Trademark Statutes Prove Bev Thornton/Vox Populi Liar
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
Statutes:
"The word ''commerce'' means all commerce which may lawfully be
regulated by Congress.
The term ''person'' and any other word or term used to designate
the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or
rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a
juristic person as well as a natural person. The term ''juristic
person'' includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or
other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of
law.
The term ''person'' also includes the United States, any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, or
corporation acting for the United States and with the
authorization and consent of the United States. The United
States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any
individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and
with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall be
subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and
to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
The term ''person'' also includes any State, any instrumentality
of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or
instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official
capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or
employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in
the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental
entity.
The terms ''applicant'' and ''registrant'' embrace the legal
representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns of such
applicant or registrant.
The term ''Director'' means the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office.
The term ''related company'' means any person whose use of a mark
is controlled by the owner of the mark with respect to the nature
and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with
which the mark is used.
The terms ''trade name'' and ''commercial name'' mean any name
used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.
The term ''trademark'' includes any word, name, symbol, or
device, or any combination thereof -
(1)
The term ''use in commerce'' means the bona fide use of a mark in
the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a
right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be
deemed to be in use in commerce -
(1)
on goods when -
(A)
it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or
the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels
affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such
placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the
goods or their sale, and
(B)
the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
(2)
on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or
advertising of services and the services are rendered in
commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or
in the United States and a foreign country and the person
rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with
the services."
End of first Excerpt:
Bev Thornton and his aliases tried to claim the following:
1. That a person is not entitled to protect his trademark name
under all conditions. The Federal statutes prove Bev/Vox lied.
There are many circumstances and conditions in which the name
itself, and not just the goods and services it provides can be
protected. Especially if it is a famous name like the one I have
trademarked: Doug Grant (Tm)
2. That a Trademark must be registered before it is assigned
protection under Federal Statutes:
The Federal Statutes prove Bev/Vox lied.
3. That the goods and services I listed as sold by me, and three
corporations, inter-state and internationally, did not qualify as
"goods and services" under existing Federal Statutes:
The Federal Statutes below prove Bev is lying. Here are the goods
and services I listed as sold by me and three different
corporations all using the advertised name of Doug Grant (Tm):
From the US Trademark FAQ:
" Trademark ownership rights in the United States arise through
use of a mark. Continued use of a mark is necessary to maintain
trademark rights. The owner of a trademark is entitled to the
exclusive right to use the mark. This entitlement includes the
ability to prevent the use, by unauthorized third parties, of a
confusingly similar mark. Marks used by unrelated parties are
confusingly similar if, by their use on the same, similar, or
related goods or services, the relevant consumer population would
think the goods or services come from the same source.
(Clearly trying to forge the name Doug Grant which is my
trademark, and producing any goods or services I have produced in
the past under such name, would be a violation of my trademark.
So, contrary to what Bev Thornton and this Vox con man has been
lying about, the actual NAME is protected under existing
trademark statutes.
Now if someone named Doug Grant were to sell Athletic Equipment
under
the name Doug Grant, and not sell any goods or services I have
established under my Trademark, such as financial systems,
newsletters, columns for newspapers, political speeches,
instructional writings and manuals, novels, books, scripts and
seminar scripts, professional recordings, statistical analysis,
legal reviews, and expert reports for the United States courts in
respect to all mathematical and statistical information in
respect to casinos, specialized computer programs, computer
program routines, system analysis reports and specialized reports
as they apply to gaming laws and associated court rulings, movie
scripts and production analysis.....then since I have produced
all of the above in a "tangible" form inter-state and
internationally
(that is received money or other
compensation for such production) then such would constitute a
direct
violation of my trademark.
>
Now note what Vox/Bev tried to say before I posted these
statutes:
> "Nope, again you are in error. Your Pen Name is not protectable
> under USPTO law."
>
Although the definition of a "Pen Name" is vague and not even
listed in the statutes, note above what is considered a Trademark
name:
"The term ''trademark'' includes any word, name, symbol, or
device, or any combination thereof -
(1) "
Obviously, if a name is used to distinguish the products or
services from others, it is protected and considered a Trademark
protected name regardless of whether Bev wants to call it a "Pen
Name" or not.
Another example, is the WWF case law lawsuit. In that lawsuit
WWF
was sued over just the use of the name and initials as the goods
and services
were not the same. The Plaintiff won the case. I posted a
review of that case, and Bev/Vox always snips it out and tries
to hide it.
Then in true con man style, Vox said the WWF case was not
relevant
because both Trademarks were registered....indicating incorrectly
that common law trademarks do not have the same protection as
registered trademarks. But in previous posts both Bev and Vox
were forced to admit
that common law trademarks have protection under federal
statutes!
(Excerpted from the US Trademark FAQ Bev hoped no one would take
the time to
read from the link above.)
"Basic Questions
What are common law rights?
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a
trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark.
Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an
intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office
has the ultimate right to use and registration. However, there
are many benefits of federal trademark registration."
(Bev tried to claim this provision did not exist, and I needed to
register my trademark. Bev also claimed that my common law
trademark could not be enforced nor protected. Bev has been
caught lying again. Note when I post the actual statutes or the
FAQ information from the US Trademark Site, Bev has actually
tried to claim the statutes and US Trademark FAQ information is
wrong, and Bev is right! Bev of course is delusional.)
The following statement from the US Trademark FAQ (above and
below) clearly states that a Trademark is enforceable WITHOUT
REGISTRATION! Although Bev did not even know about the products
being sold under my Trademark name Doug Grant, he howled that
because it was not registered it was not protected under existing
US Statutes. Bev and Vox are clearly lying.
(From the US Trademark FAQ:
Do I need to register my trademark?
No. However, federal registration has several advantages
including notice to the public of the registrant's claim of
ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership
nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in
connection with the goods or services set forth in the
registration.
(Doug comments: Obviously Bev is lying when he claimed I
needed to register my trademark.)
Where can I ask a question about trademarks?
If you need answers to specific trademark questions or want to
know more about trademarks in general, please contact the
Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199. If you live in
Northern Virginia, the number is (703) 308-9000. If you need
answers to specific patent questions or want to know more about
patents in general, please contact the Patent Assistance Center
at 1-800-786-9199. If you live in Northern Virginia, the number
is (703) 308-4357.
(Doug's comments: Please call the above 800 number to verify
that Bev/Vox are lying and what I am posting is the truth about
this issue. It is a simple telephone call. I have called them
already. They could not stop laughing at Bev/Vox's idiotic
claims. )
Bev/Vox tried to claim that I had to use a (R) symbol before my
trademark could be protected: The Trademark FAQ once again proves
they are lying:
From the US Trademark FAQ:
"Are there federal regulations governing the use of the
designations "TM" or "SM" with trademarks?
No. Use of the symbols "TM" or "SM" (for trademark and service
mark, respectively) may, however, be governed by local, state, or
foreign laws and the laws of the pertinent jurisdiction must be
consulted. These designations usually indicate that a party
claims rights in the mark and are often used before a federal
registration is issued.
(Bev has been caught lying again. He is claiming I do not have
any trademark protection of my trademark protected name Doug
Grant (TM). I suspect Bev thought no one would post these laws
proving him the con man he clearly is. The above information
clearly
states that by using the TM I am claiming the mark.)
What is a common law search? How can I do one? Is doing a common
law search necessary?
A common law search involves searching records other than the
federal register and pending application records. It may involve
checking phone directories, yellow pages, industrial directories,
state trademark registers, among others, in an effort to
determine if a particular mark is used by others when they have
not filed for a federal trademark registration. A common law
search is not necessary but some find it beneficial. Telephone
numbers for search firms that perform these searches for a fee
can be found in the yellow pages of local phone directories and
through an Internet search."
Note that the US Trademark FAQ is recommending a common law
search before you try to register a trademark. It is also
recommending a common law search on the Internet. So if common
law trademarks are not protected, as Bev and Vox are
disingenuously trying to claim, then why on earth would the US
Trademark Office be asking registrants to do common law searches?
Clearly, Common Law trademarks ARE enforceable, and they will
prevent the registration of a duplicate Trademark name.
I used Doug Grant (Tm) after every post on the Internet not to
try and protect what I am writing (I said I hardly ever try to
protect anything I write on an open forum) but to use the
trademark name on the Internet so it can be easily found on any
common law search. Since I have been doing this, I have received
email inquiries as to the goods and services I sell under that
name. Using a Trademark name on newsgroups is an acceptable form
of advertising. Moreover, I have been contacted and asked if
some of my posts could be used in a book. If a compilation of my
posts are going to be sold to the public, then of course the
trademark name of Doug Grant (Tm) placed on any *advertising* for
that book is protected under existing statutes.
end of excerpts:
Bev also tried to claim that because he searched only Federal
links
that no common law trademark existed under the name of Doug
Grant. Bev clearly lied. My initial trademark was filed in New
Jersey, and later because I qualified to use the Federal Common
Law trademark (because I was first) I switched to that trademark.
