Doug Grant: Trademark Idiot (was: Tactical Nukes Are Necessary (Was Rail Guns))
- Vox Populi ©
news:u2f35ok...@corp.supernews.com...
> Now we have Bev Thornton's aliases forging names. I posted the
> case law that proved that names can be trademark protected,
Only to the extent that they cover specific goods or services.
What specific goods or services do you claim to cover?
>and
> Bev is now using an alias to try and forge my trademark protected
> name. Amazing deceptions, but typical Bev Thornton.
You're lying again.
> If there was any doubt in anyone's mind before about how
> deceptive and underhanded Bev Thornton is this post should
> convince them. Now Bev is trying to forge my trademark protected
> name.....pathetic
You have no protection as you haven't shown either a
registration nor a prior right by use in any particular
category of goods or services.
> I guess he is getting angry at me exposing all of this
> pro-terrorist hype as exactly what it is, hype.
You're deluded again ...
>
> I should also mention that attempted identity theft is a criminal
> act.
In your dreams you psychotic. You have no identity in Doug Grant.
> Moreover, posting such forged identities
Nothing is forged you lying scumbag.
> with a purpose to
> deceive the readers,
Hardly anyone could mistake your profoundly stupid
and ignorant postings for anyone else, regardless
of the internet moniker you post under.
> such as this post, is also a criminal act
> under the Cyberstalking laws....
More complete bullshit from a lying scumbag.
> in fact such acts are a direct
> and specific violation of the Cyberstalking statutes.
Lying sack of shit.
> So this is one post I will keep.
Keep this one too ...under you pillow at the insane asylum.
> And if Bev wants to continue to
> commit criminal acts in the view of all to see and record, the
> next time I will send it to the proper authorities.
Fuck you you cowardly lying sack of shit.
> I will also
> send a subpoena to the ISP of Bev Thornton to find out where he
> can be located by the authorities.
Kiss my ass you lying loser.
>
> You had better stop the cyberstalking and forgeries Bev.
You better have the head nurse adjust your meds ... they aren't
working ...
> Even
> you should not be that stupid. But we will see. Also, who do
> you think you are fooling with this Vox alias?
You apparently you abject idiot.
> You have already
> answered one of my posts under that name....moron.
You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you?
>
> Doug Grant (Tm) Village Idiot®
Signed,
The Real Doug Grant©
Word Mark DOUG GRANT'S LIFE FORCE NUTRITIONALS
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 005. US 006 018 044 046 051 052. G & S: nutritional
supplements. FIRST USE: 19900101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900101
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75110481
Filing Date May 28, 1996
Owner (APPLICANT) Grant, Douglas D. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 63 E. Main Ste. 700 Mesa
ARIZONA 85201
Attorney of Record Rick N. Bryson
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "NUTRITIONALS'" APART FROM THE
MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Typed Drawing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark DOUG GRANT
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 041. US 107. G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY
INSTRUCTION IN PLAYING CARD GAMES AND CASINO GAMES. FIRST USE: 19780900. FIRST USE IN
COMMERCE: 19780900
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73793439
Filing Date April 17, 1989
Published for Opposition April 24, 1990
Registration Number 1606792
Registration Date July 17, 1990
Owner (REGISTRANT) SIGMA RESEARCH, INC. CORPORATION NEW JERSEY SUITE 109 6981 NORTH PARK
DRIVE PENNSAUKEN NEW JERSEY 08109
Attorney of Record NORMAN E. LEHRER
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data THE NAME "DOUG GRANT" IDENTIFIES A LIVING INDIVIDUAL, WHOSE CONSENT IS OF
RECORD.
>
> "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
> news:giLV7.34$LP5....@news.uswest.net...
> > "Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:CwtV7.54317$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2c8ag7...@corp.supernews.com>,
> wrote:
> > >
> > > You're a liar, Douglas G. V. Reiman, and a charlatan and
> slanderer to
> > > boot.
> >
> > I believe he is lying too, in addition to being supremely
> ignorant.
> >
> > Signed,
> >
> > Doug Grant ©
> >
> >
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:3LRV7.80$LP5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2f35ok...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Now we have Bev Thornton's aliases forging names. I posted
the
> > case law that proved that names can be trademark protected,
>
> Only to the extent that they cover specific goods or services.
> What specific goods or services do you claim to cover?
>
Please! You really should consult a lawyer since you clearly
cannot understand the Trademark laws. Once again, here is
excerpt from the US Trademark Regulations and Statute site. I
will present this step by step so you can perhaps understand it:
The following is a direct quotation from the US Trademark and
Patent Site:
C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
(Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
can be protected. This is contrary to what Bve/Vox has been
trying to say.)
US Trademark information continues:
" 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 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, statitistical 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name, for the
purpose of abuse or cyberstalking, such as has been occurring
lately, then that also is a trademark violation, and further
violates several other statutes including the criminal
cyberstalking statutes. IN that case, the Trademark laws would
not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
correct Doug Grant, or would in some manner denigrate the name
Doug Grant, that also is a trademark violation and case law
exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
sued in a court of law.)
Return to US Trademark Laws:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress.
(Clearly, Bev Thornton's ridicilousl insistence that a trademark
must be reigistered is just wrong. Moreover, his continual
harangue on that false point and many others is beyond rational
explanation, especially in consideration of me posted the
verbatim statutes from the US Trademark laws! Moreover, the
evidence shows I was the first to use the Trademark. As I
initially started using it in 1978. Even some of my copyrights
(which were registered at the time) reflect the trade name "Doug
Grant."
Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
cancelled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
switched to the Federal Trademark. Now Bev Thornton posted my
original State trademark,and the only other one he could find was
from 1990. Mine clearly started in 1978. So I was first, and
have provided all of the above goods and services in a tangible
form thereafter.
Bottom line: I have an existing Federal Trademark, which does
not need to be registered and is completely protected by the US
laws. This obvious fact contradicts everything Bev Thornton and
his aliases (Voix Populi) have tried to lie about.
Bev Thornton need help. Even in this post Bev has suddenly
tried to convince the readers of this newsgroup that he is also
named Doug Grant......(see below)....like I said he needs help.
Period. End of story.
Doug Grant (Tm)
- Vox Populi ©
> see below:
>
> "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
> news:3LRV7.80$LP5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message
> > news:u2f35ok...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Now we have Bev Thornton's aliases forging names. I posted
> the
> > > case law that proved that names can be trademark protected,
> >
> > Only to the extent that they cover specific goods or services.
> > What specific goods or services do you claim to cover?
> >
>
> Please! You really should consult a lawyer since you clearly
> cannot understand the Trademark laws. Once again, here is
> excerpt from the US Trademark Regulations and Statute site.
The www site for idiots isn't "case law" moron.
Perhaps you should ask your idiot attorney of
you claim to "Doug Grant" covers all 110+ classes.
> I
> will present this step by step so you can perhaps understand it:
You are a profound idiot.
You have no registered national protection for Doug Grant as a Trademark.
You have not stated any categories or classes of goods
or services that you claim to have engaged in interstate commerce,
and hence *might* be protectable, if you have apriori use
*in the same categories/classes* , nor have you defended
your specious claim to the universal use of Doug Grant.
You cannot, in any circumstance, receive protection for
the Pen Name of the words Doug Grant.
Take those 4 statements above and ask your lawyer to explain them
to you.
You are seriously stupid on Trademark law/basics,
and your lawyer, if he has any competency or
honesty, will confirm that ... after charging you $300.
Signed,
The real Doug Grant©
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:LM4W7.33$Tt4....@news.uswest.net...
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2h7qqg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > see below:
> >
> > "- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
> > news:3LRV7.80$LP5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > news:u2f35ok...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > Now we have Bev Thornton's aliases forging names. I
posted
> > the
> > > > case law that proved that names can be trademark
protected,
> > >
> > > Only to the extent that they cover specific goods or
services.
> > > What specific goods or services do you claim to cover?
> > >
> >
> > Please! You really should consult a lawyer since you clearly
> > cannot understand the Trademark laws. Once again, here is
> > excerpt from the US Trademark Regulations and Statute site.
>
> The www site for idiots isn't "case law" moron.
> Perhaps you should ask your idiot attorney of
> you claim to "Doug Grant" covers all 110+ classes.
I said above, "US Trademark Regulations and Statute site." Now I
know you are an idiot, and that you are a con man, but do you
really expect people to not recognize your lies when they are so
obvious?
The case report was from the WWF. And then it was just a
newspaper accounting. I can post all the case law you want con
man to prove you are a liar.
>
> > I
> > will present this step by step so you can perhaps understand
it:
>
> You are a profound idiot.
No, you are the idiot and a con man to boot. You clearly do not
understand what you are writing about, and you cannot help from
lying about it.
>
> You have no registered national protection for Doug Grant as a
Trademark.
I do not need to register the trademark, it is protected without
registration. Here is an excerpt from the statute again that
proves you are lying:
US Trademark information continues:
Period. End of story.
> > Use as an author's pen name does NOT have such recognition.
>
> We already know that Arty, and have stated that cold hard
> truth to this fool numerous times, thank again for agreeing
> with the accuracy of why I have posted.
The only fool around here is someone name Bev Thornton and his
alias Vox twit. It is pathetic that even in the face of posted
statutes excerpted directly from the US Trademark Statutes, these
con men continue to try and con the readers of this newsgroup
into believe what they have said is true.....pathetic.
> > I
> > don't think it's a listed class, either, but then you would
> > have to register the trademark to get the benefit of
statutory
> > trademark protection.
>
> But, it you have followed this thread, you know the D Reiman
> fool is seriously stupid on this issue.
No moron, if you read above, you are the one that is beyond
seriously stupid. The Trademark Statues clearly prove you are
lying, or are an idiot, or probably both. So cut the con man
bullshit, you cannot defy written statues and expect to gain
credibility for your glaring mistakes and laughable attempts to
"rewrite the US Trademark Statutes." HAHAHAHAHA.
>>
> > According to the laws excerpted below, and I quote:
> >
> > "The owner of a trademark is entitled to the
> > exclusive right to use the mark.
>
> You don't "own" the mark. Your common law claim
> fails miserably.
>
No con man, it does not fail at all. Here is the statute for
common law use and the TM use as well....more evidence you are
lying and trying to con the readers of this newsgroup.
Note the following excerpt from the US Trademark Statutes:
"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."
I was clearly the first to use Doug Grant (Tm) and the (Tm)
indicates I
am pending registration and I claim that trademark. There is no
time constraints for how long I have to register. Therefore, my
Trademark is common law qualified, and is pending registration,
and is protected.
Moreover, as posted above, directly from the Trademark site, is
the information you are clearly trying to hide:
Excerpt from the US Trademark Site:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. "
So Bev/Vox has been caught in mid con once again. The statutes
prove Bev/Vox are either blithering idiots or are just pathetic
liars. The Statutes speak for themselves.
> > This entitlement includes the
> > ability to prevent the use,
>
> You have never defended nor attempted to defend
> you laughable claim to the mark in question, in spite
> of all the other uses of Doug Grant out there in open
> and notorious use. That constitutes abandonment,
> and abrogates any absurd rights you are now claiming.
You are nuts. I have placed my trademarked name on the goods and
services I delivered under that name, and appropriately use the
(TM) after each delivery. According to the statutes my trademark
is protected, and your idiotic, preposterous nonsensical attempt
to "proclaim" some legal interpretation of whether I qualified or
not flies in the face of the statute. I was first to use the
Doug Grant (Tm) name, and I have used it on hundreds of tangible
goods and services, some of which I listed above.
So cut the con man double talk moron, you are not qualified to
even understand the statue not to mention render some edict in
regards to it...Not qualified my ass....your bullshit and feeble
minded attempts to distort the issue, hide, duck and piss your
pants each time you are exposed as the con man you are is truly
pathetic. But keep it up, it is fun to squish you.
>
> > 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."
> >
> > That appears that I would have rights to protect my trademark
> > name under those provisions.
>
> Well, tell you what Sparky, bet your entire Farm on what
> you call "appearance" ... idiot.
Well, tell you what con man, I do not care about filing a lawsuit
unless someone was trying to infringe upon my trademark. So your
bullshit double-talk about me betting anything on anything is
nonsense. If someone violates my trademark, I will sue them
under these statutes.
Your pathetic whine is that even though the law says I am
protected, you now want to claim that I must first be injured.
No shit twit. But that was not the issue. The issue was that
you said my name was not protected, and you clearly were lying,
or were too stupid to know better until I started posted the
statutes that proved you a moron. Now you are backpedaling with
some "proof" bullshit.
>
I hoping you would come up with something original, making fools
out of you is getting too easy. It is almost like dueling with
an unarmed man. So go back to your bullshit factory, and tell
your leaders that there are places on the net that you cannot
con.
>
> >Also see the WWF case, that was
> > similar.
>
> Only in your ignorant and profoundly stupid mind. The case
> is completely irrelevant an inapplicable to your stupid
delusions,
> as both the World Wildlife Fund and the World Wrestling
Federation
> had existing "FEDERALLY REGISTERED" marks, numerous ones.
You pathetic moron. How many times do I need to post the
Trademark statutes to prove you the complete and utter idiot you
clearly are. Trademark protection is afforded to BOTH Registered
(R) trademarks and (TM) pending common law trademarks. Whether
they were registered or not is moot. Whether one entity can
infringe on the name of the other, regardless of the fact they
were not producing the same goods or services is clearly the
issue of the WWF case dum dum. You said that protection, the
name protection did not exist, you obviously lied. That case
proved you were lying....so now you want to distort the issue by
claiming it had something to do with registered trademarks as
opposed to pending or common law trademarks. You have con maned
yourself into a corner con man. Here are the statutes that prove
you a liar, once again:
Here is the statute that proves you are lyinng con man:
From the US Trademark Site:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
So did you notice in this report where BOTH common law and
registered trademarks coexist? HAHAHAHAH. Did you notice above
where it says, and I quote: " Therefore, registration at either
the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark."
So you have been caught red-handed, once again, trying to con the
readers of this newsgroup with double-talk, distortions of the
facts, and general jail house lawyer bullshit. HAHAHHA. But
please continue, this is fun, but at least do not be so obvious
in your lies and pathetic distortions, at least make it
interesting.
>
> Your stupid Doug Grant claim to a "mark" isn't know anywhere
outside
> of your deluded little mind.
That is a lie. I posted all of the goods and services above in
which I have used this mark for over 23 years. However, I do not
deal with con men, idiots, morons and jail house lawyers that are
pathological liars, so you not dealing with one of my services is
understandable.
BTW, if you want some specificity in respect to the services and
goods I have produced, through four different corporations,
several professional licences, and even a few registered
copyrights, have your lawyer contact mine. You pay the legal
fees and I will ask my lawyer to post the list of services and
goods produced under the trademark protected name of Doug Grant.
> >
>
> > Doug Grant (Tm) you are a moron.
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
Now this con man wants us to believe that his real name is Doug
Grant. Suddenly, after all this time, the con man is trying to
forge my trademark protected name, and claim that Doug Grant is
his "real" name. Moreover, he is trying to use my trademark name
in a form of cyberstalking. Now does this con man actually
expect people to beleive him? This guy is a very sad case. What
he does not know however, is forging a name like he is doing is a
criminal act.
Now if he does not agree, you know I am ready to post the statute
that proves that such tactics are indeed a criminal act. So I
need to tell him this first:
If you continue forging my trademark name, and continue to use
it, I intend to take the appropriate legal action.
You have been warned.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
- Vox Populi ©
Yet you quoted no statute, code or case law to support
your preposterous claim.
> The case report was from the WWF. And then it was just a
> newspaper accounting.
A newspaper report of an off-point case that has
no elements applicable to your absurd claims is
as worthless as your claimed universal mark in
the words Doug Grant.
> >
> > You are a profound idiot.
>
> No, you are the idiot and a con man to boot. You clearly do not
> understand what you are writing about, and you cannot help from
> lying about it.
>
> >
> > You have no registered national protection for Doug Grant as a
> Trademark.
>
> I do not need to register the trademark, it is protected without
> registration. Here is an excerpt from the statute again that
> proves you are lying:
It is only protected to the extent that it would/could be
protected under USPTO law. Since you have not
engaged in interstate commerce in any protectable
classes or categories of goods and services, you have no
protection.
Furthermore, you cannot protect a Pen Name under USPTO
law.
> (Clearly trying to forge the name Doug Grant which is my
> trademark,
You're lying again. You have no trademark registered with
the USPTO, and you have not stated or shown any common
law protection for specific goods and services.
You lose, loser.
> and producing any goods or services I have produced in
> the past under such name, would be a violation of my trademark.
You have not produced any evidence to show you have engaged
in interstate commerce or goods or services using the name
"Doug Grant" to identify and market those specific goods and
services.
Additionally, authoring works under that name give you ZERO
protection under Trademark law to that Pen Name.
> So, contrary to what Bev Thornton has been lying about, the
> actual NAME is protected under existing trademark statutes.
Wrong again you ignoramus. The marketing of specific goods and
services *might* be protected, but the name itself as a universal entity
is not. And in no case are the words Doug Grant protectable as a
Pen Name for authorship.
> 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, statitistical 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 (received money or other
> compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
> violation of my trademark.
Nope, again you are in error. Your Pen Name is not protectable
under USPTO law.
> However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name,
Your name isn't Trademarked, either via registration or
via common law with respect to authorship.
> for the
> purpose of abuse or cyberstalking,
You are an complete psychotic idiot, aren't you?
> such as has been occurring
> lately,
You're lying again you psycho.
> then that also is a trademark violation,
Then you better defend it, you idiot.
> and further
> violates several other statutes including the criminal
> cyberstalking statutes.
Once again you prove you are a lying sack of shit.
Care to cite the "cyberstalking statute" you claim
is even remotely applicable, you abject moron?
> IN that case, the Trademark laws would
> not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Then call 911 ... psycho.
> Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
> of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
> correct Doug Grant,
There is no correct Doug Grant you psychotic nitwit. And no
one could confuse your delusional psychosis with anyone
else name, or calling themselves, Doug Grant.
> or would in some manner denigrate the name
> Doug Grant,
You denigrate and humiliate the name yourself, quite well
with your profound ignorance of Trademark law, and your
serious stupid psychotic ramblings.
> that also is a trademark violation and case law
> exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
> sued in a court of law.)
So what's stopping you coward? Fear or common sense?
>
>
> Return to US Trademark Laws:
> Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
> cancelled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
> Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
> a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
> switched to the Federal Trademark.
You didn't "switch" to Federal trademark. You did nothing. In fact you
cancelled and withdrew you Federal application which only covered
the specific category/class IC 041. US 107.
Nothing there about "Pen Names" is there?
Typed Drawing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark DOUG GRANT
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 041. US 107. G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY
INSTRUCTION IN PLAYING CARD GAMES AND CASINO GAMES. FIRST USE: 19780900. FIRST USE IN
COMMERCE: 19780900
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73793439
Filing Date April 17, 1989
Published for Opposition April 24, 1990
Registration Number 1606792
Registration Date July 17, 1990
Owner (REGISTRANT) SIGMA RESEARCH, INC. CORPORATION NEW JERSEY SUITE 109 6981 NORTH PARK
DRIVE PENNSAUKEN NEW JERSEY 08109
Attorney of Record NORMAN E. LEHRER
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data THE NAME "DOUG GRANT" IDENTIFIES A LIVING INDIVIDUAL, WHOSE CONSENT IS OF
RECORD.
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date January 20, 1997
Serial Number: 73793439
Registration Number: 1606792
Mark (words only): DOUG GRANT
Current Status: Registration canceled under Section 8.
Date of Status: 1997-01-20
Filing Date: 1989-04-17
Registration Date: 1990-07-17
Law Office Assigned: TMEO Law Office # 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SIGMA RESEARCH, INC.
Address:
SIGMA RESEARCH, INC.
SUITE 109 6981 NORTH PARK DRIVE
PENNSAUKEN, NJ 08109
United States
Country of Citizenship: United States
Incorporated in State: New Jersey
Legal Entity Type: Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY INSTRUCTION IN PLAYING CARD GAMES AND CASINO GAMES
International Class: 041
First Use Date: 19780900
First Use in Commerce Date: 19780900
Basis: 1(a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Portrait Consent: THE NAME "DOUG GRANT" IDENTIFIES A LIVING INDIVIDUAL, WHOSE CONSENT
IS OF RECORD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROSECUTION HISTORY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997-01-20 - Canceled Section 8 (6-year)
1990-07-17 - Registered - Principal Register
1990-04-24 - Published for opposition
1990-03-24 - Notice of publication
1990-01-12 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
1989-12-27 - Communication received from applicant
1989-06-21 - Non-final action mailed
1989-06-09 - Case file assigned to examining attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTACT INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correspondent (Owner)
NORMAN E. LEHRER (Attorney of record)
NORMAN E. LEHRER
1205 NORTH KINGS HIGHWAY
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
United States
> Now Bev Thornton posted my
> original State trademark,and the only other one he could find was
> from 1990. Mine clearly started in 1978. So I was first,
First relative to who?
And only to the specific class IC 041. US 107.
You have ZERO protected rights in any other unused class,
and have ZERO rights to the Pen Name Doug Grant.
Ask your lawyer you moron.
> and
> have provided all of the above goods and services in a tangible
> form thereafter.
>
> Bottom line: I have an existing Federal Trademark, which does
> not need to be registered and is completely protected by the US
> laws.
In what specific category/class?
> This obvious fact contradicts everything Bev Thornton and
> his aliases (Voix Populi) have tried to lie about.
You're lying once again, I'm not Bev you moron.
> > > Use as an author's pen name does NOT have such recognition.
> >
> > We already know that Arty, and have stated that cold hard
> > truth to this fool numerous times, thank again for agreeing
> > with the accuracy of why I have posted.
>
> The only fool around here is someone name Bev Thornton and his
> alias Vox twit. It is pathetic that even in the face of posted
> statutes excerpted directly from the US Trademark Statutes, these
> con men continue to try and con the readers of this newsgroup
> into believe what they have said is true.....pathetic.
>
> > > I
> > > don't think it's a listed class, either, but then you would
> > > have to register the trademark to get the benefit of
> statutory
> > > trademark protection.
> >
> > But, it you have followed this thread, you know the D Reiman
> > fool is seriously stupid on this issue.
>
> No moron, if you read above, you are the one that is beyond
> seriously stupid. The Trademark Statues clearly prove you are
> lying, or are an idiot, or probably both. So cut the con man
> bullshit, you cannot defy written statues
You haven't posted any statutes you blithering ignoramus,
you posted some summary digest from a www site.
>and expect to gain
> credibility for your glaring mistakes and laughable attempts to
> "rewrite the US Trademark Statutes." HAHAHAHAHA.
> >>
> > > According to the laws excerpted below, and I quote:
> > >
> > > "The owner of a trademark is entitled to the
> > > exclusive right to use the mark.
> >
> > You don't "own" the mark. Your common law claim
> > fails miserably.
> >
> No con man, it does not fail at all. Here is the statute for
> common law use and the TM use as well....more evidence you are
> lying and trying to con the readers of this newsgroup.
>
> Note the following excerpt from the US Trademark Statutes:
<snip off-point idiocy>
> >
> > Your stupid Doug Grant claim to a "mark" isn't know anywhere
> outside
> > of your deluded little mind.
>
> That is a lie. I posted all of the goods and services above in
> which I have used this mark for over 23 years.
No, you failed to properly identify the category and class,
which renders your claim meaningless. Furthermore you neglected
to provide any specific dates of first use in interstate commerce,
again rendering your absurd claim to the Pen Name of Doug Grant
to be the joke that it is.
> BTW, if you want some specificity in respect to the services and
> goods I have produced, through four different corporations,
> several professional licences, and even a few registered
> copyrights, have your lawyer contact mine. You pay the legal
> fees and I will ask my lawyer to post the list of services and
> goods produced under the trademark protected name of Doug Grant.
> > >
> >
> > > Doug Grant (Tm) you are a moron.
> >
> > Signed,
> >
> > The Real Doug Grant©
>
> Now this con man wants us to believe that his real name is Doug
> Grant. Suddenly, after all this time, the con man is trying to
> forge
No "forgery" at all you liar.
> my trademark protected name,
It isn't protected for Usenet authorship at all, you psychotic loser.
> and claim that Doug Grant is
> his "real" name.
Never made that claim, you illiterate imbecile.
> Moreover, he is trying to use my trademark name
> in a form of cyberstalking.
A "form" known only to your diseased and disturbed mind.
> Now does this con man actually
> expect people to beleive him? This guy is a very sad case. What
> he does not know however, is forging a name like he is doing is a
> criminal act.
Then call 911 you psycho.
> Now if he does not agree, you know I am ready to post the statute
> that proves that such tactics are indeed a criminal act. So I
> need to tell him this first:
Go ahead you loser.
>
> If you continue forging my trademark name, and continue to use
> it, I intend to take the appropriate legal action.
Fuck you you lying sack of shit. You have no trademark protection
in the Pen Name Doug Grant, neither registered nor in common law.
> You have been warned.
Eat shit you coward.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
I am sure many are tired of the lies and distortions being posted
by Bev Thornton and his aliases. Yet for the fun of it, I went
back and copied *exactly* what Bev Thornton initially said, what
I said in reply, and I have further inserted what the US
Trademark FAQ says about each issue.
If you want to see how Bev et al aliases are lying, read the
following. It is a glaring example of how pathological liars
like Bev and his aliases operate:
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:DEnV7.53768$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
Doug Said:
Bev. Do you know how many names are trademark protected in this
country? Are you nuts? Your attempt to claim that a name cannot
be trademark protected is not only wrong, your continual
insistence that lawyers that file trademark documents are somehow
ripping people off is libelous.
Bev Said:
> You're the moron. If some lawyer told you what you claim, you
got ripped.
The US Trademark Site FAQ says:
C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
(Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
can be protected. This is contrary to what Bev/Vox has been
trying to say.)
Doug Said:
If someone else wrote something and tried to pan
it off as it was written by Doug Grant, that would be a
trademark violation.
Bev said:
No, it wouldn't.
The US Trademark FAQ Says:
" 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 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name, for the
purpose of abuse or cyberstalking, such as has been occurring
lately, then that also is a trademark violation, and further
violates several other statutes including the criminal
cyberstalking statutes. IN that case, the Trademark laws would
not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
correct Doug Grant, or would in some manner denigrate the name
Doug Grant, that also is a trademark violation and case law
exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
sued in a court of law.)
Doug Said:
Yes it would. I offered to send your lawyer confirmation of that
fact if you will agree to pay the legal fees. You are ducking
that challenge. Everyone knows you can trademark protect a name
Bev., Ask Hilton, McDonalds, Microsoft, Intel, Wendy's, and so on
and so on. You need help Bev.
>
Bev Said:
> And you're lying about your registration. It doesn't exist.
>
>
<http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=tr
mk>
>
> There are only two "Doug Grant" registrations, neither is
pseudonym and neither is yours. There isn't even a dead one.
Doug Said:
HAHAHAHAHA. Bev, you are looking at the wrong link again! If
you want to check out the trademark laws go to that link not the
one above. You will find there is something called a common law
trademark. I have a trademark certificate that was initially
filed with an expiration date of 10 years. My lawyer advised me
to use a common law trademark as they do not require renewal
instead of filing a renewal, and since my trademark was first, I
qualified. Now if you are claiming otherwise, you are a liar or
an idiot, or both. I have a trademark certificate under the name
of Doug Grant, and I will be glad to send you a copy if you pay
the fees. BTW, the name of my lawyer is Mr. Howard Altschuler,
Esq., with offices in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. So
please repeat for us again what you said about my lawyer lying to
me about trademark laws. I will send it to him.
(Note I still have this Certificate. It was originally filed in
the State of New Jersey, and Bev was not looking for State
Trademarks, nor did he even understand that such trademarks even
existed.)
Bev Said:
> Get real.
Doug Said:
I am being real. Lawyers know the law Bev, clearly you do not.
So if you are going to practice law at least know a lawyer. So
what is the name of your lawyer and I will have mine contact him
and explain this to him so he can explain it to you.
>
> I tell you what - dig this.
>
> Signed,
>
> Doug Grant
>
> See you in court.
Doug Said:
No Bev, a "registered" trademark is used only if the owner
wants to use that symbol (R) and register it...that symbol is no
longer
necessary as the US Government changed its rules and now
allows "Common Law" trademarks to be used instead.
>
Bev said:
> That's bull too. Conventional marks could always be used. The
> registration mark is the only one controlled, it's illegal to
use it without actual registration. Common law rights are
automatic on
first use and they always were.
The US Trademark FAQ says:
"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."
I was clearly the first to use Doug Grant (Tm) and the (Tm)
indicates I am pending registration and I claim that trademark.
There is no
time constraints for how long I have to register. Therefore, my
Trademark is common law qualified, and is pending registration,
and is protected.
Bev is trying to claim above that a (Tm) mark is not controlled
nor protected. Bev is clearly wrong.
Doug Said:
Bev do you know how to read? I said they were no longer
necessary, not that they cannot be used if someone wants to use
them. Moreover, if you are going to try and forge my trademark
name, and say "see me in court" then I need to know the name of
your lawyer right now. Also, first you said common law
trademarks did not exist, now above you are saying common law
trademarks are automatic. I think you are confusing "copyrights"
with "trademarks" again Bev. Like I said, what is the name of
your lawyer?
>
Doug Said:
> > That way the trademark does not need to be renewed every ten
years.
Bev Said:
> Well, if it isn't it's 'dead.'
Doug Said:
No Bev, you are absolutely wrong. That was true before the laws
were changed to allow common law trademarks. They do not need to
be renewed. Now if you would like to speak to a trademark
lawyer, I will be glad to arrange it so you can be told you are
wrong by a professional.
The US Trademark FAQ says:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
(Clearly, Bev Thornton's ridiculous insistence that a trademark
must be registered and renewed and "is dead if it is not
registered or renewed" is just wrong.
Moreover, Bev's continual
harangue on that false point and many others is beyond rational
explanation, especially in consideration of me posted the
verbatim answers from the US Trademark laws! Moreover, the
evidence shows I was the first to use the Trademark. As I
initially started using it in 1978. Even some of my copyrights
(which were registered at the time) reflect the trade name "Doug
Grant."
Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
canceled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
switched to the Federal Trademark. Now Bev Thornton posted my
original State trademark, and the only other one he could find
was
from 1990. Mine clearly started in 1978. So I was first, and
have provided all of the above goods and services in a tangible
form thereafter.
Bottom line: I have an existing Federal Trademark, which does
not need to be registered and is completely protected by the US
laws. This obvious fact contradicts everything Bev Thornton and
his aliases (Voix Populi) have tried to lie about.
Bev Said:
> It used to be twenty years in the US but in the late eighties
they changed it to ten.
>
> <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Application015>
Doug Said:
You are way behind the times on this Bev. Common law trademarks
do not need to be renewed. (Note above the US Trademark FAQ says
they do not even need to be registered not to mentioned
"renewed.").
>
Doug Said:
> > You are not a lawyer Bev, and you clearly do not have a clue
> > about what you are talking about.
Bev said:
> I'm not talking, moron, I'm typing, writing.
Heh. You are losing it Bev.
>
Doug Said:
> > I originally registered this Doug Grant Trademark in 1988,
and I still have the certificate.
>
Bev Said:
> You're either a liar or a fool with a forged certificate. There
is no such trademark registered with the USPTO.
Doug Said:
It does not need to be registered with the USPTO you blithering
twit! HAHAHAHAHA. If you want to know things about the law Bev,
talk to your lawyer or mine. You clearly do not have a clue.
>
IF you wish to challenge that, then if you are willing to pay
for your legal fees and mine, I will produce a certified copy of
that Trademark certificate to your lawyer. So either put up or
quit your moronic whining.
(My trademark certificate was originally granted by the State of
New Jersey. That proved I was first to use the Trademark name of
Doug Grant. When the US laws changed, allowing Common Law
Trademarks to be used with a pending trademark symbol of (Tm) I
had no reason to renew a State Trademark when I could
automatically claim a Federal Trademark. Bev was too stupid to
realize that many lawyers would choose to initially file in
State, then later in Federal using the Sate registration to
verify "first use." Moreover, it is so simple to do my lawyer
did not even charge me for the service. It also helped that my
business partner is a lawyer.)
Bev said:
You're a liar. You didn't register anything ever. There isn't
even a dead registration with your name on it.
Doug Said:
OK Bev, once again I will send your lawyer a copy of my Trademark
certificate that you claim does not exist. You pay the postage
and I will send it out tomorrow. Then your lawyer can contact
mine anytime he/she wishes for verification. You are soooooo
stupid you do not even know about trademark certificates, State
versus Federal, nor even about Common Law trademarks. So stop
making a complete and utter ass out of yourself and contact your
lawyer and ask him to contact mine.
(Later after I told Bev where to look, he found a copy of my
original State registration. So Bev's statement above that
"There isn't even a dead registration with your name on it" is
about as egregious as it gets.)
>
Doug said:
> > Bev, you obviously do not know the law. How many other
people are named McDonald? But if you think they can open a
hamburger joint and start selling hamburgers under the trademark
protected name of "McDonalds" then not only are you off your
meds, you
need to increase the dose when you finally are caught by your
handlers again.
Bev Said
It doesn't protect author's
pseudonyms. Look at all the Doug Grant authors out there - try
sueing one.
Doug Said:
If someone tries to sell a product under the name of Doug Grant,
even if his real name is Doug Grant, (and it had better be Doug
Grant and not a variation of that name) yes I have the right to
sue him. Just the same as if Bill McDonald opened up a
hamburger stand and tried to sell hamburgers under the name of
McDonalds.
In fact, there is a lawsuit going on right now between the
Wrestling Federation and a Wildlife protection association. I
will post the details for you if you tell me the name of a lawyer
or someone sane enough to explain the law to you....as you
clearly are not capable of understanding even the most simplest
of laws.
The US Trademark FAQ says:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I doubt if really know how many people
are laughing at you Bev. HAHAHAHAHAHA. My lawyer certainly got
a good laugh out of your preposterous nonsense.
Bev said:
> Sure he did. You lie like a rug, Doug.
Doug Said:
No Bev, I think you have your facts a bit muddled. You are the
liar and idiot Bev, I have even tried to send you a copy of my
trademark certificate, and have given you the name of my lawyer,
and you just keep on conning and lying. Your agenda is obvious
Bev. You have been caught red-handed lying about Rail Guns and
Nukes, and now you are trying your best to flame me on any issue
you can think of. All you are doing is making a fool out of
yourself.
>
> --
Doug Grant (Tm)
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:LO5W7.735$w%2.17...@news.uswest.net...
Note this con man is now trying to hide the US Trademark FAQ
information I posted above. This fool clearly is embarassed he
made such an idiot out of himself.
> >
> > I said above, "US Trademark Regulations and Statute site."
>
> Yet you quoted no statute, code or case law to support
> your preposterous claim.
Now con man Vox wants to ignore the US Trademark Site, its
published FAQ, and he wants me to start searching case law for
him. Then when I post the case law, he will just lie and con
about that also. See above for what the US Trademark FAQ
says....its says that Bev Thornton and Vox Populi alias are
incredible con men trying to pan off some worthless services and
lies to the readers of these newsgroups.
>
>
> > The case report was from the WWF. And then it was just a
> > newspaper accounting.
>
> A newspaper report of an off-point case that has
> no elements applicable to your absurd claims is
> as worthless as your claimed universal mark in
> the words Doug Grant.
Off point my ass. It was about one company suing another for the
use of their initials, although neither dealt in the same goods
or services. Moreover, the Plaintiff won the case. So it became
case law. That is why you snip it. You know it proves that you
are lying and conning the readers of this newsgroup.
>
>
> > >
> > > You are a profound idiot.
> >
> > No, you are the idiot and a con man to boot. You clearly do
not
> > understand what you are writing about, and you cannot help
from
> > lying about it.
> >
> > >
> > > You have no registered national protection for Doug Grant
as a
> > Trademark.
> >
> > I do not need to register the trademark, it is protected
without
> > registration. Here is an excerpt from the statute again that
> > proves you are lying:
>
> It is only protected to the extent that it would/could be
> protected under USPTO law. Since you have not
> engaged in interstate commerce in any protectable
> classes or categories of goods and services, you have no
> protection.
>
> Furthermore, you cannot protect a Pen Name under USPTO
> law.
First you said above I had no protection, now you admit I do.
What a con man! Here is what the US Trademark FAQ says con man:
> " Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law
coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
>
> > (Clearly trying to forge the name Doug Grant which is my
> > trademark,
>
> You're lying again. You have no trademark registered with
> the USPTO, and you have not stated or shown any common
> law protection for specific goods and services.
You are wrong again con man. I listed goods and services, and I
do not need to show you anything. Moreover, the goods and
services only need to be within a category classified by
congress. Obviously, the goods and services I listed are within
a classified category. So once again con man, you have been
caught in mid con.
>
> You lose, loser.
No con man, you are clearly a pathetic loser, and an idiot con
man to boot. You cannot attempt to lie to everyone, deny the US
Trademark FAQ which is based upon the statutes, and expect people
to believe you. Moreover, you cannot start forging my name and
expect people to believe that your real name is Doug Grant! You
must be delusional. People are not going to believe you con man,
your lies are incredibly stupid and transparent.
>
> > and producing any goods or services I have produced in
> > the past under such name, would be a violation of my
trademark.
>
> You have not produced any evidence to show you have engaged
> in interstate commerce or goods or services using the name
> "Doug Grant" to identify and market those specific goods and
> services.
Your requirement for "evidence" is moot. It will be the court's
requirement that will be applicable. You are a con man idiot.
Evidence means nothing to you, no more than written statutes,
that fact is clear. Moreover, I listed the goods and services I
sold under the name of Doug Grant, it is a long list. You
snipped the list, and then lied about it not existing. (I posted
it again above just to see you snip it out again.)
However, I do not deal with con men, idiots, pathological
liars, goofs, nor moronic baboons. So you and your family
probably will never deal with my goods and services.
>
> > So, contrary to what Bev Thornton has been lying about, the
> > actual NAME is protected under existing trademark statutes.
>
> Wrong again you ignoramus. The marketing of specific goods and
> services *might* be protected, but the name itself as a
universal entity
> is not. And in no case are the words Doug Grant protectable as
a
> Pen Name for authorship.
Well let's see who the US Trademark FAQ says is an "ignoramus" -
you or me"
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, statitistical 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
>
>
> Nope, again you are in error. Your Pen Name is not protectable
> under USPTO law.
>
See above and see the WWF case law lawsuit. In that lawsuit WWF
was sued over just the use of the name as the goods and services
were not the same. The Plaintiff won the case. I posted a
review of that case, and you snip it out and try to hide it.
Then in true con man style, you said the 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 above, in this very post, you admit
that common law trademarks have the same protection! You lie,
con, get caught, lie some more, con, lie, get caught and just lie
some more.
You obviously have a problem with reality.
>
The US Trademark FAQ clearly shows you are the ignoramus.
> > However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name,
>
> Your name isn't Trademarked, either via registration or
> via common law with respect to authorship.
See above con man. The US Trademark FAQ says you are
lying....again.
>
> > for the
> > purpose of abuse or cyberstalking,
>
> You are an complete psychotic idiot, aren't you?
The cyberstalking laws are clear. The most common form of
cyberstalking is trying to forge a persons name, or trade name in
public posts. That is what you are doing. Cyberstalking is a
criminal act in most states. You are forging my trademark name
for the purpose of harassment. That is cyberstalking. I have
warned you several times to stop. But you continue despite those
warnings. You are leaving me with little choice. Please state
the name of your lawyer so my lawyer can contact him.
If you do not have a lawyer, then give me your general area and
we will contact your local prosecutor.
>
> > such as has been occurring
> > lately,
>
> You're lying again you psycho.
>
> > then that also is a trademark violation,
>
> Then you better defend it, you idiot.
Taking what I say out of context, distorting what I said, then
answering your own distortions is indicative of Bev Thornton.
You obviously are Bev's alias, or you suffer from the same
disease.
>
> > and further
> > violates several other statutes including the criminal
> > cyberstalking statutes.
>
> Once again you prove you are a lying sack of shit.
> Care to cite the "cyberstalking statute" you claim
> is even remotely applicable, you abject moron?
No con man, you are the one that is violating the cyberstalking
statutes. And yes I can post them. But first I need the name of
your lawyer. As posting them here for idiots like you to read is
pointless. You will just con and lie about them (although they
are very clear and what you are doing is a "classic" violation.)
Remember each time you violate this criminal statutes represents
a separate count. I urge you to contact your lawyer. If you do
not have a lawyer, then are you an American citizen? If you are
I suggest legal aid....as obviously you are too stupid to have
enough money to hire a lawyer,and you *certainly* do not have a
clue in respect to written statutes or case law.
>
> > IN that case, the Trademark laws would
> > not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
>
> Then call 911 ... psycho.
I will be glad to call the authorities con man, which area do you
live. Just the general area, I do not need your address.
>
>
> > Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner,
regardless
> > of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
> > correct Doug Grant,
>
> There is no correct Doug Grant you psychotic nitwit. And no
> one could confuse your delusional psychosis with anyone
> else name, or calling themselves, Doug Grant.
Once again con man, you are ranting and raving. The US Trademark
laws allow me to protect the misuse of my trademark protected
name. I posted the US Trademark FAQ information that proves
that point above. Once again, you are attempting to lie about
written statutes.....that is pathetic con man, so pathetic that
you must be Bev Thornton....no *two* people could suffer from the
same unusual disease.
>
> > or would in some manner denigrate the name
> > Doug Grant,
>
> You denigrate and humiliate the name yourself, quite well
> with your profound ignorance of Trademark law, and your
> serious stupid psychotic ramblings.
>
No con man, I posted the US Trademark FAQ to back up what I said.
It proved you were lying and trying to con the readers with your
aliases and real name. So back to your hole con man, you have
been caught red-handed lying and conning and distorting
information to a point that it is almost unbelievable.
> > that also is a trademark violation and case law
> > exists demonstrating that someone using such can be
successfully
> > sued in a court of law.)
>
> So what's stopping you coward? Fear or common sense?
What is the name of your lawyer?
>
> >
> >
> > Return to US Trademark Laws:
>
>
> > Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark
which I
> > cancelled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
> > Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I
maintain
> > a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
> > switched to the Federal Trademark.
>
>
> You didn't "switch" to Federal trademark. You did nothing. In
fact you
> cancelled and withdrew you Federal application which only
covered
> the specific category/class IC 041. US 107.
Con man, all I needed to do was use my trade name, and place a
(Tm) behind it for protection in ALL of the classes of goods and
services I sold under that name. That is what the law says con
man. I posted the US Trademark FAQ on that subject at least a
dozen times. You cannot read, or you are an idiot, or a con man,
or a twit, or just a pathetic pathological liar, or a combination
of all. Just because you cannot read, that does not mean others
cannot. The US Trademark FAQ is posted here, and the link is in
this post. It is very easy to prove you the con man you clearly
are.
Do you think that others are not going to believe the information
coming from the US Trademark site, and believe your nonsense
instead? Are you that delusional?
>
>
>
> > Now does this con man actually
> > expect people to beleive him? This guy is a very sad case.
What
> > he does not know however, is forging a name like he is doing
is a
> > criminal act.
>
> Then call 911 you psycho.
>
>
> >
> > If you continue forging my trademark name, and continue to
use
> > it, I intend to take the appropriate legal action.
>
> Fuck you you lying sack of shit. You have no trademark
protection
> in the Pen Name Doug Grant, neither registered nor in common
law.
>
> > You have been warned.
>
> Eat shit you coward.
>
> > Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> Note the forgery once again. This person is obviously trying
to con the readers of this newsgroup that his real name is "Doug
Grant." Strange how he decided that was his real name after he
started lying about trademarks? Does this con man sell trademark
work? What is his interest to lie and forge names and use
cyberstalking? I think we shall find out.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Note this con man is now trying to hide the US Trademark FAQ
information I posted above. This fool clearly is embarassed he
made such an idiot out of himself.
> >
> > I said above, "US Trademark Regulations and Statute site."
>
> Yet you quoted no statute, code or case law to support
> your preposterous claim.
Now con man Vox wants to ignore the US Trademark Site, its
published FAQ, and he wants me to start searching case law for
him. Then when I post the case law, he will just lie and con
about that also. See above for what the US Trademark FAQ
says....its says that Bev Thornton and Vox Populi alias are
incredible con men trying to pan off some worthless services and
lies to the readers of these newsgroups.
>
>
> > The case report was from the WWF. And then it was just a
> > newspaper accounting.
>
> A newspaper report of an off-point case that has
> no elements applicable to your absurd claims is
> as worthless as your claimed universal mark in
> the words Doug Grant.
Off point my ass. It was about one company suing another for the
use of their initials, although neither dealt in the same goods
or services. Moreover, the Plaintiff won the case. So it became
case law. That is why you snip it. You know it proves that you
are lying and conning the readers of this newsgroup.
>
>
> > >
> > > You are a profound idiot.
> >
> > No, you are the idiot and a con man to boot. You clearly do
not
> > understand what you are writing about, and you cannot help
from
> > lying about it.
> >
> > >
> > > You have no registered national protection for Doug Grant
as a
> > Trademark.
> >> > I do not need to register the trademark, it is protected
without
> > registration. Here is an excerpt from the statute again that
> > proves you are lying:
>
> It is only protected to the extent that it would/could be
> protected under USPTO law. Since you have not
> engaged in interstate commerce in any protectable
> classes or categories of goods and services, you have no
> protection.
Note that before Vox Populi howled, whined, cried and blubbered
that no way, no how do I have a protected trademark name....now
AFTER I posted the applicable statute that proved him the clear
and unmistakable buffoon and liar he is, he now *admits* he has
been lying all along with his admission above. But now he wants
to change the subject.
See how easy it is to catch these net con men in their lies and
distortions? See how much fun you can have exposing these con
men? I just love doing it....
>
> Furthermore, you cannot protect a Pen Name under USPTO
> law.
First you said above I had no protection, now you admit I do.
What a con man! Here is what the US Trademark FAQ says con man:
> " Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law
coexists with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
>
> > (Clearly trying to forge the name Doug Grant which is my
> > trademark,
>
> You're lying again. You have no trademark registered with
> the USPTO, and you have not stated or shown any common
> law protection for specific goods and services.
You are wrong again con man. I listed goods and services, and I
do not need to show you anything. Moreover, the goods and
services only need to be within a category classified by
congress. Obviously, the goods and services I listed are within
a classified category. So once again con man, you have been
caught in mid con.
>
> You lose, loser.
No con man, you are clearly a pathetic loser, and an idiot con
man to boot. You cannot attempt to lie to everyone, deny the US
Trademark FAQ which is based upon the statutes, and expect people
to believe you. Moreover, you cannot start forging my name and
expect people to believe that your real name is Doug Grant! You
must be delusional. People are not going to believe you con man,
your lies are incredibly stupid and transparent.
>
> > and producing any goods or services I have produced in
> > the past under such name, would be a violation of my
trademark.
>
> You have not produced any evidence to show you have engaged
> in interstate commerce or goods or services using the name
> "Doug Grant" to identify and market those specific goods and
> services.
Your requirement for "evidence" is moot. It will be the court's
requirement that will be applicable. You are a con man idiot.
Evidence means nothing to you, no more than written statutes,
that fact is clear. Moreover, I listed the goods and services I
sold under the name of Doug Grant, it is a long list. You
snipped the list, and then lied about it not existing. (I posted
it again above just to see you snip it out again.)
However, I do not deal with con men, idiots, pathological
liars, goofs, nor moronic baboons. So you and your family
probably will never deal with my goods and services.>
> > So, contrary to what Bev Thornton has been lying about, the
> > actual NAME is protected under existing trademark statutes.
>
> Wrong again you ignoramus. The marketing of specific goods and
> services *might* be protected, but the name itself as a
universal entity
> is not. And in no case are the words Doug Grant protectable as
a
> Pen Name for authorship.
Well let's see who the US Trademark FAQ says is an "ignoramus" -
you or me"
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, statitistical 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 (received money or
othercompensation for such production) then that constitute a
direct
violation of my trademark.
>
>
> Nope, again you are in error. Your Pen Name is not protectable
> under USPTO law.
>
See above and see the WWF case law lawsuit. In that lawsuit WWF
was sued over just the use of the name as the goods and services
were not the same. The Plaintiff won the case. I posted a
review of that case, and you snip it out and try to hide it.
Then in true con man style, you said the 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 above, in this very post, you admit
that common law trademarks have the same protection! You lie,
con, get caught, lie some more, con, lie, get caught and just lie
some more.
You obviously have a problem with reality.
>
The US Trademark FAQ clearly shows you are the ignoramus.
> > However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name,
>
> Your name isn't Trademarked, either via registration or
> via common law with respect to authorship.
See above con man. The US Trademark FAQ says you are
lying....again.
>
> > for the
> > purpose of abuse or cyberstalking,
>
> You are an complete psychotic idiot, aren't you?
The cyberstalking laws are clear. The most common form of
cyberstalking is trying to forge a persons name, or trade name in
public posts. That is what you are doing. Cyberstalking is a
criminal act in most states. You are forging my trademark name
for the purpose of harassment. That is cyberstalking. I
havewarned you several times to stop. But you continue despite
those
warnings. You are leaving me with little choice. Please state
the name of your lawyer so my lawyer can contact him.
If you do not have a lawyer, then give me your general area and
we will contact your local prosecutor.
>
> > such as has been occurring
> > lately,
>
> You're lying again you psycho.
>
> > then that also is a trademark violation,
>
> Then you better defend it, you idiot.
Taking what I say out of context, distorting what I said, then
answering your own distortions is indicative of Bev Thornton.
You obviously are Bev's alias, or you suffer from the same
disease.
>
> > and further
> > violates several other statutes including the criminal
> > cyberstalking statutes.
>
> Once again you prove you are a lying sack of shit.
> Care to cite the "cyberstalking statute" you claim
> is even remotely applicable, you abject moron?
No con man, you are the one that is violating the cyberstalking
statutes. And yes I can post them. But first I need the name of
your lawyer. As posting them here for idiots like you to read is
pointless. You will just con and lie about them (although they
are very clear and what you are doing is a "classic" violation.)
Remember each time you violate this criminal statutes represents
a separate count. I urge you to contact your lawyer. If you do
not have a lawyer, then are you an American citizen? If you are
I suggest legal aid....as obviously you are too stupid to have
enough money to hire a lawyer,and you *certainly* do not have a
clue in respect to written statutes or case law.
>
> > IN that case, the Trademark laws would
> > not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
>> Then call 911 ... psycho.
I will be glad to call the authorities con man, which area do you
live. Just the general area, I do not need your address.
>
>
> > Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner,
regardless
> > of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
> > correct Doug Grant,
>
> There is no correct Doug Grant you psychotic nitwit. And no
> one could confuse your delusional psychosis with anyone
> else name, or calling themselves, Doug Grant.
Once again con man, you are ranting and raving. The US Trademark
laws allow me to protect the misuse of my trademark protected
name. I posted the US Trademark FAQ information that proves
that point above. Once again, you are attempting to lie about
written statutes.....that is pathetic con man, so pathetic that
you must be Bev Thornton....no *two* people could suffer from the
same unusual disease.
>
> > or would in some manner denigrate the name
> > Doug Grant,
>
> You denigrate and humiliate the name yourself, quite well
> with your profound ignorance of Trademark law, and your
> serious stupid psychotic ramblings.
>
No con man, I posted the US Trademark FAQ to back up what I said.
It proved you were lying and trying to con the readers with your
aliases and real name. So back to your hole con man, you have
been caught red-handed lying and conning and distorting
information to a point that it is almost unbelievable.
> > that also is a trademark violation and case law
> > exists demonstrating that someone using such can be
successfully
> > sued in a court of law.)
>
> So what's stopping you coward? Fear or common sense?
What is the name of your lawyer?
>> >
> >
> > Return to US Trademark Laws:
>
>
> > Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark
which I
> > cancelled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
> > Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I
maintain
> > a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
> > switched to the Federal Trademark.
>
>
> You didn't "switch" to Federal trademark. You did nothing. In
fact you
> cancelled and withdrew you Federal application which only
covered
> the specific category/class IC 041. US 107.
Con man, all I needed to do was use my trade name, and place a
(Tm) behind it for protection in ALL of the classes of goods and
services I sold under that name. That is what the law says con
man. I posted the US Trademark FAQ on that subject at least a
dozen times. You cannot read, or you are an idiot, or a con man,
or a twit, or just a pathetic pathological liar, or a combination
of all. Just because you cannot read, that does not mean others
cannot. The US Trademark FAQ is posted here, and the link is in
this post. It is very easy to prove you the con man you clearly
are.
Do you think that others are not going to believe the information
coming from the US Trademark site, and believe your nonsense
instead? Are you that delusional?
>
>
>
> > Now does this con man actually
> > expect people to beleive him? This guy is a very sad case.
What
> > he does not know however, is forging a name like he is doing
is a
> > criminal act.
>> Then call 911 you psycho.
>
>
> >
> > If you continue forging my trademark name, and continue to
use
> > it, I intend to take the appropriate legal action.
>
> Fuck you you lying sack of shit. You have no trademark
protection
> in the Pen Name Doug Grant, neither registered nor in common
law.
>
> > You have been warned.
>
> Eat shit you coward.
>
> > Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
When I spot someone selling fraud, lying or trying to con readers
(especially when they list a group of links at the bottom of
their posts indicating they are doing what they are doing for
profit - like Bev Thornton) I bristle.
I never quit, and I will go to great lengths to prove them the
con men and liars they are.
Here is another item which Bev and Vox Populi have been trying
to hide. They know this information proves they have been
conning the readers about Trademark statutes.
I am also interested if anyone has ever paid either one of these
two people anything for legal services or para-legal services.
It seems they have been lying to a lot of people. They must have
a reason to lie so much.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Here is a recent article from the NY Daily News that reveals the
details of the WWF lawsuit against the WWF for Trademark
violations:
"Ruling No Fund
For Wrestling Group
"This weekend the WWF has "Summer Slam," but last weekend the WWF
got slammed by a panda!
It happened when the WWF sued the WWF and won. Ah, let me guess,
you're confused.
OK, let's try to unconfuse you.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) brought a lawsuit vs. the World
Wrestling Federation (WWF), claiming the wrestling federation
breached a 1994 agreement over the 'limited' use of those
initials. The fund, known for protecting pandas and other
endangered animals, stated that with expanded worldwide exposure,
particularly through TV and the Internet, the fund (www.wwf.org)
does not want to be confused with the wrestling organization and
wants it (www.wwf.com) to change its logo and letters.
Justice Robin Jacobs of the British High Court made a judgment
ruling in favor of the WWF (pandas), saying the fund does not
want to be associated or confused with the wrestling federation.
Jacob said the federation will be permitted limited use of
the initials in the U.S., but will no longer be able to use that
Web site address.
This ruling could cost the wrestling group roughly $50 million if
it has to revise its initials and logos.
The wrestling organization will appeal this decision, and maybe
they should ask for Judge Judy.
End of Story:
Above is a classic example of how a name can be protected. This
is a real court, with a real case history. The Judge ruled in
favor of the Plaintiff.
Bev's and Vox's claims that a name cannot be protected, and
only the goods and services associated with a trademark name can
be protected are completely false and idiotic as this case
clearly proves.
Only a complete and utter idiots like Bev Thornton and Vox twit'
would try to
claim the goods and services of The World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) are related. This case
clearly
was about the trademark protected name, and nothing else.
>
Vox had a fit when I posted this article, and snipped it out and
tried his best to double-talk and bullshit his way around the
obvious fact that in some cases a "name" and not just goods and
services are protected. In fact, the US Trademark Site addresses
this issue specifically. Here is what I said and what the US
Trademark Site http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm also says
about this issue:
>
> From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.news-media,alt.security.terrorism,alt.politics,alt.politics.u
sa,alt.politics.usa.congress
References: <u183sqr...@corp.supernews.com>
<24413-3C1...@storefull-107.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<rYmV7.53766$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
<PjqV7.376$_j1.1...@news.uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Tactical Nukes Are Necessary (Was Rail Guns)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:57:37 -0800
Doug Said:
As you indicated I was right about selling goods or services
under my trademark protected name....as my clear example
provided. As far as someone "signing" a name without selling a
product, goods or services associated with that name, then of
course, you can sign your name anyway you wish. But that is not
the point, nor the issue of a trademark. However, if you try
and forge a name, or steal an identity, then that of course
triggers other statutes that must also be considered.
The US Trademark Site provides this specific information:
C. Trademark: A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks.
The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the source
of products or services and to distinguish the trademark owner's
goods and services from those of others. As long as a trademark
fulfills these functions, it remains valid. 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.** (Emphases added). 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.
Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
End.
When you read the information coming from the US Trademark
site, and compare that with what Bev Thornton and Vox moron is
saying, then you must wonder how they expect to keep lying about
these issues? I suspect those that are caught lying about
something they "claim" they know about are embarrassed. They
attacked my lawyer, forged my name, and simply lied about my
trademark name not being protected.
The facts are that my lawyer did not charge me a dime for telling
me this information, as it is simple and inexpensive to obtain a
common law trademark, or to actually register one for that
matter. I suspect that Vox Populi and/or Bev Thornton have been
selling some "legal services" to some unsuspecting fools. When I
revealed how easy it was to obtain a common law trademark, and
that it was not necessary to Register a trademark to be afforded
protection under the applicable statutes, these two simply blew
their tops, started attacking my lawyer and forging my trademark
name, and using that trademark name to cyberstalk me.
Obviously I hit a nerve.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Arthur L. Rubin
> The US Trademark Site FAQ says:
>
> C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
> copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
> device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
> distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
> those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
> trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
> of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
> "trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
> marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
> source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
> owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
> trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
>
> (Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
> to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
> can be protected. This is contrary to what Bev/Vox has been
> trying to say.)
Note that the trademark does NOT protect the name, only its
identification with the *source* of the products or services.
Nice try, Doug.
--
Doug Grant, ....
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Bev Thornton
>
> You're lying again.
I suspect "DOUGLAS G. V. REIMAN" is one of those people who can't tell
when they themselves are lying or telling the truth. There's a name for
it, but I forget.
>> Doug Grant (Tm) Village Idiot®
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
Holy Smoke! There's a whole bunch of Doug Grants!
I knew I had a winner with that one. Maybe I should set-up a booth at a
Home Show or do an infomercial for it. They say MLM is the way to go
though, network marketing. Maybe I'll contact Amway about this one.
Could be a trend.
--
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>
Bev Thornton
>
> Bev Thornton need help. Even in this post Bev has suddenly
> tried to convince the readers of this newsgroup that he is also
> named Doug Grant......(see below)....like I said he needs help.
No, DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, I don't need help - you do, you fail to
understand what it is I am actually doing with my common law trademark
of "Doug Grant (TM)." It isn't my name, it is merely a pseudonym I offer
authorship and editing and publication services under for the sum of one
dollar. My name and aliases are Baever Ley, bev, Bev Thornton, and
Mngwon Motepekuwin. Doug Grant (TM) is just something I'm selling.
Just a buck. Can't go wrong. One dollar (In GWB They Trust). Step right
up, be the first on your block to own a worked penned and published by
none other than the famous, the worldly, the stupendous -
Doug Grant (TM).
No reasonable offer refused.
Bev Thornton
>
> EXPOSE CON MEN
Call the cops! Hurry, quick, no time to lose!
> When I spot someone selling fraud, lying or trying to con readers
> (especially when they list a group of links at the bottom of
> their posts indicating they are doing what they are doing for
> profit - like Bev Thornton) I bristle.
No, you don't. If your shyster actually told you what you claim it told
you then you can't spot a fraud even if you're the mark. However, there
is a reaction that you do do quite regularly, just like a monkey on a
string, and that is that whenever your lies are exposed you respond with
more and more lies and do some odd repetitive posting of material that
you obviously don't even understand going by your also repeated
summaries of that material. so, that is what you do - you get caught
lying and your reaction is to lie even more.
> I never quit, and I will go to great lengths to prove them the
> con men and liars they are.
good for you. A noble pusuit indeed.
Are you sure you're competent to the task?
Better read the paper at this URL:
<http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html>
And here's a free e-book you may find interesting:
<http://www.bookrags.com/books/pathl/index.htm>
> Here is another item which Bev and Vox Populi have been trying
> to hide. They know this information proves they have been
> conning the readers about Trademark statutes.
Well, I can't state what Vox thinks but I certainly think no such thing
at all. I do, however, think you are an incompetent boob who lies
without truly understanding the difference between a falsehood and a
truthful statement. In other words, I think you are one sick fuck.
Your repeatedly expressed desire for a teletheatrum flavious
presentation of hostile nuclear explosions even moreso leads me to
believe that you are certainly one sick fuck.
> I am also interested if anyone has ever paid either one of these
> two people anything for legal services or para-legal services.
I never sell such services. I do various visual artforms and some
branding and a bit of Internet and network development and also offer
for sale "Doug Grant (TM)" but that's about it. I do tend to forget
things though.
Wanna buy a "Doug Grant (TM)?" Just a buck. Can't go wrong.
> It seems they have been lying to a lot of people. They must have
> a reason to lie so much.
What do you suppose it could be?
Could it be faeries? Maybe the Bean Sidhe herself?
If you can't think of something for it I can do it for you under the
name "Doug Grant (TM)" and the fee is only one dollar.
Howzabout it?
Signed, sincerely, yours truly,
Doug Grant (TM)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
news:3C29E1...@mcimail.com...
Arthur, you must have missed something as you snipped out the
best part of the US Trademark FAQ above....now why would you do
that? Here is what you missed:
From the US Trademark FAQ:
** The owner of a trademark is entitled to the exclusive right to
use the mark.** (Emphases added). 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.
Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
Nice try Arthur, but the US Trademark FAQ obviously agrees with
me. Strange that you did not see that? Is it becuase you did
not check further? (I just love this!)
foobar
> - Vox Populi ©, in <3LRV7.80$LP5.1...@news.uswest.net>, wrote:
> >
> > You're lying again.
>
> I suspect "DOUGLAS G. V. REIMAN" is one of those people who can't tell
> when they themselves are lying or telling the truth. There's a name for
> it, but I forget.
>
Bev Thornton
>>
>> I suspect "DOUGLAS G. V. REIMAN" is one of those people who can't tell
>> when they themselves are lying or telling the truth. There's a name for
>> it, but I forget.
>>
> That would be a "pathological liar"
Oh. Ok, I'll stop picking on him then.
But if he starts bullshitting about effects of nuclear weapons or
anything really dangerous then I'll be right back at that. I'll try to
stick to just the actually dangerous misinformation from now on.
Sorry folks. I guess I got carried away, picking on a pathology is a
dishonourable thing to do. I will try not to do it in the future.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
I am sure many are tired of the lies and distortions being posted
by Bev Thornton and his aliases. Yet for the fun of it, I went
back and copied *exactly* what Bev Thornton initially said, what
I said in reply, and I have further inserted what the US
Trademark FAQ says about each issue.
If you want to see how Bev et al aliases are lying, read the
following. It is a glaring example of how pathological liars
like Bev and his aliases operate:
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:DEnV7.53768$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
Doug Said:
Bev. Do you know how many names are trademark protected in this
country? Are you nuts? Your attempt to claim that a name cannot
be trademark protected is not only wrong, your continual
insistence that lawyers that file trademark documents are somehow
ripping people off is libelous.
Bev Said:
> You're the moron. If some lawyer told you what you claim, you
got ripped.
The US Trademark Site FAQ says:
C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
(Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
can be protected. This is contrary to what Bev/Vox has been
trying to say.)
Doug Said:
If someone else wrote something and tried to pan
it off as it was written by Doug Grant, that would be a
trademark violation.
Bev said:
No, it wouldn't.
The US Trademark FAQ Says:
" 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 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name, for the
purpose of abuse or cyberstalking, such as has been occurring
lately, then that also is a trademark violation, and further
violates several other statutes including the criminal
cyberstalking statutes. IN that case, the Trademark laws would
not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
correct Doug Grant, or would in some manner denigrate the name
Doug Grant, that also is a trademark violation and case law
exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
sued in a court of law.)
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev Said:
> Get real.
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
Doug Said:
with "trademarks" again Bev. Like I said, what is the name of
your lawyer?
>
Doug Said:
> > That way the trademark does not need to be renewed every ten
years.
Bev Said:
> Well, if it isn't it's 'dead.'
Doug Said:
No Bev, you are absolutely wrong. That was true before the laws
were changed to allow common law trademarks. They do not need to
be renewed. Now if you would like to speak to a trademark
lawyer, I will be glad to arrange it so you can be told you are
wrong by a professional.
The US Trademark FAQ says:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
(Clearly, Bev Thornton's ridiculous insistence that a trademark
must be registered and renewed and "is dead if it is not
registered or renewed" is just wrong.
Moreover, Bev's continual
harangue on that false point and many others is beyond rational
explanation, especially in consideration of me posted the
verbatim answers from the US Trademark laws! Moreover, the
evidence shows I was the first to use the Trademark. As I
initially started using it in 1978. Even some of my copyrights
(which were registered at the time) reflect the trade name "Doug
Grant."
Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
canceled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
Bev Said:
Doug Said:
>
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
The US Trademark FAQ says:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I doubt if really know how many people
are laughing at you Bev. HAHAHAHAHAHA. My lawyer certainly got
a good laugh out of your preposterous nonsense.
Bev said:
> Sure he did. You lie like a rug, Doug.
Doug Said:
No Bev, I think you have your facts a bit muddled. You are the
liar and idiot Bev, I have even tried to send you a copy of my
trademark certificate, and have given you the name of my lawyer,
and you just keep on conning and lying. Your agenda is obvious
Bev. You have been caught red-handed lying about Rail Guns and
Nukes, and now you are trying your best to flame me on any issue
you can think of. All you are doing is making a fool out of
yourself.
>
> --
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:V3tW7.58141$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2eci79...@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
> >
> > Then why did you not search those sites when you claimed I
did
> > not have a trademark? Were you lying then, or are you lying
now?
> > Or both?
>
> > Bev, you have just been caught lying once again. That
message
> > does not state anything near what you are claiming.
