interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

does DM claim ownership of Rubicon?

http://www.rubiconinsurance.com/rubicon_name.html

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

The insurance company is correct:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67

Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?

I don't see how they can.

--
JimG
80' CJ-7, 258 CID
35" BFG MT's on 15x10 Centerlines
4.56 D30-D44 SOA
D300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
Warn 8000i w/dual batteries
LockRight F&R


"Jim Horne" <horneja@ufl.edu> wrote in message
news:bteh2q$67oif$1@ID-148893.news.uni-berlin.de...
> does DM claim ownership of Rubicon?
>
> http://www.rubiconinsurance.com/rubicon_name.html
>
>

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

The insurance company is correct:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67

Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?

I don't see how they can.

--
JimG
80' CJ-7, 258 CID
35" BFG MT's on 15x10 Centerlines
4.56 D30-D44 SOA
D300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
Warn 8000i w/dual batteries
LockRight F&R


"Jim Horne" <horneja@ufl.edu> wrote in message
news:bteh2q$67oif$1@ID-148893.news.uni-berlin.de...
> does DM claim ownership of Rubicon?
>
> http://www.rubiconinsurance.com/rubicon_name.html
>
>

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

The insurance company is correct:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67

Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?

I don't see how they can.

--
JimG
80' CJ-7, 258 CID
35" BFG MT's on 15x10 Centerlines
4.56 D30-D44 SOA
D300 w/4:1 & Currie twin sticks
Warn 8000i w/dual batteries
LockRight F&R


"Jim Horne" <horneja@ufl.edu> wrote in message
news:bteh2q$67oif$1@ID-148893.news.uni-berlin.de...
> does DM claim ownership of Rubicon?
>
> http://www.rubiconinsurance.com/rubicon_name.html
>
>

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

JimG wrote:

> The insurance company is correct:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67
>
> Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?
>
> I don't see how they can.

Of course they can, insofar as it relates to a narrowly defined range of
services or products.
>
One may trademark any name, but one can only trademark a name for (and
defend it within) a particular range of services and products, and only
then if it is not in conflict with any similarly related mark. The
Trademark office will not allow the trademark if its coverage is too broad.

DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
matter.

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

JimG wrote:

> The insurance company is correct:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67
>
> Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?
>
> I don't see how they can.

Of course they can, insofar as it relates to a narrowly defined range of
services or products.
>
One may trademark any name, but one can only trademark a name for (and
defend it within) a particular range of services and products, and only
then if it is not in conflict with any similarly related mark. The
Trademark office will not allow the trademark if its coverage is too broad.

DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
matter.

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

JimG wrote:

> The insurance company is correct:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rubicon&r=67
>
> Does DC claim trademark on Wrangler, Liberty, or Cherokee?
>
> I don't see how they can.

Of course they can, insofar as it relates to a narrowly defined range of
services or products.
>
One may trademark any name, but one can only trademark a name for (and
defend it within) a particular range of services and products, and only
then if it is not in conflict with any similarly related mark. The
Trademark office will not allow the trademark if its coverage is too broad.

DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
matter.

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

In article <btfhv1$p7k$0@pita.alt.net>, Cal Wheeler <cal@whee.ler>
wrote:

>
> DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
> trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
> matter.

That is exactly where the issue of deep pockets comes into play; whoever
has the deeper pockets usually wins. Just ask Nathan.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

In article <btfhv1$p7k$0@pita.alt.net>, Cal Wheeler <cal@whee.ler>
wrote:

>
> DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
> trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
> matter.

That is exactly where the issue of deep pockets comes into play; whoever
has the deeper pockets usually wins. Just ask Nathan.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Re: interesting info on Rubicon name use
 

In article <btfhv1$p7k$0@pita.alt.net>, Cal Wheeler <cal@whee.ler>
wrote:

>
> DC could certainly file suit against anyone using any form of their
> trademarks, but whether they would win or not is an entirely different
> matter.

That is exactly where the issue of deep pockets comes into play; whoever
has the deeper pockets usually wins. Just ask Nathan.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.