I have used the Doug Grant trademark since 1978.
My lawyer's name is Mr. Howard Altschuler, Esq., (Fax
203-466-1135) (phone 203-467-5577) and he is very familiar with
my trademark. I have offered Bev the opportunity to admit he is
lying, (2) receive a copy of my original trademark certificate
and (3) have his lawyer consult with mine so that Bev will learn
the law about these matters before he continues to make a
complete and utter ass out of himself by posting such ridiculous
lies and distortions.
I have also offered Bev/Vox and anyone else that wishes to
challenge the validity of my Trademark to submit their challenge
to any American Law School they choose, and I will provide my
counter information. IF the Law School rules in favor of any
challenger, I will agree to pay for their time. However, if the
Law School agrees with me, then Bev/Vox shall pay for the Law
School's time.
I have posted this challenge several times. And Bev keeps
snipping it out and trying to ignore it. Obviously Bev/Vox do
not want any independent reviews of their obvious lies.
However, what I have noticed in the past, no matter how obvious
it is that Bev is lying, he will start backpedaling, distorting
the issue and whining and dancing.
What I have found disturbing about net con men is they almost all
do exactly what Bev/Vox does. When they get caught in mid-con,
they start trying to distort what was originally said. Many net
con-men with snip out information until they can find a sentence
or two completely out of context, then they reply to their own
distortions. In other words, they are backpedaling and
distorting the evidence they were just caught lying. Taking a
statement out of context, and then trying to ridicule what they
know was never said, is not only dishonest it is typical of
net-con man tactics. Bev does this often, especially when he is
caught in yet another incredible lie.
Also note when I started posting excerpts from the US Trademark
Statutes and FAQ, the con men started to panic. The first thing
they did was start to forge my name and use that forgery to post
open posts supposedly coming from me or as they claimed "The Real
Doug Grant." So suddenly, along with all the other lies and
deceptions, Bev and Vox decided to try and con the readers into
believe their names were really "Doug Grant!"
Not only does this unethical and deceptive tactic prove they are
trying to deceive the readers, it also proves without question
they will stoop to even criminal acts to continue their con.
The cyberstalking laws are clear. The most common form of
cyberstalking is trying to forge a persons name, or trade name in
public posts. Cyberstalking is a criminal act in most states.
Bev/Vox are forging my trademark name
for the purpose of harassment. That is cyberstalking.
Note the following information lists the goods and services
available for Trademark protection.
Some tried to claim that all of the goods and services I produce
under the Doug Grant (Tm) Trademark were not qualified. They
were clearly wrong. Look under the services paragraphs starting
with #35 below:
Note paragraph #42 which is so broad it even provides a section
for "services that cannot be classified in other classes." In
addition, the US Supreme court has issued several rulings (which
I will post if anyone is interested) that indicates the
classification of services and goods are considered broad enough
to encompass *any* commercial goods or services sold interstate
or internationally. ALL of the goods and services I have listed
were sold interstate, and some were also sold internationally.
WAIS Document Retrieval[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 37, Volume 1]
[Revised as of July 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 37CFR6.1]
[Page 324-325]
TITLE 37--PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PART 6--CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES UNDER THE TRADEMARK
ACT--Table of Contents
Sec. 6.1 International schedule of classes of goods and
services.
Goods
1. Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as
well as
in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artificial
resins; unprocessed plastics; manures; fire extinguishing
compositions;
tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for
preserving
foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhesives used in industry.
2. Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust
and
against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants; raw natural
resins;
metals in foil and powder form for painters, decorators, printers
and
artists.
3. Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry
use;
cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps;
perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices.
4. Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing,
wetting
and binding compositions; fuels (including motor spirit) and
illuminants; candles, wicks.
5. Pharmaceutical, veterinary, and sanitary preparations;
dietetic
substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters,
materials
for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax;
disinfectants;
preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.
6. Common metals and their alloys; metal building materials;
transportable buildings of metal; materials of metal for railway
tracks;
nonelectric cables and wires of common metal; ironmongery, small
items
of metal hardware; pipes and tubes of metal; safes; goods of
common
metal not included in other classes; ores.
7. Machines and machine tools; motors and engines (except for
land
vehicles); machine coupling and transmission components (except
for land
vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated;
incubators
for eggs.
8. Hand tools and implements (hand-operated); cutlery; side
arms;
razors.
9. Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic,
cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling,
checking
(supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and
instruments;
apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or
images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic
vending
machines and mechanisms for coin operated apparatus; cash
registers,
calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers;
fire
extinguishing apparatus.
10. Surgical, medical, dental, and veterinary apparatus and
instruments, artificial limbs, eyes, and teeth; orthopedic
articles;
suture materials.
11. Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating,
cooking,
refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply, and sanitary
purposes.
12. Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air, or
water.
13. Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives;
fireworks.
14. Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious
metals or
coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewelry,
precious
stones; horological and chronometric instruments.
15. Musical instruments.
16. Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not
included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material;
photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household
purposes;
artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office
requisites
(except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except
apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in
other
classes); playing cards; printers' type; printing blocks.
17. Rubber, gutta-percha, gum, asbestos, mica and goods made
from
these materials and not included in other classes; plastics in
extruded
form for use in manufacture; packing, stopping and insulating
materials;
flexible pipes, not of metal.
18. Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of
these
materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides;
trunks
and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks;
whips,
harness and saddlery.
19. Building materials (non-metallic); nonmetallic rigid
pipes for
building; asphalt, pitch and bitumen; nonmetallic transportable
buildings; monuments, not of metal.
20. Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods (not included
in other
classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory,
whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and
substitutes for
all these materials, or of plastics.
21. Household or kitchen utensils and containers (not of
precious
metal or coated therewith); combs and sponges; brushes (except
paint
brushes); brush making materials; articles for cleaning purposes;
steel
wool; unworked or semi worked glass (except glass used in
building);
glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other
classes.
22. Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails,
sacks
and bags (not included in other classes); padding and stuffing
materials
(except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials.
23. Yarns and threads, for textile use.
[[Page 325]]
24. Textiles and textile goods, not included in other
classes; beds
and table covers.
25. Clothing, footwear, headgear.
26. Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks
and eyes,
pins and needles; artificial flowers.
27. Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other
materials
for covering existing floors; wall hangings (non textile).
28. Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not
included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees.
29. Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved,
dried
and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces;
eggs,
milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.
30. Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago,
artificial
coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry
and
confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking powder; salt,
mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.
31. Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and
grains not
included in other classes; live animals; fresh fruits and
vegetables;
seeds, natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals; malt.
32. Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other nonalcoholic
drinks;
fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for
making
beverages.
33. Alcoholic beverages (except beers).
34. Tobacco; smokers' articles; matches.
Services
35. Advertising; business management; business
administration;
office functions.
36. Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real
estate
affairs.
37. Building construction; repair; installation services.
38. Telecommunications.
39. Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel
arrangement.
40. Treatment of materials.
41. Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting
and
cultural activities.
42. Providing of food and drink; temporary accommodation;
medical,
hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural services;
legal
services; scientific and industrial research; computer
programming;
services that cannot be classified in other classes.
[64 FR 48927, Sept. 8, 1999]
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2mk5u7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> Statutes:
<off-point idiocy snipped>
Just remember these immutable facts, Douggy Reiman:
1) You're seriously stupid
2) You have NO protected right to Doug Grant as a pen name
3) Your clients must be fools
4) Your lawyers must be idiots, or shysters laughing all the way to the
bank
5) You're an imbecile
6) 1, 2 and 3 above
7) 2, 3, 4 and 5 above
8) all of the above
Signed,
The Real Doug GrantŠ
PS: You're a liar and a coward. Call 911 to report your
cyberstalking "crime" you pathetic liar, sue me for
signing as The Real Doug GrantŠ you gutless coward.
Bev Thornton
>
> My lawyer's name is Mr. Howard Altschuler, Esq., (Fax
> 203-466-1135) (phone 203-467-5577) and he is very familiar with
Hey, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN," maybe you could get some work out of him, he
is looking for assistance with writing. Maybe you could work it out in
trade and have him sue all the "Doug Grant" copyright violators out
there.
<http://www.usd.edu/~legalint/corporate/1.html>
He's got an odd domain for a legal beagle - <http://www.counsel.com/>
Do you and Squigy squirm together, "DOUGLAS?"
Shuckin' and a Jivin',
Famous Doug Grant (TM) - 100% Beef (Bull)
--
Compute FREE: <http://debian.org><http://freedos.org><http://openbsd.org>
PRIVACY: <http://www.gnupg.org> RECYCLE: <http://www.recycles.org/byte/>
<http://care.org><http://www.icrc.org><http://rawa.org><http://tibet.org>
<http://hrw.org><http://www.icbl.org><http://msf.org><http://www.unv.org>