USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2001-01 > 0979753625


From: "Ginger" <>
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Service Mark?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:47:05 -0600


John, Joe and Holly,

Y'all have my sympathy!
First the b*^ching is to apply for a service mark then
the b*&ching is because it's being applied for.

Maybe some would just like to see the Linda Lewis
USGenWeb Project, but then I'm sure they wouldn't
be happy with that either.

Personally, I think getting the advice of an attorney
is the smartest move to make. I can up my pledge
by a couple of bucks to take up the slack if necessary.

Ginger



-----Original Message-----
From: John Schunk <>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Service Mark?


>At 10:31 AM 1/17/01 -0600, Phyllis Rippee wrote:
>>Why the deception?
>
>Hi Phyllis,
>
>No deception intended that I am aware of.
>
>
> The AB motion was to the effect that a SERVICE MARK
>>"USGenWeb" would be applied for.
>>
>>Now, we are told by a member of the application committee, specifically John
>>Schunk, that a Collective Service Mark is what is going to be applied for.
>>This is the mark that we need. However, has the AB given the committee
>>permission to apply for this mark, contrary to what was legally okayed by
>>them? How are we, the membership and supposedly the backbone of the
>>Project, going to understand why the AB approves one thing and a commitee
>>does something else?
>>
>>As pointed out by Kathy Heidel, there is a difference in the two marks.
>
>
>My understanding is that a collective service mark is a specific type of
>service mark. Although the AB motion may not have specified what type of
>service mark was to be applied for, it was also my understanding that a
>collective service mark would be most appropriate (as you have pointed
>out). I can't recall seeing any argument that the service mark should NOT
>be a collective one.
>
>
> I
>>also agree with Kathy that it is not necessary to hire an attorney.
>>
>>Tim Stowell has stated that the committee will be applying for a Service
>>Mark for our name "USGenWeb." This is what the AB authorized, contrary to
>>the fact that our bylaws specifically state that our name is "USGenWeb
>>Project."
>
>Based on legal advice, it is my opinion that USGenWeb is the key identifier
>in the name "The USGenWeb Project" and it is the best mark to apply for.
>But reasons for and against this position have already been expressed
>extensively, so I won't rehash them.
>
>
>>Three-member committee.....two different statements as to what they are
>>going to do.
>>
>>"Two roads diverged in a shallow wood and sorry I could not be one traveller
>>and follow both...." (Robert Frost).
>>
>>Which direction is your pledge money going to take?
>>
>
>The direction that conscience dictates, as I trust will be true for
>everyone else also.
>
>John
>
>>Phyllis Rippee
>>
>>
>>==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
>>The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.
>>
>>
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
>The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project.
>

This thread: