Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilref" data-source="post: 5079560" data-attributes="member: 73517">I'm surprised at you referencing the Tiffany case as, well, it rather runs counter to your argument. 1) The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not mentioned anywhere in Judge Sullivan's summation. The quote you use also does not appear anywhere within the Judge's findings. I don't know where you got it from, but it runs contrary to the findings of the Judge. I suggest you read the Judge's comments as they're a very clear walkthrough of trademark law as it pertains to the tiffany versus ebay case.2) The Tiffany versus Ebay case is a very different situation. In the one it's exactly the sort of thing Trademarking is there to protect against. Counterfeit goods being sold under the Tiffany mark. That's a clear trademark violation. As opposed to your situation which has general descriptive use of a mark, and/or non-commercial use. Like Tiffany you targeted the venue this takes place in rather than the trademark violaters themselves. But unlike ebay, PP are and were not supplying these goods. As such there's no direct application, therefore no inwood test and, under current law, nothing you can directly charge them with (you could certainly try, but your case would be far weaker than Tiffany's). 2) The Tiffany case revolved around fraud and counterfeit goods being sold under its mark, with Tiffany alleging that the steps taken to prevent this by Ebay were inadequate. I'm sure you're not suggesting that anyone was commiting fraud in your case? 3) Lastly, Tiffany lost. What's more the Judge's summation includes something of relevance to your case:Nevertheless, the law is clear: it is the trademark owner's burden to police its mark, and companies like eBay cannot be held liable for trademark infringement based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their websites.Edit: Just to clarify this, that doesn't then extend that PP would be liable even if they knew of specific incidents. You'd need to prove they were liable for contributory trademark infringement. This would probably fail, according to my reading of the precedents, given the nature of PP as opposed to those companies who have been found guilty of contributory trademark infringement.I think you might need to go back to the lawyer again as it would appear there's still some confusion somewhere at your end.I like Army Planner which I've read elsewhere. We also have Army planning software, army building software, army plans, Build-a-army etc etc.</blockquote>

Verification