>
> Yes, it does. Are you merely mistaken or actually lying this
time?
>
> From, <Message-ID: u183sqr...@corp.supernews.com> in quote:
> "My trademark name is Doug Grant (TM) that name was officially
assigned
> a Trademark by the US Government...". Those are the words you
wrote,
> Douggie, and they are an outright lie - the US government has
never
> assigned any such trademark to you.
As soon as I put a (TM) behind my trademark name, it was assigned
protection under the trademark laws of the United States. I
posted above the direct excerpt from the US Trademark FAQ that
proves that fact. And incredibly, you continue to lie about it.
>
> > I stated repeatedly I had a trademark certificate, which I
do.
>
> >
> > I also stated repeatedly that it was not necessary to
*register* my
> > trademark.
>
> For a federal trademark it must be registered with the federal
> authorities - a common law trademark is not a federal
trademark, it is
> just a common law trademark and a matter of right and not
statute law.
Comon Bev, the US Trademark FAQ above says otherwise. Stop the
con game Bev, you are convincing no one.
>
> > Now you are lying about my posts to cover your lies
> > and con man misrepresentations. I challenge you to post the
> > contents of any post that confirms your lies....we will not
hold
> > our breath. Posting a link to a post, and then lying about
its
> > contents is typical of Bev Thornton's con man tactics.
>
> Well, right up above is the message ID where you lied about
having been
> assigned a trademark by the US government and the specific
passage
> appears in quote.
No Bev, as soon as I started using (Tm) after the name my
trademark was established. Read above, it proves you the liar
you are.
Here is the direct quote from the US Trademark FAQ....again:
The US Trademark FAQ says:
"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."
I was clearly the first to use Doug Grant (Tm) and the (Tm)
indicates I am pending registration and I claim that trademark.
There is no
time constraints for how long I have to register. Therefore, my
Trademark is common law qualified, and is pending registration,
and is protected.
>
> So, there you go - you're nothing but a liar, Douggie, and
you're even
> to stupid to realize that the very nature of your lies exposes
your
> utter ignorance regarding trademark rights and laws as well as
common
> law and statute law.
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.)
>
> > Bev, as the US Trademark laws CLEARLY state below,
>
> Those are not "US trademark laws" - what you presented below
are merely
> questions and answers from a web-page.
>
Bev, they are questions and answers I am posting are from the US
Trademark office! It is the US Trademark web site! Are you now
trying to con the readers into believing the US Trademark FAQ is
not delivering information based upon their very own Trademark
laws? HAHAHAHAHA.
> > a TM is recognzied as a Federally protected trademark, and it
can be a
> > common law trademark. So cut the lying and backpeddling.
You
> > have been caught red-handed lying again. Here is the proof:
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.)
>
> Wow, you even left it out.
>
> The USPTO FAQ explains that (TM) and (SM) are not regulated by
them but
> may be by local or foreign laws and that they regulate the use
of the
> encircled 'R' which means a federal trademark, which is a
registered
> trademark offered much more protection than the right conferred
for
> trademark by common law.
"Much more protection?" I thought you said I had NO protection?
Now Bev, you have caught yourself in yet another lie. Here is
exactly what the FAQ from the Trademark office states:
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.)
>
> > You are lying again Bev. Here is a case law that proves a
name
> > can be protected with a trademark.
>
> How is it that you do not seem to understand that a pen name
and a trade
> name are two different things or that the World Wildlife Fund
case was
> about initials and the logo and not even the trade names at
all?
>
> And you did claim that your trademark protected your pen name.
That is
> something that a trademark cannot do whether under common law
right or
> by regulation of statute law.
>
> You made that ludicrous claim in the same message IDed above,
to quote:
> "I cannot use that pen name and continue to have that name
protected
> unless I place the TM after that name."
Yes Bev, but you snipped out the rest, I said clearly as it
applies to the goods and services I sold under that name! So if
you are going to lie, con and distort, and then reply to your own
distortions, and try to con your way out of being caught lying to
the newsgroups (again) then it is pointless to even post the
Trademark laws, now you even deny the US Trademark FAQ is telling
the truth! You clearly have some medical problems Bev., But you
are fun to expose.
This is about trademark protected names. Not protecting pen
names. The WWF case is a classic example of how a name, and not
the goods and services it provides can be protected. Once again,
I refer you to the WWF case....which proves you a liar.
> . This
> > is a real court, with a real case history. Bev's claims
that a
> > name cannot be protected, and only the goods and services it
> > provides are false and idiotic as this case clearly proves.
>
> You're a clueless wonder.
Notice that Bev does not want to discuss the WWF case, and he
snips it out as fast as he can. He knows it proves him a liar,
so above is all he can say about it. Replying to case law with
insults towards the one that posted it, and trying to con the
readers into believing the US Trademark site is presenting false
information in their FAQ, and you are right and the US Trademark
FAQ is wrong, is about as delusional as it gets Bev.
>
> Myself, I even believe you are lying about a New Jersey
registration
> of a trade/service mark since you seemed to have thought it was
a ten
> year renewal and it was and is five years, and because you have
never
> offered the registration number even though asked by at least
two people
> and have only made the absurd offer of me paying your shyster
for
> provision of a photocopy of your claimed certification.
Bev, you are not a lawyer. You are an idiot and a pathological
liar too boot. I offered you the opportunity to take this
dispute to any American law school that you pick, and if I am
right you pay for their time, and if I am wrong, I will pay for
their time. I posted above my first post on this issue, and
exactly what I said and what you said. Since then you have
attempted to distort the issue as soon as I posted the proof you
were lying. So go back to the basics. I have a trademark
protected name of Doug Grant. That name, and the goods and
services it provides have Federal Trademark protection. You
disagree. So let use take this to any American law school you
choose. Now unless you know you are lying, you should take this
challenge.
>
> > Only a complete and utter idiot like Bev Thornton would try
to
> > claim the goods and services of The World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
> > and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) are related. This
case
> > was about the trademark protected name, and nothing else.
>
> No, it was about the initials, "WWF" and the scratch logo used
by the
> tumbler's association. It wasn't about the tradenames at all.
Bev, the WWF is a trademark protected name. The statutes used
for the lawsuit were the Trademark statutes. Doug Grant are
initials also Bev. Here is the case again.
HAHAHAHAHA. Here is the case history again Bev! Why are you
trying to lie about it when your lies are so obvious!
>
> > No Bev, READ the Trademark Copyright laws I excerpted and
posted.
>
> You have not yet posted any excerpt of any "Trademark Copyright
laws."
> you've posted, and repeatedly, only portions from the USPTO FAQ
file.
Bev, once again you are trying to claim that the US Trademark
Office FAQ is not providing correct information in respect to the
laws and statutes. You are making a complete fool out of
yourself. The US Trademark FAQ is correct Bev, YOU are the one
that is wrong. Stop trying to con the readers that when any
information that is posted that proves you wrong, you then claim
the US Government is wrong and you are right. Do you know how
pathetic that sounds Bev?
>
> > TM is the one I am using.
>
> That's right, and it still doesn't protect your pen name nor
does it
> indicate that you have ever been assigned by the US government
any sort
> of mark in trade at all.
Bev, I was assigned protection as soon as I started using a
common law trademark. I posted the US Trademark FAQ that proves
that fact above. Stop lying.
>
> You're a liar, Doug, and everyone reading these lists should
know that
> especially because of the lies you have previously made about
the
> effects of nuclear weapons.
Bev, several people that have joined in this "discussion" have
agreed that you are a pathological liar. The consensus is that
you are lying, and an idiot to boot. So cut the bull. You lost
the Nuclear weapon debate when I posted the information from Cal
State University that proved you wrong, and further asked all
readers to contact their local Universities to confirm what I was
saying.
So cut the bull Bev, we all know you lie at every opportunity.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
I am sure many are tired of the lies and distortions being posted
by Bev Thornton and his aliases. Yet for the fun of it, I went
back and copied *exactly* what Bev Thornton initially said, what
I said in reply, and I have further inserted what the US
Trademark FAQ says about each issue.
If you want to see how Bev et al aliases are lying, read the
following. It is a glaring example of how pathological liars
like Bev and his aliases operate:
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:DEnV7.53768$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
Doug Said:
Bev. Do you know how many names are trademark protected in this
country? Are you nuts? Your attempt to claim that a name cannot
be trademark protected is not only wrong, your continual
insistence that lawyers that file trademark documents are somehow
ripping people off is libelous.
Bev Said:
> You're the moron. If some lawyer told you what you claim, you
got ripped.
The US Trademark Site FAQ says:
C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
(Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
can be protected. This is contrary to what Bev/Vox has been
trying to say.)
Doug Said:
If someone else wrote something and tried to pan
it off as it was written by Doug Grant, that would be a
trademark violation.
Bev said:
No, it wouldn't.
The US Trademark FAQ Says:
" 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 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name, for the
purpose of abuse or cyberstalking, such as has been occurring
lately, then that also is a trademark violation, and further
violates several other statutes including the criminal
cyberstalking statutes. IN that case, the Trademark laws would
not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
correct Doug Grant, or would in some manner denigrate the name
Doug Grant, that also is a trademark violation and case law
exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
sued in a court of law.)
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev Said:
> Get real.
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
Doug Said:
Bev Said:
Doug Said:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
(Clearly, Bev Thornton's ridiculous insistence that a trademark
must be registered and renewed and "is dead if it is not
registered or renewed" is just wrong.
Moreover, Bev's continual
harangue on that false point and many others is beyond rational
explanation, especially in consideration of me posted the
verbatim answers from the US Trademark laws! Moreover, the
evidence shows I was the first to use the Trademark. As I
initially started using it in 1978. Even some of my copyrights
(which were registered at the time) reflect the trade name "Doug
Grant."
Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
canceled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
switched to the Federal Trademark. Now Bev Thornton posted my
original State trademark, and the only other one he could find
was
from 1990. Mine clearly started in 1978. So I was first, and
have provided all of the above goods and services in a tangible
form thereafter.
Bottom line: I have an existing Federal Trademark, which does
not need to be registered and is completely protected by the US
laws. This obvious fact contradicts everything Bev Thornton and
his aliases (Voix Populi) have tried to lie about.
Bev Said:
Doug Said:
>
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I doubt if really know how many people
are laughing at you Bev. HAHAHAHAHAHA. My lawyer certainly got
a good laugh out of your preposterous nonsense.
Bev said:
> Sure he did. You lie like a rug, Doug.
Doug Said:
No Bev, I think you have your facts a bit muddled. You are the
liar and idiot Bev, I have even tried to send you a copy of my
trademark certificate, and have given you the name of my lawyer,
and you just keep on conning and lying. Your agenda is obvious
Bev. You have been caught red-handed lying about Rail Guns and
Nukes, and now you are trying your best to flame me on any issue
you can think of. All you are doing is making a fool out of
yourself.
>
> --
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
I am sure many are tired of the lies and distortions being posted
by Bev Thornton and his aliases. Yet for the fun of it, I went
back and copied *exactly* what Bev Thornton initially said, what
I said in reply, and I have further inserted what the US
Trademark FAQ says about each issue.
If you want to see how Bev et al aliases are lying, read the
following. It is a glaring example of how pathological liars
like Bev and his aliases operate:
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:DEnV7.53768$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
Doug Said:
Bev. Do you know how many names are trademark protected in this
country? Are you nuts? Your attempt to claim that a name cannot
be trademark protected is not only wrong, your continual
insistence that lawyers that file trademark documents are somehow
ripping people off is libelous.
Bev Said:
> You're the moron. If some lawyer told you what you claim, you
got ripped.
The US Trademark Site FAQ says:
C. Trademark A trademark is quite different from either a
copyright or a patent. A trademark is any word, name, symbol or
device, or any combination thereof, that serves to identify and
distinguish the source of one party's goods or services from
those of another party. A service mark is the same as a
trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source
of services rather than goods. In this report, the terms
"trademark" and "mark" are intended to refer to both types of
marks. The purpose of a trademark is twofold -- to identify the
source of products or services and to distinguish the trademark
owner's goods and services from those of others. As long as a
trademark fulfills these functions, it remains valid.
(Note that a trademark not only protects the name its purpose is
to identify the *source* of the products or services. The name
can be protected. This is contrary to what Bev/Vox has been
trying to say.)
Doug Said:
If someone else wrote something and tried to pan
it off as it was written by Doug Grant, that would be a
trademark violation.
Bev said:
No, it wouldn't.
The US Trademark FAQ Says:
" 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 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 (received money or other
compensation for such production) then that constitute a direct
violation of my trademark.
However, if someone tried to forge my trademark name, for the
purpose of abuse or cyberstalking, such as has been occurring
lately, then that also is a trademark violation, and further
violates several other statutes including the criminal
cyberstalking statutes. IN that case, the Trademark laws would
not be as effective as the criminal statutes.
Moreover, if someone used Doug Grant in such a manner, regardless
of goods or services, that would cause confusion as to the
correct Doug Grant, or would in some manner denigrate the name
Doug Grant, that also is a trademark violation and case law
exists demonstrating that someone using such can be successfully
sued in a court of law.)
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev Said:
> Get real.
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
"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."
I was clearly the first to use Doug Grant (Tm) and the (Tm)
indicates I am pending registration and I claim that trademark.
There is no
time constraints for how long I have to register. Therefore, my
Trademark is common law qualified, and is pending registration,
and is protected.
Bev is trying to claim above that a (Tm) mark is not controlled
nor protected. Bev is clearly wrong.
Doug Said:
Bev do you know how to read? I said they were no longer
necessary, not that they cannot be used if someone wants to use
them. Moreover, if you are going to try and forge my trademark
name, and say "see me in court" then I need to know the name of
your lawyer right now. Also, first you said common law
trademarks did not exist, now above you are saying common law
trademarks are automatic. I think you are confusing "copyrights"
with "trademarks" again Bev. Like I said, what is the name of
your lawyer?
>
Doug Said:
> > That way the trademark does not need to be renewed every ten
years.
Bev Said:
> Well, if it isn't it's 'dead.'
Doug Said:
No Bev, you are absolutely wrong. That was true before the laws
were changed to allow common law trademarks. They do not need to
be renewed. Now if you would like to speak to a trademark
lawyer, I will be glad to arrange it so you can be told you are
wrong by a professional.
The US Trademark FAQ says:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark.484
Federal trademark law is embodied in the Lanham Act485 and is
based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.486 Therefore,
to obtain a Federal trademark registration, in most cases487 the
owner of a mark must demonstrate that the mark is used in a type
of commerce that may be regulated by Congress."
(Clearly, Bev Thornton's ridiculous insistence that a trademark
must be registered and renewed and "is dead if it is not
registered or renewed" is just wrong.
Moreover, Bev's continual
harangue on that false point and many others is beyond rational
explanation, especially in consideration of me posted the
verbatim answers from the US Trademark laws! Moreover, the
evidence shows I was the first to use the Trademark. As I
initially started using it in 1978. Even some of my copyrights
(which were registered at the time) reflect the trade name "Doug
Grant."
Moreover, Bev and alias posted my initial State trademark which I
canceled when the changed the US Laws and started to allow
Common Law trademarks with the TM symbol. Why should I maintain
a State Trademark when I can have a Federal Trademark? So I
switched to the Federal Trademark. Now Bev Thornton posted my
original State trademark, and the only other one he could find
was
from 1990. Mine clearly started in 1978. So I was first, and
have provided all of the above goods and services in a tangible
form thereafter.
Bottom line: I have an existing Federal Trademark, which does
not need to be registered and is completely protected by the US
laws. This obvious fact contradicts everything Bev Thornton and
his aliases (Voix Populi) have tried to lie about.
Bev Said:
Doug Said:
>
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
Bev said:
Doug Said:
Doug Said:
" Unlike patent and copyright law, Federal trademark law coexists
with state and common- law trademark rights. Therefore,
registration at either the Federal or state level is not
necessary to create or maintain ownership rights in a mark. For
example, priority of trademark rights between owners of
confusingly similar marks, regardless of whether the marks are
Federally registered, is based upon first use of the mark."
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I doubt if really know how many people
are laughing at you Bev. HAHAHAHAHAHA. My lawyer certainly got
a good laugh out of your preposterous nonsense.
Bev said:
> Sure he did. You lie like a rug, Doug.
Doug Said:
No Bev, I think you have your facts a bit muddled. You are the
liar and idiot Bev, I have even tried to send you a copy of my
trademark certificate, and have given you the name of my lawyer,
and you just keep on conning and lying. Your agenda is obvious
Bev. You have been caught red-handed lying about Rail Guns and
Nukes, and now you are trying your best to flame me on any issue
you can think of. All you are doing is making a fool out of
yourself.
>
> --
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
"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."
I was clearly the first to use Doug Grant (Tm) and the (Tm)
indicates I am pending registration and I claim that trademark.
There is no
time constraints for how long I have to register. Therefore, my
Trademark is common law qualified, and is pending registration,
and is protected.
>
> . This
> > is a real court, with a real case history. Bev's claims
that a
> > Only a complete and utter idiot like Bev Thornton would try
to
> > claim the goods and services of The World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
> > and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) are related. This
case
> > was about the trademark protected name, and nothing else.
>
> No, it was about the initials, "WWF" and the scratch logo used
by the
> tumbler's association. It wasn't about the tradenames at all.
Bev, the WWF is a trademark protected name. The statutes used
for the lawsuit were the Trademark statutes. Doug Grant are
initials also Bev. Here is the case again.
HAHAHAHAHA. Here is the case history again Bev! Why are you
trying to lie about it when your lies are so obvious!
"Ruling No Fund
For Wrestling Group
>
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2ktmj1...@corp.supernews.com...
Wrong again Turd Burglar ... your stupid FAQ isn't case law nor US code.
Arty is correct, as is Bev and myself, you cannot protect a pen name
for authorship purposes. Never could and never will be able to
under USPTO law.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2jt6a7...@corp.supernews.com...
Your absurd FAQ reposting ad nauseaum still doesn't make
it controlling case law nor code.
If you think otherwise, idiot, then try presenting the FAQ in
a court of law as legal basis for your preposterous argument.
> > >
> > > I said above, "US Trademark Regulations and Statute site."
> >
> > Yet you quoted no statute, code or case law to support
> > your preposterous claim.
>
> Now con man Vox wants to ignore the US Trademark Site, its
> published FAQ,
A FAQ isn't case law nor code, you grotesquely stupid imbecile.
You have ZERO protection for Doug Grant as a pen name or author's
name.
Signed,
The Real Doug Grant©
--
A multitude of laws in a country is like
a great number of physicians,
a sign of weakness and malady
-- Voltaire
- Vox Populi ©
Can I get 3 for $2 ...?
Send them to:
The Real Doug Grant©
666 Doug Grant Blvd.
Dug Grant, MN
or
Doug Grant
910 W 24th St.
Ogden, UT. 84401
and/or
Dr. Doug Grant
801 University Blvd S.
Mobile, AL. 36609
>
> > It seems they have been lying to a lot of people. They must have
> > a reason to lie so much.
>
> What do you suppose it could be?
>
> Could it be faeries? Maybe the Bean Sidhe herself?
>
> If you can't think of something for it I can do it for you under the
> name "Doug Grant (TM)" and the fee is only one dollar.
>
> Howzabout it?
>
> Signed, sincerely, yours truly,
>
> Doug Grant (TM)
Signed,
The Real Doug Grant©
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2k4nt...@corp.supernews.com>, wrote:
>>
Two con kids trolling each other.
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 w
rong, 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)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
End of first Excerpt:
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."
From the US Trademark FAQ:
"Are there federal regulations governing the use of the
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
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:9izW7.144$CK.2...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1uuW7.58156$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2k4nt...@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
> > >
> > > EXPOSE CON MEN
> >
> > Call the cops! Hurry, quick, no time to lose!
> >
> > > When I spot someone selling fraud, lying or trying to con
readers
> > > (especially when they list a group of links at the bottom
of
> > > their posts indicating they are doing what they are doing
for
> > > profit - like Bev Thornton) I bristle.
> >
> > No, you don't. If your shyster actually told you what you
claim it told
> > you then you can't spot a fraud even if you're the mark.
Note these con men use the term "mark" and such. I have already
posted more evidence from the US Trademark statutes that prove
these people are trying to con the readers of this newsgroup
about me and my trademark. (See my post "Trademark Laws Prove
Bev is Lying"
>
> >
> > > I never quit, and I will go to great lengths to prove them
the
> > > con men and liars they are.
> >
> > good for you. A noble pusuit indeed.
> >
> > Are you sure you're competent to the task?
Obviously I am competent I caught you and Bev trying to lie to
this newgroup.
But then, you two are easy to catch.
> >
> > >
> > > Here is another item which Bev and Vox Populi have been
trying
> > > to hide. They know this information proves they have been
> > > conning the readers about Trademark statutes.
> >
> > Well, I can't state what Vox thinks but I certainly think no
such thing
> > at all. I do, however, think you are one sick fuck.
Let me see, this statement was posted by Vox, but says he does
not know what Vox thinks! HAHAHAHAHA. Yet Bev and Vox claim
they are not aliases! Here you have someone calling me
names, while clearly lying to the readers in the process! These
con men are really upset because I keep posting actual Federal
Statutes that prove what they have been saying completely false.
So instead of trying to address the statutes, and admit they have
been proved wrong, they are using the old tired method of trying
to attack the messenger.
What these con men do not understand is the information I have
been posting that completely refutes what they have been claiming
is coming from completely independent sources, such as the US
Trademark FAQ and applicable statutes.
The statutes and FAQ speak for themselves. Bev/Vox have been
clearly caught lying and trying to con the readers of this
newsgroup about Trademark laws.
Note that Bev/Vox snip out the statutes and FAQ information as
fast as they can. They also hide the case law I post, and they
*always* retort with some personal attack and diatribe against me
and they *NEVER* address the issues. Why? Because they know
they have been caught red-handed lying and conning the readers of
this newsgroup.
> >
> > Your repeatedly expressed desire for a teletheatrum flavious
> > presentation of hostile nuclear explosions even moreso leads
me to
> > believe that you are certainly one sick fuck.
