Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLightspeed
I see that you have a history of ripping off names that don't belong to you.
Spanked by Mattel?
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1024381.htm
"Respondent contends that Complainant?s United States trademark registrations are irrelevant because Respondent is a Canadian resident. Respondent further argues that the BARBIE mark is generic." |
That not what i said
While the registration was relevant (berne convention) the US laws that presumptively assigned protent power were not
That the canadian supreme court had explicitly ruled that barbie as a name (Surname and prenom) was not an infringement of "barbie" trademark. (you can see the court case with the media creation date proving that they were submitted
before the decision )
I presented that case as well as the new york supreme court explicitly ruled that mattel did not have a right to bring a case against a canadian citizen (barbiesshop.com) and would have to
refile under canadian law.
The generic reference was in the context of mattel trying attaching any word to the trademark term "barbie" was an infringing use of
their trademark
and me point out that this was a false ruling because while sony (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil, D2000-1409) was a unique term with no other meaning then what sony defined it as, while barbie was generic in that it had multiple means (including the name of the barbie creator's daughter) outside the scope of the trademark.
The only reason this right was given to mattel in the previous case was because the arbitrator misrepresented the prima facie clause as
Quote:
|
Federal registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, and creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.
|
when the law actually states
Quote:
|
A certificate of registration of a mark upon the principal register provided by this Act shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate.
|
which in this case would be toys and toy accessories.
This misrepresentation granted the protent power (which the supreme court of canada explictly said the barbie trademark did not have) to an generic trademark which was only presumptively unique because of a severe scope limitation.
I even went on to prove this ruling to be false by combining pointing out that when i combined Klaus with barbie to get Klaus Barbie, i created a term that had no connection to the barbie trademark because the "butcher of lyons" had significant meaning before the barbie doll was even created. (thereby proving that you DID NOT get an infringing term EVERY TIME you combined a term with the barbie trademark-- unlike sony did not exist at all until it sony corporation was incorporated)
That arbitrator chose to misrepresent my claim to cover up the in
Peter Jerie v. Agelos Destounis when he over extended the US Lanham act by applying the "constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof" outside the jurisdiction of the US law. (violating the new york case i referenced)
and that previous arbitrators were so incompetent that they did not know the basic premise of the trademark act.
The bad faith reference (Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 ) was equally invalid because microsoft (like sony) was a coined term and David Einhorn chose to ignore my objections that " Pfizer, viagra and microsoft were unique terms just like sony and therefore not applicable to generic trademark." (when mattel try and use those other cases to claime the same rights as the sony case falsely gave them) and can independently proven to be complete false because when the trademark office was faced with the same situation
- Contains the barbie trademark
- was related to pornography
- whose claim was based on a "name and likeness" assignment of rights
not only did they recognize that the trademark was not an infringement but actually granted them the full scope limited presumptive uniqueness rights (see
barbie griffen)
I was afraid that some unethical scum back abuse that misrepresentation of what i said to pretend i was an idiot so incredible stupid that " i honestly believed trademark law does not apply to me at all just because i am a canadian"
BTW you might want check out the case he referenced to justify violating my soverign rights as a canadian citizen when he applied a misrepresentation of a US law (in direct violation of US court ruling). (
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/932344.htm)
in that case it was only the REGISTRATION DATE of the trademark which was extended. The arbitrator still recognized all of the disputes based on the respondants home country (india) and only discregarded them they were proven to be false under INDIAN LAW.
Quote:
Respondent's offering of competing hotel services under the infringing marks and names RENAISSANCE and THE RENAISSANCE COCHIN has even resulted in actual confusion as to source, as evidenced by the text of the following e-mail communication which was sent to Complainant by a consumer located in Mumbai, India on February 20, 2004:
?I would like to inform you that in Kochi, India there is a hotel-which claims to be a 5 star property and its called Renaissance. It's a very misleading name as I confused it with your group hotel and regretted staying there. This hotel is not worth being declared a 3 star property also, leave aside being called a part of the Marriott Group.
I think you must do something to get the name changed of this hotel, since it affect your group image. My permanent address is Mumbai and hence I know that your group has other good properties but there are hundreds of potential customers will permanently refrain from staying at Renaissance hotels worldwide after they experience this Cochin hotel.?
|
proving delusion of trademark in india
when the respondent claimed
Quote:
|
Complainant cannot claim monopoly rights in the word ?Renaissance,? which is a common descriptive word with a dictionary meaning. The word ?Renaissance? is descriptive and means a ?revival of interest in a particular topic.?...
|
did not override indian law with US law instead only rejected it based on proof that this was a misrepresentation of class 16 and class 42 of INDIAN LAW
Quote:
|
It is true that, under the trademark law of India, descriptive words are not registrable, but in putting forward this argument Respondent should recall that for a mark to be refused registration for this reason it must be descriptive of the goods or services for which registration is sought. The word ?Renaissance? does nor describe Complainant?s goods in Class 16 or its services in Class 42. Thus, Complainant?s registration of it in India and elsewhere are, in the opinion of the Panel, perfectly valid.
|
it is quite clear that this ruling did not justify OVERWRITING canadian law with US law but only recognized the extension of the trademark for protection UNDER Canadian law. Which is exactly what i actually asked for.