On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:49 -0800, L.W.Hughe wrote:

> Find let them have their trademark, "Jeep". Jeepeople, should
> belong first whom trademark it.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Keith wrote:
>>
>> DC *must* protect the 'JEEP' trademark. how would anyone in this group
>> like to see a sidekick, rav-4 or even a miata (lol) with JEEP on it
>> somewhere. That could happen if they don't protect the trademark.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>> 98 TJ
>> 86 Mustang GT

They must protect all variations of the Jeep trademark. Look at the
Windows (as in Microsoft) vs. Lindows (as in Linux) lawsuit and it will
explain much of what trademark law is about.

--
Keith
98 TJ
86 Mustang GT

 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:49 -0800, L.W.Hughe wrote:

> Find let them have their trademark, "Jeep". Jeepeople, should
> belong first whom trademark it.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Keith wrote:
>>
>> DC *must* protect the 'JEEP' trademark. how would anyone in this group
>> like to see a sidekick, rav-4 or even a miata (lol) with JEEP on it
>> somewhere. That could happen if they don't protect the trademark.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>> 98 TJ
>> 86 Mustang GT

They must protect all variations of the Jeep trademark. Look at the
Windows (as in Microsoft) vs. Lindows (as in Linux) lawsuit and it will
explain much of what trademark law is about.

--
Keith
98 TJ
86 Mustang GT

 

Jeoples


Sounds like jeeples, but is a better combination of Jeep + People.

--
JeeperEngineer

 

Jeoples


Sounds like jeeples, but is a better combination of Jeep + People.

--
JeeperEngineer

 

Jeoples


Sounds like jeeples, but is a better combination of Jeep + People.

--
JeeperEngineer

 

Well if Jeeples clothing is a trademark violation of the Jeep brand,
then why doesn't clothier Wrangler sue jeep for naming a SUV using the
trademark name for their jeans and clothes line?




Keith <me@noneya.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.05.01.39.22.327970@noneya.com>.. .
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:49 -0800, L.W.Hughe wrote:
>
> > Find let them have their trademark, "Jeep". Jeepeople, should
> > belong first whom trademark it.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Keith wrote:
> >>
> >> DC *must* protect the 'JEEP' trademark. how would anyone in this group
> >> like to see a sidekick, rav-4 or even a miata (lol) with JEEP on it
> >> somewhere. That could happen if they don't protect the trademark.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >> 98 TJ
> >> 86 Mustang GT
>
> They must protect all variations of the Jeep trademark. Look at the
> Windows (as in Microsoft) vs. Lindows (as in Linux) lawsuit and it will
> explain much of what trademark law is about.

 

Well if Jeeples clothing is a trademark violation of the Jeep brand,
then why doesn't clothier Wrangler sue jeep for naming a SUV using the
trademark name for their jeans and clothes line?




Keith <me@noneya.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.05.01.39.22.327970@noneya.com>.. .
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:49 -0800, L.W.Hughe wrote:
>
> > Find let them have their trademark, "Jeep". Jeepeople, should
> > belong first whom trademark it.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Keith wrote:
> >>
> >> DC *must* protect the 'JEEP' trademark. how would anyone in this group
> >> like to see a sidekick, rav-4 or even a miata (lol) with JEEP on it
> >> somewhere. That could happen if they don't protect the trademark.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >> 98 TJ
> >> 86 Mustang GT
>
> They must protect all variations of the Jeep trademark. Look at the
> Windows (as in Microsoft) vs. Lindows (as in Linux) lawsuit and it will
> explain much of what trademark law is about.

 

Well if Jeeples clothing is a trademark violation of the Jeep brand,
then why doesn't clothier Wrangler sue jeep for naming a SUV using the
trademark name for their jeans and clothes line?




Keith <me@noneya.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.11.05.01.39.22.327970@noneya.com>.. .
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:49 -0800, L.W.Hughe wrote:
>
> > Find let them have their trademark, "Jeep". Jeepeople, should
> > belong first whom trademark it.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Keith wrote:
> >>
> >> DC *must* protect the 'JEEP' trademark. how would anyone in this group
> >> like to see a sidekick, rav-4 or even a miata (lol) with JEEP on it
> >> somewhere. That could happen if they don't protect the trademark.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Keith
> >> 98 TJ
> >> 86 Mustang GT
>
> They must protect all variations of the Jeep trademark. Look at the
> Windows (as in Microsoft) vs. Lindows (as in Linux) lawsuit and it will
> explain much of what trademark law is about.

 

Only if Apples were the musical fruit.

"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:rtGdnTHhf6UMKn2i4p2dnA@magma.ca...
> In my opinion that's just plain silly.
> It would seem then, that all apple farmers
> would have a right to sue both the record and
> computer companies.
>
> Patrick Mills wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>DougW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
> >>label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
> >>company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
> >>ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.
> >
> >
> > I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for
the
> > record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
> > undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
> > "Apple" name only on computer products.
> >
> > A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that
music
> > synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
> > agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
> > Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
> > for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.
> >
> > At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
> > iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
> > legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
> > in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
> >
>

 

Only if Apples were the musical fruit.

"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
news:rtGdnTHhf6UMKn2i4p2dnA@magma.ca...
> In my opinion that's just plain silly.
> It would seem then, that all apple farmers
> would have a right to sue both the record and
> computer companies.
>
> Patrick Mills wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:49:27 +0000, DaveW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>DougW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The classic example is Apple. It is both a computer company and a record
> >>label founded by a certain four lads (now 2) from Liverpool. The record
> >>company tried, unsuccessfully to sue the computer company some years
> >>ago. The courts decided that the public could tell the difference.
> >
> >
> > I don't think "unsuccessful" is a good description of the outcome for
the
> > record company. In 1981, the computer company paid the record company an
> > undisclosed amount of money to settle the lawsuit, and agreed to use the
> > "Apple" name only on computer products.
> >
> > A decade later, the record company sued again under the theory that
music
> > synthesizer hardware included with Apple computers violated that
> > agreement. Again, an undisclosed amount of money was paid by Apple
> > Computer to settle (however, apparently Apple Computer allocated US $38M
> > for settlement) and a modified agreement was signed.
> >
> > At this point, Apple Records is suing on the basis that Apple Computer's
> > iTunes music service is a violation of the 1991 agreement. Many in the
> > legal community appear to be of the opinion that Apple Records will cash
> > in for the third time, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
> >
>