This post is about how you were caught lying about Trademark
laws. A few dozens posts back you tried to dispute the
information provided by Cal Tech that proved you were wrong about
lasting lethal radiation, then you were proved wrong when you
tried to claim that rail guns were designed to shoot down
satellites, then you were proved wrong when you said that our CIA
were all "drug runners", then you were proved wrong when you
claimed "American forces will never get the Taliban out of their
caves", then you were provided wrong when you claimed the
American "military was not helping to fight the war in
Afghanistan." And there is more. Your pro-terrorist propaganda,
lies, distortions, con attempts and incredible claims that lethal
radiation does not dissipate at the known scientific levels
(especially the "Rule of 7" dissipation rate) indicate that you
simply are an incompetent fool, that also is anti-American and
pro-terrorist con man propagandist.
I am having great fun exposing you for what you really are.
The above is classic of a con man operation. Now they are
forging my trademark name, and even offered to sell something
they certainly do not own. Otherwise, a clear example of a con
game at work. The above tactics are classic cyberstalking
tactics.
> >
> > > It seems they have been lying to a lot of people. They
must have
> > > a reason to lie so much.
> >
> > What do you suppose it could be?
> >
> > Could it be faeries? Maybe the Bean Sidhe herself?
> >
> > If you can't think of something for it I can do it for you
under the
> > name "Doug Grant (TM)" and the fee is only one dollar.
Once again an offer to sell a forgery openly. This post is a
keeper. Note I asked this person for where my lawyer can contact
him, or where he can be served. Note he is hiding from providing
that information. This fool thinks he can hide.
> >
> > Howzabout it?
> >
> > Signed, sincerely, yours truly,
> >
> > Doug Grant (TM)
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
Once again the con men are trying to claim their real name is
Doug Grant.
Do these con men really expect people to believe them? Are they
really that stupid?
Time for some subpoenas to go out I suspect.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3c2c247e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
I think we all know who the con men are around here Vonroach.
Thanks to me. And just think, I have not devoted much time at
all to this newsgroup....yet.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Nightlite
to : Mr Doug Grant the trademark [tm] troll ©
more idle lawsuit threats issued over usenet, will people never learn
Is your legal name even Doug Grant ?
Maybe Vox's real name is Doug Grant ?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Nightlite" <im_no...@ational.org> wrote in message
news:JHIW7.62486$7l5....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
not Doug Grant. This debate/debacle has been about the
trademark protected name of Doug Grant, not about Vox's real
name, which suddenly he claims is Doug Grant. As far as sending
out subpoenas to prove he is lying about being the "real Doug
Grant," that is not an idle threat, as he will find out.
Moreover, since then, a paralegal has come forward and stated
that Bev/Vox's representations in respect their Trademark
statements are "laughable." That has been confirmed by the US
Trademark information line operators, who are probably still
laughing at what Bev and Vox have tried to claim in respect to
trademarks. And of course that does not include my lawyer, who
has not stopped laughing at their miserable and preposterous
claims in respect to their knowledge of Trademark laws and how
they are applied.
So Bev and Vox's representations are laughable. Yet they
continue to lie and con the readers of this newsgroup with
obvious and laughable misrepresentations. They have done this on
other issues, and it seems to be their mantra. They conjure up
lies and distortions to try and sell their products off the links
they provide at the end of their posts. When anyone challenges
them with the truth, they then resort to even more lies,
diatribe, forgeries and cyberstalking. This is the nature of net
con men.
I certainly have not tried to forge their names, nor in any way
posted anything but the truth. I even backed what I said with
excerpts from the US Trademark FAQ, and more recently, actual
Trademark Statutes. I even posted a history of a case that
proved my representations. Bev and Vox ALWAYS snip out those
independent verifications, and retort with nothing but diatribe,
insults, forgeries and cyberstalking.
I have even offered to send this issue and others to an
independent University for their ruling. Bev and Vox also hide
from that challenge.
You can be sure the readers of these newsgroups already know that
Bev and Vox have been caught lying. Not to mention using aliases
to try and further their con.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2mil7q...@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 Grant©
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 Grant© you gutless coward.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2mim5m...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> Statutes:
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.
Arthur L. Rubin
Nope. The name is only protected as an identifier of the goods
and services, UNLESS it is a famous name. Which yours probably
is not. No support of your contention in ANY of the materials
you've quoted.
>
> 2. That a Trademark must be registered before it is assigned
> protection under Federal Statutes:
> The Federal Statutes prove Bev/Vox lied.
I agree that this claim is false. I can't find where Bev or Vox
said that, but, if they did, they were wrong.
> 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:
Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
support your contentions.
> (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.
Except that person's (including corporations) use of their own
name is allowed under trademark law, unless it conflicts with
a Famous mark.
>
> 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,
OK
> newsletters, columns for newspapers, political speeches,
> instructional writings and manuals, novels, books, scripts and
> seminar scripts, professional recordings, ...
None of these are protected except under copyright law, unless they
also fall under another class.
> statistical analysis, ...
Possible. I don't think it's protectable.
> 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 ...
None of these are protectable except under copyright law,
except that scripts are protected under the Writer's Guild
regulations if they are to be usable. That has absolutely
nothing to do with trademark OR copyright law.
.....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.
Nope. Only in a protecable class.
> >
>
> 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.
Actually, both WWF and WWF had protectable trademarks. The
judge had to decide which one had the right to the web site
under the agreement they had made, not exactly as a settlement
of the previous lawsuit, but to clarify where the various
rights lay in overlapping fields.
It was a contract dispute, not a trademark dispute.
> 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.
The fact that Bev did not know of the products, (if true), means
that your mark is not "Famous" in any of the categories Bev
is familiar with. It does not mean your mark isn't protected --
in association with protected goods and services.
> Bev/Vox tried to claim that I had to use a (R) symbol before my
> trademark could be protected:
That statement is wrong, and probably really a lie.
> I used Doug Grant (Tm) ...
Again: (Tm) offers no protection. It's (TM), the symbol, or
nothing.
> 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.
I won't disagree with you on the common law search. However,
use of the name "Doug Grant (Tm)" is not protected by trademark
laws for use in advertising, if it is only used accurately
to refer to you. Nice try. I could say my software is
compatible with Windows (R) without asking Microsoft.
> 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.
That is NOT cyberstalking. I ask you to quote a statute
which says it is.
As for your claims -- post a short version (without quoting
irrelevant FAQs) of your concerns to misc.legal.moderated, and
ask the people there to decide. I'll make my statement there,
if you wish.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2mpu6a...@corp.supernews.com...
You're lying again you legal ignoramus.
The only thing that *might* inure protections is
any specific goods/services that are produced
and sold in interstate commerce under that Label.
The name itself, is not protected per se.
You cannot protect a Pen Name for authorship purposes.
> Vox's name is
> not Doug Grant. This debate/debacle has been about the
> trademark protected name of Doug Grant,
You have no protection in the Name itself, you lying retard.
> not about Vox's real
> name, which suddenly he claims is Doug Grant. As far as sending
> out subpoenas to prove he is lying about being the "real Doug
> Grant," that is not an idle threat, as he will find out.
Liar.
>
> Moreover, since then, a paralegal
Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaa! A "paralegal" ... kind of like
a paraplegic ...
> has come forward and stated
> that Bev/Vox's representations in respect their Trademark
> statements are "laughable."
Maybe that "paralegal" can represent you in court you
lying sack of shit.
> That has been confirmed by the US
> Trademark information line operators,
Oh, yes, the operators ...
You claimed you recorded the call, you liar.
Post the .wav file of the conversation, or forever
be know as the lying sack of shit that you are.
> who are probably still
> laughing at what Bev and Vox have tried to claim in respect to
> trademarks. And of course that does not include my lawyer, who
> has not stopped laughing at their miserable and preposterous
> claims in respect to their knowledge of Trademark laws and how
> they are applied.
Your lawyer is a moron.
> I certainly have not tried to forge their names, nor in any way
> posted anything but the truth.
Liar.
> I even backed what I said with
> excerpts from the US Trademark FAQ,
<worthless off-point drivel>
> and more recently, actual
> Trademark Statutes.
You lie again. You repeated posted the useless
FAQ, dozens of time, each time falsely and idiotically
claiming the FAQ was "statute" and/or "law".
All of USENET has seen, and can view the archive
of your false, pathetic psychotic claims in that matter.
> I even posted a history of a case that
> proved my representations.
You lie again you pathetic imbecile. You laughably claim
the WWF v WWF case applies to your preposterous
assertion on the pen name Doug Grant.
> Bev and Vox ALWAYS snip out those
> independent verifications,
Only in your psychotic mind do they "verify" anything.
Try introducing the FAQ in court ... when you sue me
you cowardly psycho.
> and retort with nothing but diatribe,
> insults,
If they are true, are they still insults...? Perhaps yes.
> forgeries
No forgeries you lying sack of shit.
> and cyberstalking.
Lying coward. Call 911 and report it you psycho.
>
> I have even offered to send this issue and others to an
> independent University for their ruling.
Ah, the old "independent University ruling" trick ...
We're not falling for that.
> Bev and Vox also hide
> from that challenge.
We demand you send it to a "dependant College" for a
ruling ....
>
> You can be sure the readers of these newsgroups already know that
> Bev and Vox have been caught lying. Not to mention using aliases
> to try and further their con.
Oh my! Aliases on Usenet ... what is the world coming to ?
Lions and Tigers and Bears ... Oh My!
> Doug Grant (Tm)
- Vox Populi ©
>
> Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> Statutes:
Wrong again Turd Burglar ... your stupid FAQ isn't case law nor US code.
foobar
> foobar, in <cRuW7.296768$ez.42...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, wrote:
> > That would be a "pathological liar"
>
> Oh. Ok, I'll stop picking on him then.
>
Well, I don't know if he really *is* pathological. I just said that's what
it called.
Don't let that stop you ;^)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
>
>
>
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2mil7q...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> > Statutes:
> <off-point idiocy snipped>
Take note the con men keep snipping out the actual Federal
statutes that prove them wrong, and reply with diatribe and
insults. Typical con man tactics.
>
> Just remember these immutable facts, Douggy Reiman:
>
> 1) You're seriously stupid
On the contrary, the statutes that you keep trying to hide agree
with me. Not you.
> 2) You have NO protected right to Doug Grant as a pen name
First of all you claimed I have no rights whatsoever, now it is
"no rights as a pen name." Now, after you have been proved a
liar you come back with some distortions of "pen names." I
posted the goods and services that my trademark name protects,
and I specified how a name can be protected, especially if it is
a famous name and/or someone is trying to use it to confuse the
origin of the product. Now what does that have to do with a "pen
name?" Answer? Absolutely nothing! So con on con man, you are
just making a fool out of yourself once again.
> 3) Your clients must be fools
My clients are all very happy with my goods and services. In
fact it makes them rich. Something that obviously you do not
know anything about.
> 4) Your lawyers must be idiots, or shysters laughing all the
way to the
> bank
My lawyers did not even charge for any Trademark information. It
was too simple and easy. Anyone can look up a common law
trademark and anyone can tell you are lying about it. That is
why you keep snipping out the statutes I post.
> 5) You're an imbecile
Obviously, an imbecile is someone that tries to hide the very
Federal Statutes that prove him an idiot and a con man....exactly
like you.
> 6) 1, 2 and 3 above
> 7) 2, 3, 4 and 5 above
> 8) all of the above
Ditto.
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> 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 Grant© you gutless coward.
>
> I will be glad to sue you and charge you for cyberstalking.
Where can I reach your lawyer, and where are you originating your
cyberstalking from? If you are serious, of course you will
provide that information. If not, well then that is just one
more reason why no one in their right mind should believe a word
you say.
I also noticed where you snipped out my challenge to take this
issue to an American law school and solicit their ruling. You
are even hiding from that indepedent verification as you know you
are simply lying and conning as fast as your pea brain can take
you.
Note the forgery of Doug Grant once again in this post. Again
you are claiming to be the Real Doug Grant. Do you really
believe you can con the readers into believing that after years
of posting as someone else, suddenly, and after Doug Grant has
demonstrated how you lie and con, that your real name is Doug
Grant? What a con man! HAHAHAHAHA.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> >
> > Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> > Statutes:
Take note the con men keep snipping out the actual Federal
statutes that prove them wrong, and reply with diatribe and
insults. Typical con man tactics.
>
> Just remember these immutable facts, Douggy Reiman:
>
> 1) You're seriously stupid
On the contrary, the statutes that you keep trying to hide agree
with me. Not you.
> 2) You have NO protected right to Doug Grant as a pen name
First of all you claimed I have no rights whatsoever, now it is
"no rights as a pen name." Now, after you have been proved a
liar you come back with some distortions of "pen names." I
posted the goods and services that my trademark name protects,
and I specified how a name can be protected, especially if it is
a famous name and/or someone is trying to use it to confuse the
origin of the product. Now what does that have to do with a "pen
name?" Answer? Absolutely nothing! So con on con man, you are
just making a fool out of yourself once again.
> 3) Your clients must be fools
My clients are all very happy with my goods and services. In
fact it makes them rich. Something that obviously you do not
know anything about.
> 4) Your lawyers must be idiots, or shysters laughing all the
way to the
> bank
My lawyers did not even charge for any Trademark information. It
was too simple and easy. Anyone can look up a common law
trademark and anyone can tell you are lying about it. That is
why you keep snipping out the statutes I post.
> 5) You're an imbecile
Obviously, an imbecile is someone that tries to hide the very
Federal Statutes that prove him an idiot and a con man....exactly
like you.
> 6) 1, 2 and 3 above
> 7) 2, 3, 4 and 5 above
> 8) all of the above
Ditto.
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> PS: You're a liar and a coward. Call 911 to report your
> cyberstalking "crime" you pathetic liar, sue me for
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Arthur, I realize the name is protected only if it is infringed
upon in respect to confusion or the goods, services or
advertising it provides. That is exactly what I am talking
about, and have been talking about. I specifically said that if
someone named Doug Grant wanted to sell washing machines, they
could do so without infringing on my trademark name. Obviously,
I am referring to goods and services.
Here is what I said previously and what Bev said in reply:
> > Bev, you obviously do not know the law. How many other
people are named McDonald? But if you think they can open a
hamburger joint and start selling hamburgers under the trademark
protected name of "McDonalds" then not only are you off your
meds, you
need to increase the dose when you finally are caught by your
handlers again.
>
> Trademark works that way. It doesn't protect author's
pseudonyms. Look at all the Doug Grant authors out there - try
sueing one.
If someone tries to sell a product under the name of Doug Grant,
even if his real name is Doug Grant, (and it had better be Doug
Grant and not a variation of that name) yes I have the right to
sue him. Just the same as if Bill McDonald opened up a
hamburger stand and tried to sell hamburgers under the name of
McDonalds. If confusion exists as to the real name of the
product,
I have a right to sue.
Bev said a Trademark must be registered before it is assigned
> > protection under Federal Statutes:
> > The Federal Statutes prove Bev/Vox lied.
>
> I agree that this claim is false. I can't find where Bev or
Vox
> said that, but, if they did, they were wrong.
Well Arthur read below. I have listed just some of the
representations made by Bev and the message numbers in which they
were said: There is more if you want it.
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:DEnV7.53768$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
wrote:
> That's bull too. Conventional marks could always be used. The
> registration mark is the only one controlled, it's illegal to
use it without actual registration.
> Bev also said:
> > "Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:SLnV7.53770$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > (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.)
>
> Good luck enforcing your "common law" mark. Bet your
> shyster, (ne lawyer) suggested that one eh?
> "Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4luV7.54350$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Doug said:
> > Bev says I never registered my trademark, therefore I do not
have
> > a trademark. Bev is lying. To prove Bev is lying go to the
link
> > above and read the FAQ on trademarks. I have posted the
> > applicable excerpts from the trademark law below:
>
Bev, the FAQ from the US Trademark link you posted proves you are
lying. A TM IS protected under Federal statutes you pathetic
moron. And no, it does not need to be registered. Here are the
excerpts from the US Trademark Laws FAQ that *prove* without any
doubt that you are simply lying and backpeddling....again:
Bev said:
> That doesn't prove I lied about a damn thing. You are the one
claiming a
> federal trademark - and that is a lie and you are the liar.
>
> > Only in New Jersey perhaps, and then only for the specific
> > goods/services that you were granted registration under.
Doug said:
> > (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.)
Bev said:
> You don't need to register common law trademarks but they
aren't federal
> trademarks - federal ones are registered.
>
Bev said:
You have no federal trademark for that name and never
had one.
Doug said:
Bev, the US Trademark Laws clearly disagree with you. A TM is
protected, and it does not need to be registered. You lied about
both, and you are conning and lying now.
The "advertising" used to sell them contain the Doug Grant
trademark Arthur.
>
> > statistical analysis, ...
>
> Possible. I don't think it's protectable.
No it is protected, very specifically. Provided it produces an
uncommon conclusion. If math is used, math itself cannot be
protected, but the analysis is protected under intellectual
property.
>
> > 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 ...
>
> None of these are protectable except under copyright law,
> except that scripts are protected under the Writer's Guild
> regulations if they are to be usable. That has absolutely
> nothing to do with trademark OR copyright law.
Once again, the advertisments and packaging used to sell these
products are protected Arthur. If you wish I can provide you
with a US Supreme Court ruling that proves this point.
>
> .....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.
>
> Nope. Only in a protecable class.
The class categories are exceptionally broad Arthur. I have
posted the class listings, and I have a Supreme Court ruling
stating that items not listed could qualify under miscellaneous
classes that are not listed (paragraph 42 of the Congressional
listing.)
No Arthur, it was a trademark dispute that was adjudged under the
provisions Trademark statutes. You should read the case history.
I can provide the information the Judge relied upon in his
written ruling. He reefers exclusively to the trademark laws.
The WWF dispute originally started as a trademark dispute, then
WWF was forced by the court into a settlement agreement which
they violated. However, when they were sued, they claimed the
agreement was not valid and the judge ruled the entire case under
the auspices of the Trademark laws....and found for the
plaintiff. Like I said Arthur, would you like to speak to some
real lawyers that specialize in Trademark and Copyright law? How
about speaking with the very lawyers that tried this case?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> The fact that Bev did not know of the products, (if true),
means
> that your mark is not "Famous" in any of the categories Bev
> is familiar with. It does not mean your mark isn't
protected --
> in association with protected goods and services.
I will look up case law on being a famous name. If it refers to
being famous in a certain field, then Doug Grant qualifies.
Whether Bev Thornton has ever heard of it or not, considering the
mental ineptitude of Bev Thornton, that even might work in my
favor.
It is not only used to accurately refer to me. Advertising is
advertising. You do not need to use direct advertising to
qualify. Saturation advertising *does* qualify. If there is any
links to what I write and sell, then that qualifies as
advertising. Once again Arthur, would you like to speak to a
lawyer on this issue?
> > 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.
>
> That is NOT cyberstalking. I ask you to quote a statute
> which says it is.
Arthur, if you claim it is not cyberstalking, then you must have
already read the statutes. Please post the statutes you have
read on this subject. You must have missed something because the
statutes I read are very clear and unmistakable, and I have read
several from different states, and one federal general listing
from Janet Reno. So exactly what statutes have you read that
dispute what I have said?
>
> As for your claims -- post a short version (without quoting
> irrelevant FAQs) of your concerns to misc.legal.moderated, and
> ask the people there to decide. I'll make my statement there,
> if you wish.
Why are the US Trademark FAQ's irrelevant Arthur? Moreover,
since you apparently agree with me, with the exception of the
cyberstalking laws, there is no point. Moreover, I do not deal
with legal representatives anonymously. I have witnessed several
people claim to be experts or lawyers on this internet that were
using false names or were just lying. I would prefer to send any
disputed issue to any law school you recommend, and I will pay
for their time if I am wrong, and you pay if you are wrong.
>
Doug Grant (Tm)
Professor Vonroach
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> And just think, I have not devoted much time at
>all to this newsgroup....yet.
I'm sure you will be quickly tuned out should that happen.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
No, my lawyers represent me in court, and they tell me you are
lying. Would you like to speak with them? How about speaking
with a Law Professor friend of mine that also tells me you are
lying? Or speaking with the US Trademark office that also is
still laughing at your incredible misrepresentations and gaffs?
The paralegal is laughing at you and Bev because your feeble
attempts to lie and use others to lie is beyond understanding.
When I post the statutes, you hide from them or try and claim
they are irrelevant.
>
> > That has been confirmed by the US
> > Trademark information line operators,
>
> Oh, yes, the operators ...
Yes moron, they get dozens of questions a day about these issues.
They clearly know much more than you, and they agree with my
lawyers. You are either nuts or you are a liar.
>
> You claimed you recorded the call, you liar.
> Post the .wav file of the conversation, or forever
> be know as the lying sack of shit that you are.
The what file? I recorded the conversation on an audio tape
connected to my telephone with their permission. They are still
laughing. When I want a good laugh, I play it again. They say
you are an idiot. I posted the 800 number for all to call to
verify that fact right from the horse's mouth.
>
> > who are probably still
> > laughing at what Bev and Vox have tried to claim in respect
to
> > trademarks. And of course that does not include my lawyer,
who
> > has not stopped laughing at their miserable and preposterous
> > claims in respect to their knowledge of Trademark laws and
how
> > they are applied.
>
> Your lawyer is a moron.
No Vox you are the moron. You think you know more about the law
than lawyers, you lie con and lie and con some more. Then when
the statutes and the lawyers prove you are lying, you say the
statutes are wrong, and the lawyers are all liars. Sure Vox. In
the morning ask your medical handler to give you a few more meds
before he lets you touch your computer.
>
>
> > I certainly have not tried to forge their names, nor in any
way
> > posted anything but the truth.
>
> Liar.
>
You are repeating yourself twit. If you cannot dispute the
statement, then just do your best to not look so stupid.
>
> > I even backed what I said with
> > excerpts from the US Trademark FAQ,
>
> <worthless off-point drivel>
Let me see, it refuted everything Vox said, so it was off-point.
But wait! The subject of registration of a trademark, common law
trademarks, and even the classification of goods and services
were ALL addressed! So how can it be off-point? Well, its not.
But it does prove Vox is lying, and that is his only retort to
being caught red-handed conning and lying to the group.
>
> > and more recently, actual
> > Trademark Statutes.
>
> You lie again. You repeated posted the useless
> FAQ, dozens of time, each time falsely and idiotically
> claiming the FAQ was "statute" and/or "law".
Vox/Bev, you pathetic fool. The US Trademark FAQ is based upon
the statutes. They are not answering questions in contradiction
to the statutes you pathetic moron. Moreover, the more recent
posts were right from the statutes themselves and not from the
FAQ. You are clearly too stupid to know the difference.
Moreover, your continual whines that the US Trademark FAQ is
wrong and you are right smacks of someone delusional to a point
of insanity. Take your meds Bev/Vox, you are embarrassing
yourself again.
>
> All of USENET has seen, and can view the archive
> of your false, pathetic psychotic claims in that matter.
>
USENET is not involved in this debate Bev/Vox...duh. I posted
the statutes and the FAQ that prove you are a liar. It is easy
to do a google search and prove that fact...if that is what you
are talking about.
>
> > I even posted a history of a case that
> > proved my representations.
>
> You lie again you pathetic imbecile. You laughably claim
> the WWF v WWF case applies to your preposterous
> assertion on the pen name Doug Grant.
No moron, it simply proves that a name itself can be protected
without regard to goods and services. I stated that point about
twenty times, and each time you try and distort it to mean some
type of weird "Pen Name" (whatever the hell that is.) You tried
to claim that a name itself cannot be protected under the
trademark laws. The WWF case history proves you are and idiot
and a liar to boot.
>
> > Bev and Vox ALWAYS snip out those
> > independent verifications,
>
> Only in your psychotic mind do they "verify" anything.
> Try introducing the FAQ in court ... when you sue me
> you cowardly psycho.
The US Trademark FAQ is based upon questions and answers
extracted from the federal statutes. The US Trademark FAQ is not
"lying" Vox/Bev you are. When you claim the US Trademark FAQ
questions and answers are wrong, and you are right, yet you claim
no legal training, are afraid to speak with a real lawyer on the
issue, and keep snipping out the FAQ information and the actual
statutes that prove you a con man liar, then you have lost all
credibility. No one believes you Bev/Vox, you have been caught
red-handed. All of your insults, diatribe and nonsensical whines
and howls will not change the fact that the US Trademark FAQ and
the applicable Federal Statutes prove you wrong.
>
> > and retort with nothing but diatribe,
> > insults,
>
> If they are true, are they still insults...? Perhaps yes.
Of course they are not true, but they are all you have since you
cannot refute the obvious fact that you have been caught in
mid-con.
>
> > forgeries
>
> No forgeries you lying sack of shit.
>
> > and cyberstalking.
>
> Lying coward. Call 911 and report it you psycho.
I will be glad to contact the authorities about your
cyberstalking and forgeries. Which area do you live? What is
the name of your lawyer? What is the name of your local
prosecutor? If you are serious provide that information and I
will accommodate you.
>
> >
> > I have even offered to send this issue and others to an
> > independent University for their ruling.
>
> Ah, the old "independent University ruling" trick ...
> We're not falling for that.
Of course not, why on earth should you be willing to allow an
independent law school rule on this issue? They will just
confirm once again that you are lying. Law Schools are not
involved with "trickery" moron.....can you be as stupid as you
sound? Am I arguing with someone that has a real mental problem?
Trying to hide from an independent review is beyond rational
explanation Bev/Vox.
>
> > Bev and Vox also hide
> > from that challenge.
>
> We demand you send it to a "dependant College" for a
> ruling ....
More nonsense. See above.
>
> >
> > You can be sure the readers of these newsgroups already know
that
> > Bev and Vox have been caught lying. Not to mention using
aliases
> > to try and further their con.
>
> Oh my! Aliases on Usenet ... what is the world coming to ?
>
> Lions and Tigers and Bears ... Oh My!
See above. This pathetic fool has lost it completely. Sad...but
fun to watch him squirm.
>
>
>
> > Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> Once again Vox is forging my trademark name and claiming that
it is his real name. Does he really expect anyone to believe
such obvious lies? The sad thing is that he does! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Doug Grant (TM)
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
>
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2mil7q...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
> > Statutes:
>
> Wrong again Turd Burglar ... your stupid FAQ isn't case law nor
US code.
It is not from the FAQ this time you pathetic moron! It was
downloaded directly from the statutes and its overview. You are
too stupid to know the difference you incredible twit.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Here is the information, excerpted directly from the statutes
that prove Bev/Vox are lying:
Trademark Entitlement Provisions Excepted From the Federal
Statutes:
End of first Excerpt:
wrong, and Bev is right! Bev of course is delusional.)
[Page 324-325]
Goods
[[Page 325]]
Services
Doug Grant (Tm)
--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"foobar" <f...@bar.org> wrote in message
news:4hMW7.298421$ez.42...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Robert Ames
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug: Now that Bev is using your trademark, you must take legal action
against him or risk losing your trademark protection. Ask your lawyer
about this.
--
Robert Ames <mate...@bellsouth.net>
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2nck8r...@corp.supernews.com...
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 Grant©
PS: You're a liar and a coward. Call 911 to report your
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2neufh...@corp.supernews.com...
<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 Grant©
PS: You're a liar and a coward. Call 911 to report your
- Vox Populi ©
"Robert Ames" <mate...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rhjn2u8js1gc8al6a...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 16:28:10 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Doug: Now that Bev is using your trademark, you must take legal action
> against him or risk losing your trademark protection. Ask your lawyer
> about this.
Wrong ... I'm using Bev's "Trademark" ... I paid him $2 for 3 of them.
>
> --
> Robert Ames <mate...@bellsouth.net>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Robert, if I were you I would stick with your pro-terrorist
propaganda and not provide legal advice on the Internet. You
clearly do not have a clue.
Doug Grant (TM)
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
More forgeries from Vox Populi. Note they cannot deal with the
issues and the statutes that proved them the liars they are, so
they are hysterically trying to lash out at me for posting the
proof that allowed the entire internet to conclude Vox Populi and
Bev Thornton are complete and utter idiots. Typical of those
that con the readers, they use diatribe insults and forgeries to
cyberstalk anyone that proves them liars. Now if they were even
remotely telling the truth, would they need to resort to forging
my trademark name, using nonsensical diatribe and cyberstalking?
Not to mention snipping out all of the US Trademark FAQ
information I posted that proved them wrong?
These twits have lost all credibility and now they are very
unhappy....They want to hurt the person that simply made them
realize they could not get away with conning and lying to the
readers of this newsgroup, on any subject, anymore.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> >
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
>
>
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2nck8r...@corp.supernews.com...
> Just remember these immutable facts, Douggy Reiman:
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> 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 Grant© you gutless coward.
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
>
>
>
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2neufh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> 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 Grant© you gutless coward.
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
>
>
>
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> news:u2neufh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> Signed,
>
> The Real Doug Grant©
>
> 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 Grant© you gutless coward.
>
>
> > 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
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> "Robert Ames" <mate...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rhjn2u8js1gc8al6a...@4ax.com...
> > Doug: Now that Bev is using your trademark, you must take legal
> action
> > against him or risk losing your trademark protection. Ask your
> lawyer
> > about this.
> >
> > --
> > Robert Ames <mate...@bellsouth.net>
>
> Robert, if I were you I would stick with your pro-terrorist
> propaganda and not provide legal advice on the Internet. You
> clearly do not have a clue.
Robert is correct. How do you think Bayer lost the trademark
on Aspirin?
Arthur L. Rubin
Almost all written materials are NOT protected goods. Also,
advertising that correctly identifies a trademark as belonging
to a product is protected AGAINST the trademark holder.
>
> Here is what I said previously and what Bev said in reply:
>
> > > Bev, you obviously do not know the law. How many other
> people are named McDonald? But if you think they can open a
> hamburger joint and start selling hamburgers under the trademark
> protected name of "McDonalds" then not only are you off your
> meds, you
> need to increase the dose when you finally are caught by your
> handlers again.
McDonalds is a "famous mark". Their claim of all words and
phrases starting with "Mc" has NOT been upheld by the Courts,
however.
...
Irrelevant.
> >
> > > statistical analysis, ...
> >
> > Possible. I don't think it's protectable.
>
> No it is protected, very specifically. Provided it produces an
> uncommon conclusion. If math is used, math itself cannot be
> protected, but the analysis is protected under intellectual
> property.
That's patent law, not trademark law. Nice try. (I have reason
to have researched this, and my employer's lawyers agree with me.
Corporate council is deciding whether to file a patent application
based on my invention, in the statistical analysis field.)
> >
> > > 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 ...
> >
> > None of these are protectable except under copyright law,
> > except that scripts are protected under the Writer's Guild
> > regulations if they are to be usable. That has absolutely
> > nothing to do with trademark OR copyright law.
>
> Once again, the advertisments and packaging used to sell these
> products are protected Arthur. If you wish I can provide you
> with a US Supreme Court ruling that proves this point.
Please do so.
...
> No Arthur, it was a trademark dispute that was adjudged under the
> provisions Trademark statutes. You should read the case history.
> I can provide the information the Judge relied upon in his
> written ruling. He reefers exclusively to the trademark laws.
> The WWF dispute originally started as a trademark dispute, then
> WWF was forced by the court into a settlement agreement which
> they violated. However, when they were sued, they claimed the
> agreement was not valid and the judge ruled the entire case under
> the auspices of the Trademark laws....and found for the
> plaintiff. Like I said Arthur, would you like to speak to some
> real lawyers that specialize in Trademark and Copyright law? How
> about speaking with the very lawyers that tried this case?
That is incorrect, according to the WWF (.org). They claimed it
was a pure CONTRACT dispute.
...
> > I won't disagree with you on the common law search. However,
> > use of the name "Doug Grant (Tm)" is not protected by trademark
> > laws for use in advertising, if it is only used accurately
> > to refer to you. Nice try. I could say my software is
> > compatible with Windows (R) without asking Microsoft.
>
> It is not only used to accurately refer to me. Advertising is
> advertising. You do not need to use direct advertising to
> qualify. Saturation advertising *does* qualify. If there is any
> links to what I write and sell, then that qualifies as
> advertising. Once again Arthur, would you like to speak to a
> lawyer on this issue?
Go ahead. Talk to a lawyer. You're still wrong. You can
use trademarks accurately to refer to trademarked materials
without the permission of the holder.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p3u0p...@corp.supernews.com...
Famous mark
A mark that commands a wide degree of familiarity such that it receives special protection
under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The Act specifies that when determining whether
or not a mark is famous, the following factors should be considered: (1) the degree of
inherent or acquired distinctiveness in the mark; (2) the duration and extent of use of
the mark in connection with the goods or services on which the mark is used; (3) the
duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (4) the geographical extent
of the trading area in which the mark is used; (5) the channels of trade for the goods or
services with which the mark is used; (6) the degree of recognition of the mark in the
trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom
the injunction is sought; (7) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by
third parties; and (8) whether the mark was registered.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p41d5...@corp.supernews.com...
Federal versus state trademarks
State trademarks are typically used exclusively in intrastate commerce, while a federal
mark must be used in interstate commerce in order to be registered. However, there is no
requirement that state marks be used only in one state. Thus, there can be, and usually
is, concurrent protection for a mark based on state and federal law. Registration for
state trademarks is available in most states, and protects trademark rights in that state
only. The advantage to a state registration is that it is cheaper and faster than a
federal registration. However, federal registration provides many more benefits, such as
providing nationwide priority, which grants rights in a mark even in states in which the
mark owner has not used the mark. Those performing a full U.S. trademark search prior to
adopting a mark, as they should, will have notice of state registrations as well as
federal registrations.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2n8uae...@corp.supernews.com...
Generic marks
These are words or symbols that describe the product or service itself as a category,
rather than distinguish between competing versions of the product or service. For example,
"shredded wheat" is a generic term that refers to the category of breakfast cereals that
are composed of layers of crunchy wheat strips molded together into a pillow-type shape.
This cereal may be manufactured by Kellogg's, Post or others., and each manufacturer is
free to use the term "shredded wheat" to advertise their version of the cereal. To prevent
them from using "shredded wheat" would mean they could not equally compete with regard to
this product. Thus, generic words are not protected as trademarks precisely because to do
so would be akin to granting a monopoly in the product itself, not in a word or symbol.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p44h...@corp.supernews.com...
Immoral marks (scandalous marks)
Marks consisting of immoral or scandalous matter cannot be federally registered. Courts
have defined scandalous marks to include marks giving offense to the conscience or moral
feelings; exciting reprobation, calling out condemnation for a substantial composite of
the general public. In re McGinty, 660 F.2d 481 (1981). A fairly recent example of a mark
denied registration on the basis of being immoral is the mark DICK HEAD'S accompanied by
the logo depicting male genitalia, for restaurant and bar services. In re Wilcher Corp. 40
USPQ2d 1929 (1996).
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2ne7dd...@corp.supernews.com...
Interstate commerce requirement
Interstate commerce of a mark occurs when the trademark applicant or owner uses the mark
on goods or in connection with the sale of goods or services that are sold or otherwise
transported across state lines. The kind of use required to create or maintain a trademark
under the Trademark Act must be a "bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade
and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark." 15 U.S.C. §1127. Using a mark in
interstate commerce is required whether applying for a trademark under an actual use
application, filing a statement of use under an intent-to-use application, or filing a
renewal application.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p3s77...@corp.supernews.com...
Laches, defense of
A defense based upon plaintiff's inexcusable delay in asserting or attempting to enforce
trademark rights. This doctrine is based on the theory that equity rewards the vigilant
and not those who slumber on their rights.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p1ldi...@corp.supernews.com...
Misspelled words as marks
Often business owners choose misspelled words that are phonetically similar to the
correctly spelled word, in hopes of adding distinctiveness, or even perhaps as a marketing
ploy. However, trademark law deems words that are misspelled, but otherwise descriptive of
a product to be the same as the non-misspelled descriptive term for that product. For
instance, "KWIK SNAQ" as a trademark for a convenience food item would be treated as a
descriptive term in the same way as if the item were instead named "QUICK SNACK."
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2p1qk7...@corp.supernews.com...
Surnames, trademark protection of
Trademarks consisting of a person's own last name are generally not protected under
trademark law unless the mark has acquired secondary meaning. In some instances, a name
may not require secondary meaning in order to receive protection. That occurs when the
surname also describes some other thing, such as BIRD, KING, or FLOWERS. Courts have taken
two different approaches in analyzing whether or not a surname has a meaning different
enough from a last name so as not to require secondary meaning. One view requires
secondary meaning when the mark's primary meaning is as a surname, while the other view
requires secondary meaning when the mark's only likely impact is as a surname. If the name
does not describe some other thing, it can still receive protection without secondary
meaning if the mark is not perceived as a surname, even if the only true meaning of the
word is in fact as a surname. However, even if a surname is rare in the public at large,
but the relevant consuming public primarily conceives of the name as a surname, it cannot
be protected without secondary meaning.
- Vox Populi ©
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u2n8t4a...@corp.supernews.com...
Use, proper 4.12
To use a mark properly, the trademark owner should: (1) always use the mark as an
adjective of the underlying product rather than as a noun, as in "people prefer CLUB HOUSE
brand steaks" rather than "people prefer CLUB HOUSE;" (2) Italicize, underline, capitalize
or boldface the mark when it appears in text, in order to set it out from the generic word
for the product (3) affix the mark to the goods or services; (3) provide proper notice of
trademark rights.
Notice
Notice of trademark rights is given by use of the symbols, TM, SM or ®, or by phrases such
as "XYZ Company is the registered owner of the trademark ABC," or "Reg. U.S. Pat. Off."
The symbols "TM" and "SM" are used for trademarks and service marks respectively, and
provide notice that a company considers its use of a mark to be protected by trademark
laws, even though the mark is not federally registered. Use of the "®" symbol gives notice
specifically of the existence of a federal trademark registration.Failure to provide
notice of federal registration can result in the court denying certain monetary awards,
unless the plaintiff can prove the defendant actually knew the mark was registered.
- Vox Populi ©
"Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
news:3C2C2E...@mcimail.com...
Ok Bright boy, analyze this:
What are the odds that Doug Reiman, Trademark Moron,
will reply with yet another inane, off-point, legally vacuous
imbecilic rant ?
Roger Schlafly
> on Aspirin?
I believe that it was part of the German properties that the US
seized during World War I.
Bev Thornton
>
> Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
> support your contentions.
Maybe it's may be some kind of addiction. Or a kneejerk-style reflex
sort of thing. Maybe he can't help himself.
> The fact that Bev did not know of the products, (if true), means
> that your mark is not "Famous" in any of the categories Bev
> is familiar with. It does not mean your mark isn't protected --
> in association with protected goods and services.
That gives me an idea. I have several new offerings for the marketplace,
The Famous Doug Grant Financial Systems (TM) and Famous Doug Grant (TM),
an entertainer and performance artist. That rounds out my line started
with Doug Grant (TM).
Wanna place an order? Two-for-one sale. For two dollars get all three
plus your choice of dead president name. Just for today, hurry in!
>> Bev/Vox tried to claim that I had to use a (R) symbol before my
>> trademark could be protected:
>
> That statement is wrong, and probably really a lie.
hahahahaha
> Again: (Tm) offers no protection. It's (TM), the symbol, or
> nothing.
Howzabout it? Your own custom The Famous Doug Grant Financial Systems
(TM) authored by the Famous Doug Grant (TM), Doug Grant (TM) and lessee,
howzabout, Millard Fillmore. Two bucks, postpaid.
> That is NOT cyberstalking. I ask you to quote a statute
> which says it is.
Ohoh. The USPTO FAQ may get replaced.
--
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>
Bev Thornton
>
> Can I get 3 for $2 ...?
Yes, you can. You must have read my mind. You can have any three of The
Famous Doug Grant Financial Systems (TM), Famous Doug Grant (TM) and
Doug Grant (TM) and the dead president of your choice. How about a
Ulysses S. Grant? Sound good?
> Send them to:
Ok, I'll include an invoice with the order. Allow two working days for
processing, if you'd like a different dead president, just notify us in
the next twenty-four hours and it'll be changed. You can always exchange
it for another even after recieving your order.
We currently have a prototype on a "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN (TM)", codenamed
IT. It's all ginger-coloured. Keep an eye out for the upcoming 2002
models, release is in just a few days and we expect quite a rush.
Bev Thornton
>
> to : Mr Doug Grant the trademark [tm] troll ©
How much you want for one of those? Accepting any trades?
Bev Thornton
>
> The what file? I recorded the conversation on an audio tape
> connected to my telephone with their permission. They are still
> laughing. When I want a good laugh, I play it again. They say
> you are an idiot. I posted the 800 number for all to call to
> verify that fact right from the horse's mouth.
Post a transcript.
Or maybe just some juicy excerpts. Whatever you can come up with.
Signed,
Famous Doug Grant (TM)
Bev Thornton
>
>> > That would be a "pathological liar"
>>
>> Oh. Ok, I'll stop picking on him then.
>>
> Well, I don't know if he really *is* pathological. I just said that's what
> it called.
Well, I wouldn't know either way but if that is what it is called and
that is what it seems to mean in the e-book on pathological lying then
maybe it is.
> Don't let that stop you ;^)
I won't. I'll just try to resist calling him on the lies.
I wonder if he'll hit that spam index thing with repetitive posting. I'm
wondering how much time he spends reading and writing all that stuff
too, the parts of some that actually are unique. That's all I see anyway
and there is a lot of that.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3c2cb62b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 09:09:57 -0800, "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > And just think, I have not devoted much time at
> >all to this newsgroup....yet.
>
> I'm sure you will be quickly tuned out should that happen.
Promises promises Vonroach. You already can't help yourself. I
am additive. Also, very few have tuned you out. That means that
you are clearly additive also. Strange world Vonroach.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
news:3C2C25...@mcimail.com...
> DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
> >
>
> > Take note the con men keep snipping out the actual Federal
> > statutes that prove them wrong, and reply with diatribe and
> > insults. Typical con man tactics.
>
> You've never posted that actual statutes. You've posted
> exceprts from the PTO web site. Try *findlaw* or *thomas*
> for the ACTUAL statutes.
I have been quoting Title 15, Subchapter III and Subchapter II
Arthur. Plus the US Trademark FAQ ...which is based upon the
statutes. If you have any actual statutes, a specific link that
proves I cannot used Doug Grant as a protected label for my
products, I and my lawyers are eager to see it.
>
> Vox is correct, and I'll let him make other comments, if he
> thinks it necessary.
Vox is clearly not correct about anything. Title 15, Chapter 22
Arthur. We are talking about trademarks, not nonsense and
double-talk. Here is the statute that proved your claims wrong
about my Trademark not protecting the goods and services I sell.
Not only that Arthur, but under the statutes my trademark is
incontestable. You and your "friends" even missed that point:
Please read Title 15 below. Now if you want to change what you
have said in the past, or distort it so you do not look so
foolish, fine, but do not expect me to stand for it. I will post
what you have said about this issue, before distortions, and I
will reply to it.
You said none of the goods and services I sold could be within a
class that could be protected by my trademark. You clearly, BY
THE FOLLOWING STATUTE, are wrong.
Doug Grant (Tm)
TITLE 15 , CHAPTER 22 , SUBCHAPTER I , Sec. 1052. US CODE
COLLECTION
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1052. Prev |
Next
Sec. 1052. - Trademarks registrable on principal register;
concurrent
registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be
distinguished from
the goods of others shall be refused registration on the
principal
register on account of its nature unless it -
(a)
Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous
matter; or
matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection
with persons,
living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,
or bring them
into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication
which, when used
on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a
place other than
the origin of the goods and is first used on or in
connection with wines
or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the
date on which
the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title
19) enters into
force with respect to the United States.
(b)
Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other
insignia of the
United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any
foreign nation,
or any simulation thereof.
(c)
Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature
identifying a
particular living individual except by his written consent,
or the name,
signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the
United States during
the life of his widow, if any, except by the written
consent of the widow.
(d)
Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark
registered in
the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name
previously used
in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be
likely, when
used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant,
to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive: Provided,
That if the
Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception
is not likely to
result from the continued use by more than one person of
the same or
similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the
mode or place of
use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with
which such marks
are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such
persons when they
have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their
concurrent
lawful use in commerce prior to
(1)
the earliest of the filing dates of the applications
pending or of any
registration issued under this chapter;
(2)
July 5, 1947, in the case of registrations previously
issued under the Act
of March 3, 1881, or February 20, 1905, and continuing in
full force and
effect on that date; or
(3)
July 5, 1947, in the case of applications filed under the
Act of February
20, 1905, and registered after July 5, 1947. Use prior to
the filing date
of any pending application or a registration shall not be
required when
the owner of such application or registration consents to
the grant of a
concurrent registration to the applicant. Concurrent
registrations may
also be issued by the Director when a court of competent
jurisdiction has
finally determined that more than one person is entitled to
use the same
or similar marks in commerce. In issuing concurrent
registrations, the
Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to
the mode or
place of use of the mark or the goods on or in connection
with which such
mark is registered to the respective persons.
(e)
Consists of a mark which
(1)
when used on or in connection with the goods of the
applicant is merely
descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them,
(2)
when used on or in connection with the goods of the
applicant is primarily
geographically descriptive of them, except as indications
of regional
origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title,
(3)
when used on or in connection with the goods of the
applicant is primarily
geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them,
(4)
is primarily merely a surname, or
(5)
comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional.
(f)
Except as expressly excluded in subsections (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e)(3),
and (e)(5) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall
prevent the
registration of a mark used by the applicant which has
become distinctive
of the applicant's goods in commerce. The Director may
accept as prima
facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as
used on or in
connection with the applicant's goods in commerce, proof of
substantially
exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the
applicant in
commerce for the five years before the date on which the
claim of
distinctiveness is made. Nothing in this section shall
prevent the
registration of a mark which, when used on or in connection
with the goods
of the applicant, is primarily geographically deceptively
misdescriptive
of them, and which became distinctive of the applicant's
goods in commerce
before December 8, 1993. A mark which when used would cause
dilution under
section 1125(c) of this title may be refused registration
only pursuant to
a proceeding brought under section 1063 of this title. A
registration for
a mark which when used would cause dilution under section
1125(c) of this
title may be canceled pursuant to a proceeding brought
under either
section 1064 of this title or section 1092 of this
titleSearch this title:
Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Topical references
Prev | Next
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
they lost it. It became an identifier. If Vox/Bev/Arthur and
friends want to forge my trademark name, in respect to trademark
goods or services, then I have a complaint worth going to my
lawyer about. So far, they are forging my trademark name for the
purpose of cyberstalking. That is a criminal issue not a civil
one.
I asked you before Arthur if you were a lawyer, you refused to
answer. I also asked you before if you would like to speak to
some real lawyers that specialize in Trademark law, you refused
to answer, and then you quoted a cyberstalking statute, I asked
you to name the satutute you read, you refused to answer. I also
posted statutes that you called "FAQ's" and when I posted the
FAQ's you "added" self-serving "conditions" the FAQ that did not
exist nor were said. You cannot distort and bullshit me Arthur,
I will catch you everytime. (Not that I will not give you enough
rope.)
I have offered to send this dispute to any American law School
you choose for a decision. I will provide them with what I said
originally about my trademark protection and what Bev and Vox
said, and what you said *originally* (meaning "before
distortions"). YOu pick the Law School and if they agree with me
you pay for their services, and if they agree with you Vox and
Bev, I will pay for their services....that is a fair proposal
Arthur, please do not hide from it.
Now if you want to go to some legal services web site, I will be
glad to do that also. But we will deal with what *I* said about
my trademark protection, and not what Bev and Vox *lied* about me
saying.
Trying to take what someone says out of context, or adding to
that context, so that you qualify your own distortion for
ridicule is not ethical nor responsible. Deal with the issue
Arthur, not the bullshit. We are talking about TRADEMARKS not
Pen Names, or copyrights, nor any other distortions. A Trademark
is a trademark, a label if you will of goods and services. I
label my goods and services with Doug Grant (Tm) and it is a
protected trademark name. In fact it is an "incontestable"
trademark name.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Arthur, so there are conditions in which a name can be protected.
So why did you begin your paragraph with a "nope" when all you
did was agree with me?
> >
> > Arthur, I realize the name is protected only if it is
infringed
> > upon in respect to confusion or the goods, services or
> > advertising it provides. That is exactly what I am talking
> > about, and have been talking about. I specifically said that
if
> > someone named Doug Grant wanted to sell washing machines,
they
> > could do so without infringing on my trademark name.
Obviously,
> > I am referring to goods and services.
>
> Almost all written materials are NOT protected goods. Also,
> advertising that correctly identifies a trademark as belonging
> to a product is protected AGAINST the trademark holder.
>
Arthur,ALL goods services that can be distinguished can be sold
under a protected trademark name. Here are the statutes that
prove you wrong:
TITLE 15 , CHAPTER 22 , SUBCHAPTER I , Sec. 1052. US CODE
COLLECTION
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1052. Prev |
Next
Sec. 1052. - Trademarks registrable on principal register;
concurrent
registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be
distinguished from
the goods of others shall be refused registration on the
principal
register on account of its nature unless it -
(See Arthur, it says above if the goods can be distinguished,
they can be sold under a protected trademark name...please no
distortions in reply Arthur, just address this specific Statute,
and try and tell us why the statute is wrong and you are
right...my lawyers really want to know.) Below are the
exceptions Arthur, those goods and services that cannot be sold
under a Trademark protected name or logo or whatever. I use an
"arbitary" trademark Arthur. Under an "Arbitaray" trademark, I
can sell many diverse goods and services, as long as they are
distiniguised from others, the statutes clearly allow me to use
my trademark name as a label. Claiming otherwise is making you
look pretty stupid Arthur.
Now you said almost ALL written materials cannot be sold under a
Trademark protected label Arthur....you are nuts as this STATUTE
clearly states.
Below are the only exceptions:
Obviously, Arthur, the goods and services available to be used
under a Trademark name are broad and vast. They do include
written materials Arthur.
> >
> > Here is what I said previously and what Bev said in reply:
> >
> > > > Bev, you obviously do not know the law. How many other
> > people are named McDonald? But if you think they can open a
> > hamburger joint and start selling hamburgers under the
trademark
> > protected name of "McDonalds" then not only are you off your
> > meds, you
> > need to increase the dose when you finally are caught by your
> > handlers again.
>
> McDonalds is a "famous mark". Their claim of all words and
> phrases starting with "Mc" has NOT been upheld by the Courts,
> however.
Arthur, more distortions? When did we start talking about words
that begin with Mc? Did Bev claim that all words that start with
the same first two letters are protected as trademarks? Whew!
You had better tell Bev to take his meds. So let me get this
straight Arthur, if you are saying that the name must be famous
before it can be enforced against someone else that is trying to
use the same name (not his own name) for deceptive purposes?
Arthur if that were true then forgeries would be impossible to
enforce. Think about it Arthur, you are clearly wrong.
> ...
>
> > > > 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:
> > >
> > > Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
> > > support your contentions.
Arthur, we are waiting for you to state why the US Trademark FAQ
does not support what I am saying, when it clearly does support
it. Your dismissal of clear and unmistakable evidence is not
credible, You clearly are having trouble distinguishing the
difference between copyrightable materials from Trademarks. You
need to be specific when you dismiss the US Trademark FAQ as
being incorrect Arthur. I doubt if anyone is going to believe
you.
> > >
> > > > (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.
> > >
> > > Except that person's (including corporations) use of their
own
> > > name is allowed under trademark law, unless it conflicts
with
> > > a Famous mark.
Only if they are using it in business Arthur. It has to be used
in business, and their own business to boot. Just trying to
forge a name to cause confusion about a product, or forge a label
just because you happen to have the same name is not authorized.
If your name was McDonalds and you copied the real McDonalds
restaurant down to the last golden arch, and then tried to sell
hamburgers while deceiving the public that you really are a true
McDonalds's franchise, you can be sued in court. Also, Arthur,
perhaps no one ever told you this, but the courts have
jurisdiction over the rights of Trademark registrants.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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,
> > >
> > > OK
Your OK above indicates that you apparently agree with the fact
my trademark information is correct. That is the first thing you
have written that is acceptable Arthur.
> > >
> > > > newsletters, columns for newspapers, political speeches,
> > > > instructional writings and manuals, novels, books,
scripts
> > and
> > > > seminar scripts, professional recordings, ...
> > >
> > > None of these are protected except under copyright law,
unless
> > they
> > > also fall under another class.
> >
> > The "advertising" used to sell them contain the Doug Grant
> > trademark Arthur.
>
> Irrelevant.
No Arthur, it is not irrelevant. Not unless you are really
confused about copyrights and trademarks. A trademark is a
label, a distinguishing mark Arthur, a copyright is something
that protects the person or entity that is selling these items.
I said I sold these items under the trade name Doug Grant, SOLD
them Arthur. They are advertised under the Doug Grant trademark
protected label. I select items that I want to sell under that
label. If I write it myself, I copyright the work, as I have
done several times. But when I sell these products and advertise
them under the Doug Grant label, that Doug Grant name is
protected under the Trademark laws. Someone else cannot come
along, use the name Doug Grant to sell similar items and claim
they are coming from the original Doug Grant name.
>
> > >
> > > > statistical analysis, ...
> > >
> > > Possible. I don't think it's protectable.
Sigh. Arthur, the label that sells these products is the
trademark. Works of literature and such are protected by
copyrights, not trademarks. When I said Doug Grant sold these
items, you claimed these items did not qualify as items that
could be sold under a trademark name. The Statutes prove you
wrong Arthur, as stated above. (Also "protectable" is not a word
Arthur.)
> >
> > No it is protected, very specifically. Provided it produces
an
> > uncommon conclusion. If math is used, math itself cannot be
> > protected, but the analysis is protected under intellectual
> > property.
>
> That's patent law, not trademark law. Nice try. (I have
reason
> to have researched this, and my employer's lawyers agree with
me.
> Corporate council is deciding whether to file a patent
application
> based on my invention, in the statistical analysis field.)
Nice Try Arthur. I said that statistical analysis was protected
under intellectual property not trademarks, you agree with me,
then tell me it is not what I said it was not....then say "Nice
Try?" Do you distort this stuff this way all the time Arthur?
When I say something is specifically NOT protected under
trademark laws, you agree, then try to indicate I said it was?
You really need to stop snipping and distorting Arthur and stick
with the issue. Nice try Arthur, but your distortions really do
not fly.
Now ask your employer's lawyer's this question: If you sold your
analysis under a label name Distortions R Us, and you registered
that label, or used it with a TM for more than five years, and
could prove you were the first to use it, would the label
"Distortions R Us" be qualified as a trademark? If they say no
Arthur, then you will need to tell me their names.
>
> > >
> > > > 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 ...
> > >
> > > None of these are protectable except under copyright law,
> > > except that scripts are protected under the Writer's Guild
> > > regulations if they are to be usable. That has absolutely
> > > nothing to do with trademark OR copyright law.
Gosh no shit Arthur, no one ever claimed they were protected
under the trademark laws. Those are just the goods and services
sold under a trademark label. The label Doug Grant is the
question Arthur, whether it is a protected trademark, not whether
something sold under that label is somehow protected by trademark
laws. You are confused Arthur. A trademark is provided to
distinguish goods or services from other similar or non-similar
goods and services. The actual goods and services may need to be
protected under other statutes than the trademark laws. We are
talking about *trademarks* Arthur, not copyrights or patents....I
assume you know the difference?
> >
> > Once again, the advertisments and packaging used to sell
these
> > products are protected Arthur. If you wish I can provide you
> > with a US Supreme Court ruling that proves this point.
>
> Please do so.
Arthur, your claim that Trademarks that are used on packaging and
advertisements to sell goods and services are not protected is
beyond the need to read a Supreme Court ruling. If you do not
understand this very basic fact about Trademarks, then you will
not understand the Supreme Court ruling.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
that prove they are lying about the trademarks they claimed never
existed. But note they still are forging my trademark name for
the purpose of cyberstalking.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Unethical aren't they? Just like I have been saying.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
More forgeries from Bev Thornton. They are clearly using
repetitive information to bomb this net with cyberstalking.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Now Bev Thornton/Vox Populi are violating USENET rules and using
cyberstalking, and bombing this newsgroup. Tsk Tsk. Like I have
been saying - this is evidence they cannot refute any of the
issues and they are simply con men.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
proves them the liars they are. At least they are starting to
admit they have been lying, at least it is a start.
(Note the cyberstalking information they are using in the subject
lines. Like I said, they are unethical.)
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Giggle, now these con men want to claim that infringement,
forgeries and cyberstalking can create a loss of trademark rights
for the proper owner. Like I said, they *are* stupid!
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
because they have been proved idiots, liars and con men. The
fact that they have resorted to forgeries and cyberstalking
however, is now involving criminal statutes.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Nj7X7.4635$II2.186...@twister1.starband.net...
excusive right to use the term as a trademark. It has nothing to
do with what Bev Thornton said....as usual. Bev/Vox are using
cyberstalking and forgeries. They think that means that if they
forge a name, lie about it, and threaten the original owner, that
can mean the original owner will lose trademark rights. They are
conning everyone, obviously.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Bev Thornton" <bevth...@email.com> wrote in message
news:uxjX7.62649$nm3.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Arthur L. Rubin, in <3C2AF6...@mcimail.com>, wrote:
> >
> > Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
> > support your contentions.
The facts are it *does* support my facts. That is why Arthur
does not want me to keep posting it. It makes him look as stupid
as Bev/Vox.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> - Vox Populi ©, in <9izW7.144$CK.2...@news.uswest.net>,
wrote:
> >
> > Can I get 3 for $2 ...?
>
> Yes, you can. You must have read my mind. You can have any
three of The
> Famous Doug Grant Financial Systems (TM), Famous Doug Grant
(TM) and
> Doug Grant (TM) and the dead president of your choice. How
about a
> Ulysses S. Grant? Sound good?
More consumer fraud and forgeries from Vox/Bev. Like I said,
they are con men. The most recent posts coming from them proves
that point explicitly.
Notice that idiots just cannot help themselves. When they are
exposed as liars, frauds and con men, their true colors start to
show.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> Nightlite, in
<JHIW7.62486$7l5....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>, wrote:
> >
> > to : Mr Doug Grant the trademark [tm] troll ©
>
> How much you want for one of those? Accepting any trades?
I see you are still trying your best to forge my trademark name,
and sell it as a trademark someone else can use. That is clear
fraud. But then so is most of everthing else you do so I am not
surprised.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2ne7dd...@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
> >
> > The what file? I recorded the conversation on an audio tape
> > connected to my telephone with their permission. They are
still
> > laughing. When I want a good laugh, I play it again. They
say
> > you are an idiot. I posted the 800 number for all to call to
> > verify that fact right from the horse's mouth.
>
> Post a transcript.
Bev, I am not going to spend any of my time to provide you with a
transcript. I will send you a copy of the tape however if you
wish. (Send me a blank tape and the postage). Or you can just
call them yourselves and repeat what you wrote. You then can
hear them laugh as hard as I did.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> foobar, in <4hMW7.298421$ez.42...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
wrote:
> >
> >> > That would be a "pathological liar"
Yes, if you look up pathological liar in the dictionary, you will
find a photograph of Bev Thornton.
Doug Grant (Tm)
> >>
Bev Thornton
>
> Promises promises Vonroach. You already can't help yourself. I
> am additive. Also, very few have tuned you out. That means that
> you are clearly additive also. Strange world Vonroach.
Additive?
Just Wondering,
Doug Grant (TM)
Bev Thornton
>
> Arthur, Asprin became a household word for a product, that is why
> they lost it. It became an identifier. If Vox/Bev/Arthur and
> friends want to forge my trademark name, in respect to trademark
> goods or services, then I have a complaint worth going to my
> lawyer about. So far, they are forging my trademark name for the
> purpose of cyberstalking. That is a criminal issue not a civil
> one.
Vox has been invoiced for $2 on three variations of Doug Grants and a
Ulysses S. Grant.
Yours Truly,
Doug Grant (Tm) (TM) - test marketing of new, (Tm)-model for 2002.
Jon Beaver
wrote:
>DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN, in <u2s7l4f...@corp.supernews.com>, wrote:
>>
>> Promises promises Vonroach. You already can't help yourself. I
>> am additive. Also, very few have tuned you out. That means that
>> you are clearly additive also. Strange world Vonroach.
>
>Additive?
>
>Just Wondering,
Spell checkers do that if you're not paying attention! You spell it
wrong, the checker offers to spell it "right." Sometimes it offers to
spell the wrong word right. Sometimes you say okay too fast.
- Jon Beaver
Arthur L. Rubin
> Now if you want to go to some legal services web site, I will be
> glad to do that also. But we will deal with what *I* said about
> my trademark protection, and not what Bev and Vox *lied* about me
> saying.
OK, fine. To avoid any questions of who said what, why don't
you post your claims on misc.legal.moderated. (Please do NOT
cross-post to the usual Vox newsgroup list.) I will probably
accept the consenus of that group. I reserve the right not
to accept that "consenus" if none of the posters I'm familiar
with choose to reply.
Some of the questions _I_ would like to see addressed are:
(Assuming, for the purpose of arguement, that your
common-law trademark on "Doug Grant" is valid in some
category of goods or services.)
Are any of your works in a protected class, if they
are solely written materials?
Can you prevent anyone from signing his work "Doug Grant"
as a pen name?
What is the significance of "(Tm)" (note capitalization),
if any?
Is Bev's use of "Doug Grant (TM)" a violation of your
trademark. (Vox's use of Doug Grant (C) clearly is not,
but you can ask that, also.)
A secondary questions, to be brought up only if you
bring them up in your post.
What, if any, different restrictions are there on
advertising than on any other use of the phrase
"Doug Grant". (Assuming, for the purpose of this
question, that there ARE some restrictions.)
I may think of others, depending on your initial post.
Your move.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2C2E...@mcimail.com...
> > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
> > >
> > > "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C2AF6...@mcimail.com...
> > > > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
> > McDonalds is a "famous mark". Their claim of all words and
> > phrases starting with "Mc" has NOT been upheld by the Courts,
> > however.
>
> Arthur, more distortions? When did we start talking about words
> that begin with Mc? Did Bev claim that all words that start with
> the same first two letters are protected as trademarks? Whew!
> You had better tell Bev to take his meds. So let me get this
> straight Arthur, if you are saying that the name must be famous
> before it can be enforced against someone else that is trying to
> use the same name (not his own name) for deceptive purposes?
> Arthur if that were true then forgeries would be impossible to
> enforce. Think about it Arthur, you are clearly wrong.
There are several points here.
1. Nope. McDonalds has brought trademark suits against anyone
trying to use a "word" starting with "Mc" to indicate any food
product. Bev had nothing to do with it.
2. Bev's use (as opposed to "sale") of the "Doug Grant" trademark
is almost certainally allowable.
3. Because "McDonalds" is a famous mark, noone can open a
"McDonalds Restaurant" (except in Scotland, where Clan
McDonald has precedence.) If "George's Restaurant"
were even a registered trademark, then someone named
"George" could open "George's Restaurant" if he didn't
attempt to use the same (trademarked) typeface or logo
of the other restaurant.
> > ...
> >
> > > > > 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:
> > > >
> > > > Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
> > > > support your contentions.
>
> Arthur, we are waiting for you to state why the US Trademark FAQ
> does not support what I am saying, when it clearly does support
> it.
The trademark FAQ clearly does not restrict the use of any name,
only that use as an identifier of goods and services. Neither it,
nor trademark law, restricts the use of any name as author of
a work.
> Only if they are using it in business Arthur. It has to be used
> in business, and their own business to boot. Just trying to
> forge a name to cause confusion about a product, or forge a label
> just because you happen to have the same name is not authorized.
> If your name was McDonalds and you copied the real McDonalds
> restaurant down to the last golden arch, and then tried to sell
> hamburgers while deceiving the public that you really are a true
> McDonalds's franchise, you can be sued in court. Also, Arthur,
> perhaps no one ever told you this, but the courts have
> jurisdiction over the rights of Trademark registrants.
Use of the trademarked arch is obviously restricted under
trademark law. Use of the name "McDonalds" to identify
a restaurant is only protected because it's a famous mark.
Clear?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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,
> > > >
> > > > OK
>
> Your OK above indicates that you apparently agree with the fact
> my trademark information is correct. That is the first thing you
> have written that is acceptable Arthur.
Nope. You snipped out where I disagreed.
...
> > > The "advertising" used to sell them contain the Doug Grant
> > > trademark Arthur.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> No Arthur, it is not irrelevant. Not unless you are really
> confused about copyrights and trademarks. A trademark is a
> label, a distinguishing mark Arthur, a copyright is something
> that protects the person or entity that is selling these items.
> I said I sold these items under the trade name Doug Grant, SOLD
> them Arthur. They are advertised under the Doug Grant trademark
> protected label. I select items that I want to sell under that
> label. If I write it myself, I copyright the work, as I have
> done several times. But when I sell these products and advertise
> them under the Doug Grant label, that Doug Grant name is
> protected under the Trademark laws. Someone else cannot come
> along, use the name Doug Grant to sell similar items and claim
> they are coming from the original Doug Grant name.
1. A copyright protects the copyright holder, by, among other
things, making it illegal for others to produce copies of the
work. It does not protect the seller.
2. "...sold these items under the trade name Doug Grant." Someone
else named, or using a pseudonym, "Doug Grant" could sell written
materials _signed_ "Doug Grant" without infringing on your
trademark (if any). Anyone (with permission to reproduce) could
advertise them using the phrase "written by Doug Grant".
Critics could review the materials noting they were written
by "Doug Grant". They could (probably) not legally be sold
under the "Doug Grant" label.
If we're in agreement, we can stop here. Otherwise, YOU are confusing
copyright and trademark.
...
> Nice Try Arthur. I said that statistical analysis was protected
> under intellectual property not trademarks, you agree with me,
> then tell me it is not what I said it was not....then say "Nice
> Try?" Do you distort this stuff this way all the time Arthur?
> When I say something is specifically NOT protected under
> trademark laws, you agree, then try to indicate I said it was?
> You really need to stop snipping and distorting Arthur and stick
> with the issue. Nice try Arthur, but your distortions really do
> not fly.
Nope. You said it was protected under trademark law.
Liar.
>
> Now ask your employer's lawyer's this question: If you sold your
> analysis under a label name Distortions R Us, and you registered
> that label, or used it with a TM for more than five years, and
> could prove you were the first to use it, would the label
> "Distortions R Us" be qualified as a trademark? If they say no
> Arthur, then you will need to tell me their names.
