Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    41961
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Now it's sounding like the term or phrase is flat generic. Do they claim a federal registration? If they do not, they may not be that serious and a good solid response can maybe back them down.
  2. Well, I'd just probably capitulate then. If it's not your central brand, who cares. But, in addition to it being difficult to claim rights in geographically and otherwise descriptive marks, like "Texas Electric," people like you also have the right even to use registered trademarks in their descriptive sense. We can all call "Johnson's Baby Shampoo" that, even if it's trademarked. It's called "descriptive fair use." In-house lawyers only reduce the cost of letter-writing. It also means they're not that serious, yet. If they're going to big-time bully, or sue, or be sued, they're hiring outside counsel. So, you may have some chance of getting them to back down with a couple of letters back and forth.
  3. Ok, I'm getting old enough that I can't think up any good small-firm trademark practitioners in H-town anymore. They're all in biglaw now. Unless you have a strong preference for "face time" with your attorneys, Austin would be fine, or Dallas even. So, for big-time, I recommend Pirkey Barber, specifically probably Rodney Caldwell or Mike Mettauer, or Jeff Becker at Haynes and Boone in Dallas. For smaller and competent, these guys in Austin, probably specifically Dwayne Goetzel. https://www.intprop.com/ Ultimately, you'll be dealing with someone junior, but their supervisor can make a difference.
  4. Yeah, pretty unlikely. If they have a federal registration, one of the more aggressive tactics would be to petition to cancel their registration. Or, if they don't have a registration, apply for one yourself and then put the burden on them to initiate proceedings at the trademark office to keep you from getting the registration. That's one way to relatively inexpensively raise the stakes for them and maybe put the dispute in a forum, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, that costs thens or hundreds of thousands, instead of several hundred thousand or more in a federal district court. So, if the bully is dedicated and committed, they can probably attrition you into changing your name. One strategery is to get them to pay the costs of your rebranding, which will be a fraction of the cost of litigating.
  5. Houston, right? What's your budget? Do you want a heavy hitter to respond or just someone good? There may be value in a heavy hitter against a big outfit, in which case Pirkey Barber is probably your no-brainer choice. You are correct that the type of mark you're describing is called "geographically descriptive," because it describes the place of origin of the goods and services provided, if not the goods and services themselves. These marks are initially unprotectable as trademarks. However, with long-term use and promotion of a geographically descriptive mark, it is capable of being registered. Do they claim a federal trademark registration? The biggest problem here is the financial disparity, if any. Trademark disputes are impossible to resolve judicially without trial, most of the time. So a bully can keep you spending on litigation way beyond any point that makes any sense. Of course, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them, either.
  6. Gotta get those deportation numbers up! No rookie numbers.
  7. That also demonstrates that these "big announcements" were investments they were going to make anyway. And the term "investment" is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting and probably includes just spending on domestic supply.
  8. Well, as an upper-middle-class white person of middle age, we may have collectively been ignorant of the extent or depth of modern racism, but we were acutely ashamed of it coming out in the open, especially by those associated with us. That seems no longer to be the case.
  9. Interesting sidenote. That book was published in 1996, and in keeping with the times, mostly focuses on right-wing attempts at school censorship.
  10. As I said above, there's no doubt that's true. But this can be thrown back in Trump's face pretty easily. Moscowitz or someone of his ilk needs to start demanding the terms of Trump's informant deal.
  11. No, here, I don't think you get it. It's a Trump tactic to throw in their face. If Trump is going to contend he's an informant, then we need to know the terms of the deal. Flood the zone with that so it becomes a What is Trump hiding deal even more personal than the Epstein files.
  12. Ah fuck it. Take the nuance out of it. If Trump was an informant on Epstein, doesn't that mean he's guilty of the same crimes? Isn't that how that works? Right Mike? I think we need to see what kind of thing Trump informed on, and what the government gave him in return.
  13. If you stop testing, there will be fewer cases!
  14. Let;s not overlook the fact that being a criminal informant pretty strongly implies that Trump knew of and/or was guilty of criminal behavior and failed to do anything about it until it served his interests. Otherwise, he's just a witness. So, someone needs to start pressing pretty hard for the details there.
  15. More of the administration going balls deep on regular folks and calling it something else.
  16. One of the factors there is oil money. I don't think so much money has ever come so fast to people in the right place at the right time, by skill or luck. And the money typically wasn't tied up in stock, either. So, whether from just vast excesses of money, or maybe a sense of embarrassment, Houston oil-rich generously endowed the arts, especially. Also, I think a lot of them were basically rubes and wanted to improve perception of Houston and of themselves. That doesn't really explain Dallas, though. However, Meyerson, Perot, Jonsson, McDermott, etc. did their philanthropy when they had moved up and out, mostly, of their business endeavors, while a lot of Austin's rich and young rich everywhere are somewhat disinclined and badly positioned to do a lot of philanthropy.
  17. I also didn't say your criticisms were invalid either. Is it potentially unnecessary? Sure. Does it hurt? Not much. Does it cost? Some.
  18. Actually, you don't even need such a clause, mitigation of damages mostly builds that in You actively have to disclaim mitigation to get the aggy result.
  19. You laugh, but it's a true statement. It is fundamentally unfair to criticize judgment calls based on after-acquired knowledge.
  20. That prompts the question about what provoked political wailing and gnashing of teeth? Is it Covid recommendations or fear from the rationals that an administration that politicizes every fucking thing is politicizing this? And with a complete crackpot Secretary of Health with zero background in public health. Things that make you go hmm.
  21. Note that I didn't say his criticisms were valid. I said he "can" make valid criticisms, which the vast majority of MAGA cannot.
  22. I know Jonsson was deeply ashamed of the Dallas that killed Kennedy and Goals for Dallas was at least partly a response to that and the belief that moving Dallas forward as a city could mitigate the rural darkness. And, however wrongheaded Hamilton Park may have ultimately been, he was also deeply ashamed of the city's racism.
  23. Yeah, this is all a judgment call. In the legal world, you don't base claims of malpractice, legal or medical, on judgment calls.
  24. Too many posts on football board to be GRU, methinks. Also negged me for calling the Arch hype Trump-level stupid on the football board. Clearly doesn't want any politics outside the CR. 😭
×
×
  • Create New...