Hello Nathan Collier
12-18-2003, 05:21 PM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
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.
> >
>
"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.
> >
>
12-18-2003, 05:53 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
12-18-2003, 05:53 PM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
12-18-2003, 05:53 PM
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
> Roughly 12/18/03 14:21, neojeep's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> Only if Apples were the musical fruit.
> ...the more you eat the more you toot.
...the more you toot the better you feel.
12-18-2003, 06:04 PM
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
There are no Wrangler Jeeps in Canada.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
12-18-2003, 06:04 PM
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
There are no Wrangler Jeeps in Canada.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
12-18-2003, 06:04 PM
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hello Nathan Collier
There are no Wrangler Jeeps in Canada.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
I think GM nailed them because a pickup is named Wrangler.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Shane wrote:
>
> 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.