Irrelevant to what you've posted so far, although it might
be relevant to some of your claims.
...
> Arthur, your claim that Trademarks that are used on packaging and
> advertisements to sell goods and services are not protected is
> beyond the need to read a Supreme Court ruling. If you do not
> understand this very basic fact about Trademarks, then you will
> not understand the Supreme Court ruling.
Trademarks can be used to refer to the trademarked product,
without the permission of the trademark holder -- in advertising,
in critical review, or in any other context -- as long as
the it really is being used to refer to the trademarked
product, and not a forgery.
That's all I was trying to say in this section.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
CYBERSTALKING
As many of you have unfortunately witnessed there is a dispute
about Trademark law that has turned into cyberstalking on this
newsgroup.
Bev Thornton and his friends were angry at me for proving them
wrong about some of the misrepresentations they made in regards
to lasting lethal radiation, so they decided to try and discredit
me by claiming my trademark was not valid.
Apparently, Bev and some of his friends are involved in anti-nuke
hysteria, and they do not like anyone to post the truth about how
these weapons are very necessary to America's defense.
Add the fact that Bev and his friends have been making
pro-terrorist and anti-American comments in their posts, they
certainly attracted my attention. I honestly cannot believe that
even Canadians (which they *claim* to be) would hate America as
much as this group of air heads. But I have learned otherwise.
They certainly have an agenda to attack America and its policies
in any manner they can, *especially* America's nuclear policies.
For the obvious purpose to try and eliminate me from these
newsgroups, and eliminate my pro-American posts and pro-American
military posts, Bev and company tried to discredit me by claiming
that my Trademark was not valid. They of course, as we all now
know, lied.
To prove they were lying I started posting the FAQ questions and
answers from the US Trademark office, the 800 number for the same
office, and finally, the actual statutes from Title 15 of the
Trademark laws that proved Bev and company were lying. After
these posts, they (Bev and company) went nuts with anger.
They started forging my trademark name, listing vitriolic insults
and libel in the subject headings of posts, and then proceeded to
bomb this newsgroup with repetitive diatribe posts against me, my
family, my human origins and my general family tree......which of
course always means those that use such tactics cannot admit they
were wrong nor deal with the true issues.
When con men get caught in mid con, or when people that have been
lying are exposed as liars with irrefutable evidence (such as I
posted in respect to the Radiation and the Trademark issue) they
typically try and use cyberstalking against those that have
exposed them.
Cyberstalking is the use of the net, email, open forums etc...to
try and harass, libel or discredit a person, or single that
person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts.
It is especially applicable if you notify the person they are
using cyberstalking against you and they continue to use such
harassing tactics. In many cases I have *replied* to these
cyberstalking posts to try and defend myself. I have never
initialed any such posts, only replied, which I have a right to
do to defend myself. I have informed Bev and Vox in many posts
they are using cyberstalking and told them to stop. Yet they
persisted. This is another clear sign of a cyberstalker.
I have come to find that it is the policy of many people that
have certain impassioned agendas, or sell products via obtaining
hits on the links they post as a signature on each post (such as
Bev Thornton does) to try and drive anyone exposing their con
game or agenda from the newsgroups with harassment and
cyberstalking.
Typically, they will invoke some others in their conspiracies to
stalk opposition off the newsgroup. Most of those they conspire
with have the same agenda or is involved with them financially
or otherwise. They typically also use several aliases to
further their cyberstalking.
The classic example of cyberstalking is repeated insulting
vitriolic and harassing posts, and of course, forgeries of the
posters name or handle, or in my case, my trademark protected
name and handle. Moreover, in this case the Bev/Vox combination
also used my real name to harass me, along with trying to
fraudulently sell my trademark name to others for the clear and
unmistakable purpose of harassing and cyberstalking me.
Moreover, Bev and Vox tried to misuse my property (my trademark
name) and certainly tried to harass me in the respect they told
me that my property was in jeopardy and their specific actions
were placing my property in jeopardy. Their actions are clearly
violating the criminal statute I have listed below.
I have listed the applicable Criminal Codes of the state of my
official residency below. Notice it includes harassment.
Whether someone is calling you on the telephone and harassing
you, or using email, or posting on an open forum for the purpose
of harassing you, all qualify under this specific statute.
Moreover, if they are attacking or threatening to attack your
property, they clearly fall withing the auspices of the following
stalking/harassment criminal statute.
Posting on the Internet does not allow anyone the right to stalk
or libel or do many of the things we see occur. If you are
singled out by some cyberstalker, you do have legal remedies.
I do not know the cyberstalking laws in Canada. However, I
suspect they are similar. Regardless, if the cyberstalking
continues, I will file a criminal complaint in my home state and
they will issue a "John Doe" warrant. Then I will Subpoena the
server or remailer of these cyberstalkers, and I will attempt to
contact their local authorities and advise them there is an
outstanding American warrant for stalking.
I do not wish to do this. But if the cyberstalking continues, I
will have little choice. Please note the following Statutes
represent just a few of the Statutes that involve this issue.
Since the Internet is relatively new, stalking statutes are being
revised all over the USA. There is a federal guideline for the
descriptions of Cyberstalking. I will be glad to post them if
anyone wishes to see them.
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTONRCW 9A.46.110
Stalking.
(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful
authority and
under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another
crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or
repeatedly follows
another person; and
(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear
that the
stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property
of the person
or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a
reasonable person
in the same situation would experience under all the
circumstances; and
(c) The stalker either:
(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person;
or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is
afraid,
intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to
place the person
in fear or intimidate or harass the person.
(2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under
subsection
(1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual
notice that the
person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person;
and
(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under
subsection
(1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to
frighten,
intimidate, or harass the person.
(3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the
defendant is a
licensed private investigator acting within the capacity of his
or her license
as provided by chapter 18.165 RCW.
(4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being
given actual
notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed
constitutes
prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or
harass the
person. "Contact" includes, in addition to any other form of
contact or
communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the
person.
(5) A person who stalks another person is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor
except that the person is guilty of a class C felony if any of
the following
applies: (a) The stalker has previously been convicted in this
state or any
other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW
9A.46.060, of the same
victim or members of the victim's family or household or any
person specifically
named in a protective order; (b) the stalking violates any
protective order
protecting the person being stalked; (c) the stalker has
previously been
convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under
this section
for stalking another person; (d) the stalker was armed with a
deadly weapon, as
defined in RCW 9.94A.125, while stalking the person; (e) the
stalker's victim is
or was a law enforcement officer, judge, juror, attorney, victim
advocate,
legislator, or community correction's officer, and the stalker
stalked the
victim to retaliate against the victim for an act the victim
performed during
the course of official duties or to influence the victim's
performance of
official duties; or (f) the stalker's victim is a current,
former, or
prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the
stalker stalked the
victim to retaliate against the victim as a result of the
victim's testimony or
potential testimony.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "Follows" means deliberately maintaining visual or
physical proximity
to a specific person over a period of time. A finding that the
alleged stalker
repeatedly and deliberately appears at the person's home, school,
place of
employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or
physical
proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged
stalker follows
the person. It is not necessary to establish that the alleged
stalker follows
the person while in transit from one location to another.
(b) "Harasses" means unlawful harassment as defined in RCW
10.14.020.
(c) "Protective order" means any temporary or permanent
court order
prohibiting or limiting violence against, harassment of, contact
or
communication with, or physical proximity to another person.
(d) "Repeatedly" means on two or more separate occasions.
[1999 c 143 º 35; 1999 c 27 º 3; 1994 c 271 º 801; 1992 c 186 º
1.]
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1999 c 27 º 3
and by 1999 c 143
º 35, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are
incorporated in
the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule
of construction,
see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Intent -- 1999 c 27: See note following RCW 9A.46.020.
Purpose -- Severability -- 1994 c 271: See notes following
RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability -- 1992 c 186: "If any provision of this act or
its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the
act or the application of the provision to other persons or
circumstances is not
affected." [1992 c 186 º 10.]
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTONRCW 9A.46.020
Definition -- Penalties.
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly
threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to
the person
threatened or to any other person; or
(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person
other than the
actor; or
(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person
to physical
confinement or restraint; or
(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to
substantially
harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her
physical or
mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person
threatened in
reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or
conduct"
includes, in addition to any other form of communication or
conduct, the sending
of an electronic communication.
(2) A person who harasses another is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor
punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that the person is
guilty of a class
C felony if either of the following applies: (a) The person has
previously been
convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment,
as defined in
RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's
family or household
or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment
order; or (b)
the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of
this section by
threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
(3) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do
not preclude
the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available
under law.
[1999 c 27 º 2; 1997 c 105 º 1; 1992 c 186 º 2; 1985 c 288 º 2.]
NOTES:
Intent -- 1999 c 27: "It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws
of 1999 to
clarify that electronic communications are included in the types
of conduct and
actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and
stalking. It is not the
intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of
1999, to restrict
in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute
harassment or
stalking." [1999 c 27 º 1.]
Severability -- 1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A
1999 REPORT ON CYBERSTALKING: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND INDUSTRY
Cyberstalking:
A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry
___________________
A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President
August 1999
_______________________
A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing
messages by the simple push of a button; more sophisticated
cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random
intervals without being physically present at the computer
terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have
encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the
message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California
Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other
Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by
utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a
stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board
under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim,
resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim. Each
message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- will
have the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's
effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact between the
cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for law
enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender.
The anonymity of the Internet also provides new opportunities
for would-be cyberstalkers. A cyberstalker's true identity can be
concealed by using different ISPs and/or by adopting different
screen names. More experienced stalkers can use anonymous
remailers that make it all-but-impossible to determine the true
identity of the source of an e-mail or other electronic
communication. A number of law enforcement agencies report they
currently are confronting cyberstalking cases involving the use
of anonymous remailers.
Anonymity leaves the cyberstalker in an advantageous position.
Unbeknownst to the target, the perpetrator could be in another
state, around the corner, or in the next cubicle at work. The
perpetrator could be a former friend or lover, a total stranger
met in a chat room, or simply a teenager playing a practical
joke. The inability to identify the source of the harassment or
threats could be particularly ominous to a cyberstalking victim,
and the veil of anonymity might encourage the perpetrator to
continue these acts. In addition, some perpetrators, armed with
the knowledge that their identity is unknown, might be more
willing to pursue the victim at work or home, and the Internet
can provide substantial information to this end. Numerous
websites will provide personal information, including unlisted
telephone numbers and detailed directions to a home or office.
For a fee, other websites promise to provide social security
numbers, financial data, and other personal information.
Evidence suggests cyberstalking is a growing problem
In the United States, there are currently more than 80 million
adults and 10 million children with access to the Internet.
Assuming the proportion of cyberstalking victims is even a
fraction of the proportion of persons who have been the victims
of offline stalking within the preceding 12 months, there may be
potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims of
recent cyberstalking incidents in the United States.
Although such a "back of the envelope" calculation is inherently
uncertain and speculative (given that it rests on an assumption
about very different populations), it does give a rough sense of
the potential magnitude of the problem.
Second, anecdotal evidence from law enforcement agencies
indicates that cyberstalking is a serious - and growing -
problem. At the federal level, several dozen matters have been
referred (usually by the FBI) to U.S. Attorney's Offices for
possible action. A number of these cases have been referred to
state and local law enforcement agencies because the conduct does
not appear to violate federal law.
In addition, some local law enforcement agencies are beginning to
see cases of cyberstalking. For example, the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office estimates that e-mail or other electronic
communications were a factor in approximately 20 percent of the
roughly 600 cases handled by its Stalking and Threat Assessment
Unit. The chief of the Sex Crimes Unit in the Manhattan District
Attorney's Office also estimates that about 20 percent of the
cases handled by the unit involve cyberstalking. The Computer
Investigations and Technology Unit of the New York City Police
Department estimates that almost 40 percent of the caseload in
the unit involves electronic threats and harassment -- and
virtually all of these have occurred in the past three or four
years.
Third, ISPs also are receiving a growing number of complaints
about harassing and threatening behavior online. One major ISP
receives approximately 15 complaints per month of cyberstalking,
in comparison to virtually no complaints of cyberstalking just
one or two years ago.
10. The definition of the term "telecommunications device" in
that section excludes "interactive computer services." The intent
of the exclusion is to insulate the service provider from
liability, but not to insulate an individual user from liability
for his or her criminal behavior. Accordingly, the Department of
Justice has taken the position and successfully argued that a
modem was a telecommunications device within the meaning of the
statute. Therefore, an individual who used a modem to connect to
the Internet and harass an individual is likely to fall within
the terms of the statute. See American Civil Liberties Union v.
Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Penn. 1996), aff'd, 521 U.S.
844 (1997); Apollomedia Corporation v. Reno, 19 F.Supp.2d 1081
(N.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, --- U.S. ---, 119 S.Ct. 1450 (U.S. Apr.
19, 1999).
End of Report:
The above statutes are very similar in most of the States. I
urge anyone bent on using the Internet for harassment and
cyberstalking to read them. The Internet is not a forum for
libel, harassment nor stalking. USENET is meant for an exchange
of information, not a means for those with maniacal agendas to
use cyberstalking against those that disagree with them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"- Vox Populi ©" <v...@popu.li> wrote in message
news:l94X7.1003$%s6.1...@news.uswest.net...
>
>
>
>
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2C2E...@mcimail.com...
> > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
> > >
> > > "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C2AF6...@mcimail.com...
> > > > DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
> >
> > McDonalds is a "famous mark". Their claim of all words and
> > phrases starting with "Mc" has NOT been upheld by the Courts,
> > however.
> > ...
> >
> > > > > 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:
> > > >
> > > > Would you stop quoting the Trademark FAQ, when it doesn't
> > > > support your contentions.
> > > >
> > > > > (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.
> > > >
> > > > Except that person's (including corporations) use of
their own
> > > > name is allowed under trademark law, unless it conflicts
with
> > > > a Famous mark.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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,
> > > >
> > > > OK
> > > >
> > > > > newsletters, columns for newspapers, political
speeches,
> > > > > instructional writings and manuals, novels, books,
scripts
> > > and
> > > > > seminar scripts, professional recordings, ...
> > > >
> > > > None of these are protected except under copyright law,
unless
> > > they
> > > > also fall under another class.
> > >
> > > The "advertising" used to sell them contain the Doug Grant
> > > trademark Arthur.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > statistical analysis, ...
> > > >
> > > > Possible. I don't think it's protectable.
> > >
> > > No it is protected, very specifically. Provided it
produces an
> > > uncommon conclusion. If math is used, math itself cannot
be
> > > protected, but the analysis is protected under intellectual
> > > property.
> >
> > That's patent law, not trademark law. Nice try. (I have
reason
> > to have researched this, and my employer's lawyers agree with
me.
> > Corporate council is deciding whether to file a patent
application
> > based on my invention, in the statistical analysis field.)
>
>
> Ok Bright boy, analyze this:
>
> What are the odds that Doug Reiman, Trademark Moron,
BTR1701
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> CYBERSTALKING
Wow. Didn't anyone ever teach you "sticks and stones"? Just ignore them
and stop responding. They'll go away eventually.
Arthur L. Rubin
> Cyberstalking is the use of the net, email, open forums etc...to
> try and harass, libel or discredit a person, or single that
> person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts.
Cite, please. The statute number or a URL to the statute would
be sufficient.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
Finally, a cite. (I assume you are in Washington, or this
has no relevance.)
> REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTONRCW 9A.46.110
> Stalking.
> (1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful
> authority and
> under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another
> crime:
> (a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or
> repeatedly follows
> another person; and
Harass is not defined here. One could argue that correcting
your perceived misstatements is NOT harassment. See the
definition of harassement below, and my futher discussion.
> (b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear
> that the
> stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property
> of the person
> or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a
> reasonable person
> in the same situation would experience under all the
> circumstances; and
OK, there may be reasonable fear that some property, namely
your trademark, could be injured.
Interesting. However, a USENet post is not an electronic
communication DIRECTED AT A PARTICULAR PERSON.
(Defining some situtations which could make the crime
more serious. As the question as to whether there is
a crime at all is still open, I don't feel the need to
quote that.)
> (6) As used in this section:
> (a) "Follows" means deliberately maintaining visual or
> physical proximity
> to a specific person over a period of time. A finding that the
> alleged stalker
> repeatedly and deliberately appears at the person's home, school,
> place of
> employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or
> physical
> proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged
> stalker follows
> the person. It is not necessary to establish that the alleged
> stalker follows
> the person while in transit from one location to another.
Clearly doesn't apply, unless something is happening that you're
not talking about.
> (b) "Harasses" means unlawful harassment as defined in RCW
> 10.14.020.
OK, Harrasses has now been defined. But not here.
> (c) "Protective order" means any temporary or permanent
> court order
> prohibiting or limiting violence against, harassment of, contact
> or
> communication with, or physical proximity to another person.
> (d) "Repeatedly" means on two or more separate occasions.
> [1999 c 143 º 35; 1999 c 27 º 3; 1994 c 271 º 801; 1992 c 186 º
> 1.]
(Is 9A the same as 10? If not, this next section is
irrelevant.)
>
> REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTONRCW 9A.46.020
> Definition -- Penalties.
> (1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
> (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly
> threatens:
> (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to
> the person
> threatened or to any other person; or
Nope.
> (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person
> other than the
> actor; or
Nope.
> (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person
> to physical
> confinement or restraint; or
Nope.
> (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to
> substantially
> harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her
> physical or
> mental health or safety; and
Nope. At least, I don't think so. The phrasing is unclear as
to which way to parse the conjunctions. Even if it is parsed as
(the person threatened) or (another with respect to...), it would
be difficult to describe damage to your trademark as substantial
harm.
...
> Cyberstalking:
> A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry
> ___________________
> A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President
> August 1999
> _______________________
>
> A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing
> messages by the simple push of a button; more sophisticated
> cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random
> intervals without being physically present at the computer
> terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have
> encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the
> message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California
> Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other
> Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by
> utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a
> stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board
> under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim,
> resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim.
OK, I now see where you're coming from. Nonetheless, your E-mail
address and your NAME are not being used in the messages, only
your BRAND NAME (Trademark). Bev, Vox, and I, have not asked anyone
to E-mail you or otherwise contact you. At least, _I_ haven't
and I don't recall Bev and Vox doing so.
- Vox Populi ©
"Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message news:3C31B4...@mcimail.com...
> DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN wrote:
>
> > Cyberstalking is the use of the net, email, open forums etc...to
> > try and harass, libel or discredit a person, or single that
> > person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts.
>
> Cite, please. The statute number or a URL to the statute would
> be sufficient.
Arty, you know by now that Douglas Reiman is
one psychotic lying sack of shit ...
>
> --
> Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Signed,
The Real Doug Grant©
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
depending upon the state in question, and whether the Federal
Laws would apply. In respect to the above, I posted excerpts
from a directive to all States in respect to cyberstalking laws
from the US Attorney General. If you are residing in the United
States then these laws are applicable.
(I suggest you contact your own lawyer for information in respect
to the applicable cyberstalking criminal statutes involved in
your specific jurisdiction.)
Moreover, your claim above to be the "Real Doug Grant" is
fraudulent. You are purposefully attempting to deceive for the
purpose of selling my trademark protected name and related goods
and services. Fraud is a known crime in most jurisdictions.
Based upon your forgery of my trademark named for the purpose of
fraudulently trying to sell it or defame it, you obviously are
predisposed to use fraud, lies and general deception. Moreover,
you are clearly using cyberstalking against me for exposing your
unethical and illegal operations.
Moreover, you asked me to sue you. I agreed and asked you where
I can serve you or contact your authorities. I notice that you
are still hiding, ducking and whining, but still refuse to reveal
your name or location. If you were telling the truth you would
not try to hide.
So if you want this issue to be resolved in court, provide me or
my lawyer with the name of your legal counsel, and I assure you
it will.
However, since I doubt if that will happen, I will warn you that
your ISP will reveal your name and address to a Subpoena. If you
reside in Canada, that is even more the case. If you continue
your cyberstalking, you will leave me with no other choice other
than to pursue a legal remedy to your cyberstalking and
fraudulent claims in respect to my trademark protected name.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Thomas P. Jabine
>your ISP will reveal your name and address to a Subpoena. If you
>reside in Canada, that is even more the case. If you continue
>your cyberstalking, you will leave me with no other choice other
>than to pursue a legal remedy to your cyberstalking and
>fraudulent claims in respect to my trademark protected name.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Typed Drawing
Word Mark
DOUG GRANT
Goods and Services
(CANCELLED) IC 041. US 107. G & S: EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES, NAMELY INSTRUCTION IN PLAYING CARD
GAMES AND CASINO GAMES. FIRST USE: 19780900. FIRST
USE IN COMMERCE: 19780900
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
73793439
Filing Date
April 17, 1989
Published for Opposition
April 24, 1990
Registration Number
1606792
Registration Date
July 17, 1990
Owner
(REGISTRANT) SIGMA RESEARCH, INC. CORPORATION
NEW JERSEY SUITE 109 6981 NORTH PARK DRIVE
PENNSAUKEN NEW JERSEY 08109
Attorney of Record
NORMAN E. LEHRER
Type of Mark
SERVICE MARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Other Data
THE NAME "DOUG GRANT" IDENTIFIES A LIVING
INDIVIDUAL, WHOSE CONSENT IS OF RECORD.
Live/Dead Indicator
DEAD
Cancellation Date
January 20, 1997
***********************************************************************
Typed Drawing
Word Mark
DOUG GRANT'S LIFE FORCE NUTRITIONALS
Goods and Services
(ABANDONED) IC 005. US 006 018 044 046 051 052. G & S:
nutritional supplements. FIRST USE: 19900101. FIRST USE
IN COMMERCE: 19900101
Mark Drawing Code
(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
75110481
Filing Date
May 28, 1996
Owner
(APPLICANT) Grant, Douglas D. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
63 E. Main Ste. 700 Mesa ARIZONA 85201
Attorney of Record
Rick N. Bryson
Disclaimer
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE
"NUTRITIONALS'" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator
DEAD
Abandonment Date
December 28, 1997