thought about just ditching the whole works too. A hobby shouldn't
>be a hassle, but I've promised to stay until my term is up. It is
>really
>a shame that the name so many have worked for so dilingently for so
>many years should end up being owned by one person.
>
>Ginger
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
>The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.

------

Les Shockeyemail address =
or
Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of The USGenWeb
Project at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM
Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb pages:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/
RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group.


This thread: