USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2001-01 > 0979838280


From: "Kathy Heidel" <>
Subject: Re: USGW-CC-L: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Service Mark?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:18:00 -0600
References: <v03130302b68b60bc1f6f@[153.32.55.5]> <012a01c080ff$90661980$be8f28d8@hppav>


I am chiming in here because I do agree with you Ron, and I wrote to John S.
and apologized
that I was in error about donating funds for an attorney. I think after
reading the reasoning and etc. that an attorney would be in our best
interests, we do need this completed properly and legally. My main concern
at the time I wrote was that we secure a Collective Mark so we are all
covered.
Sincerely,
Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Eason" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 09:34 PM
Subject: Re: USGW-CC-L: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Service Mark?


: Very well said Teri,
: Unless my aged memory is fading faster than I can keep up
: with. (Naw, don't think so) Anyway, I have read on these
: very lists of the problems involved with trying to secure a
: SERVICE MARK, be it Collective or otherwise, and including
: words such as "The" or "Project" in the Mark, due to the very
: broad nature of the words themselves. As I recall, it was said
: our application would probably be returned or something to
: that effect for change.
: Not only is it cost effective and diligent on the part of the committee
: to run the process by an attorney, I would venture to bet there
: isn't a successful Project, Organization and/or business today that
: would not the very same. It's just plain smart.
: The Board isn't to be expected to know every detail about this type
: of process and I'm sure if they did, they would be making the big
: bucks somewhere else.
: The committee is right in what they are proposing and I think we
: should be glad they think enough about the Project to take smart
: steps.
: The fact that it has taken "forever" to get to this point is not good, but
: we are here and the sooner they get on with it, the better.
: Ron
:
: ----- Original Message -----
: From: Teri Pettit <>
: To: <>
: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:06 PM
: Subject: Re: USGW-CC-L: Re: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Service Mark?
:
:
: > >>At 10:31 AM 1/17/01 -0600, Phyllis Rippee wrote:
: >
: > >>>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."
: >
: > There is nothing "contrary" here. There is no requirement that the only
: > Service Mark or Collective Service Mark owned by an organization must
: > be the name of that organization. It is, in fact, very often a subset
: > of the full name, because it is often only a part of the name that is
: > commonly combined with other words to identify services or membership
: > in the organization.
: >
: > The Girl Scouts of America, for example, has the U.S. service mark
: > on "Girl Scout" as well as Girl Scouts of America, so that some random
: > person can't start selling "Girl Scout Pies" or set up a "Girl Scout
: > Camp", and claim that no mark is violated because they aren't calling
: > them "Girl Scouts of America Pies" or "Girl Scouts of America Camp."
: >
: > Since we want to protect ourselves from unaffiliated persons or groups
: > setting up genealogy web sites that appear to be affiliated with us,
: > USGenWeb is the best mark to apply for. Most such wannabe sites would,
: > just as in the Girl Scout case, be more likely to use USGenWeb in
: > conjunction with some other words than they would be to use the full
: > name "The USGenWeb Project."
: >
: > It is getting authoritative legal advice on such fine points that we
: > are hiring an attorney for.
: >
: >
: >
: > ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
: > Remember the elections start July 1.
: >
: >
:
:
: ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
: Remember the elections start July 1.
:

This thread: