Sanders campaign accused of "trademark bullying"

boing
106

For common-law trademark purposes, yes.

107

Not without a cite you aren’t. Commerce is not limited to for-profit, and neither is common law.

Non-profits, Charities, groups and individuals of all shapes and sizes can engage in commerce, and do.

edit- You piqued my curiosity, but google bedded it down again. Charities, non-profits, individuals, all have the limited protections of common-law trademarks from first use. I kinda assumed that from having been advised that it often is of no benefit for a non/not for profit to register a mark for a, for example, temporary venture like an event, for the simple fact of the cost outweighing the low risk of being infringed.

Double edit- It should also be noted I don’t give a shit about t-shirt guy or otherwise, I’m only in this thread to yuck it up at @jlw’s wild use of bullying and thuggery. It’s stupid hilarious.

108

It’s a moot point, as the Sanders campaign is toast, thanks to his crushing defeat in NY.

109

LoL hardly. You want everyone to forget about California, but no one will.

2 Likes
110

You don’t understand how math works, do you?

111

I know there are still more than enough delegates in play, you don’t have a shut out, and if Sanders sweeps California all bets are off at the convention.

But you go ahead and play the “You don’t know how math works” Right After getting your ass kicked hard at pretend lawyer. LoLzer.

1 Like
112

You know. Math.

113

You know, polls ain’t real until the votes are counted. Polls aren’t math until then. You can have faith in them, and while you’re at it ask your psychic when your cat will die.

You, 538 and others have counted Sanders down for the count too many times before he rallied his gains to be heeded now.

edit - Here, your boy Silver explaining how he had it ass backward in this same primary race. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

But you go on faith boy, you get a cookie, maybe a sip of wine, go confess, it’ll be okay.

1 Like
114

Where have I seen this denial of reality before? Oh, yeah…

115

Yeah, where have I seen 538 get reality 100% wrong? Oh yeah, on 538, that I linked you.

It’s okay, I already voted Sanders in the international primary, which he won. I’ll regret a Clinton victory, but not for me, for you, since I’ve long left our land.

And look, gloating over Clinton gaining 19 delegates… that’s fine, but hard to understand, since I already tacitly forgave you for being so stubbornly wrong about trademarks, on boingboing of all places… I know that was hard, that’s why I forgave you :wink:

1 Like
116

Oh, I don’t concede the trademark issue at all. I didn’t even get to the part about Sanders failing to use the TM mark, making any claim to common law trademark to be slim at best. I’m just saying that there very soon will be no organization left to push the issue, so the point is moot. Feel free to have the last word. I know you can’t resist.

118

The last word? I think more people will post here, this thread is not very old.

TM symbol usage? On BB you want to argue that? Oh c’mon, children know that there is no requirement to use them and that they have no legal significance. Okay not my children, but someone somewhere has an 8-10 year old that could tell you that.

Literally no legal significance. C’mon, stop diggin on that. Sanders’ lawyers are discouraging use and only discouraging it. Because that’s all they have to do. They still own it, and it’s pretty clear too.

Srsly… didn’t use the mark? You know you on BB? It’s hard to believe you haven’t read that very information here upon a time.

3 Likes
119

Wouldn’t this thread be better continued on the USPTO website?

2 Likes
120

I believe you conceded the trademark issue when you said that it only applied to for-profit businesses, thus showing that you 1) know nothing about trademark law; 2) are willing to say things that aren’t even plausibly true. I mean, what’s the first non-profit that comes to mind (for me it was the WWF), do they have a logo? Is it trademarked? The idea that trademarks are only for profit doesn’t stand up to two or three seconds of thought.

Then you are on to trademark symbols which have no legal significance. If you don’t know anything about trademarks then just stop arguing about how trademarks work. Trademarks aren’t about whether you support Sanders or Clinton, they are about trademarks and they have actual written rules that other people actually know.

1 Like
121

The World Wildlife Fund has had a registered trademark since 1961.

122

That is correct. Stating facts can be fun.

3 Likes
123

You’ve convinced me.

Never to vote for Clinton, ever.

3 Likes
124

And the discussion is about unregistered trademarks. Do you need a further explanation as to why the WWF case doesn’t apply here?

125

Donald Trump thanks you for your support.

126

definitely prone to stick its nose in your private business.