Comments on: Personal name must have trademark significance for protection under ACPA http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/ Covering law and the Internet since 2005. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:14:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Tatiana http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-28991 Tatiana Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:42:26 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-28991 Very interesting post. where can i find more articles about this issue? Very interesting post. where can i find more articles about this issue?

]]> By: Marc J. Randazza http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-5008 Marc J. Randazza Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:40:17 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-5008 Compare this case to Dawson v. Brandsberg, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73512, 13-7 (W.D. Va. 2006). Compare this case to Dawson v. Brandsberg, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73512, 13-7 (W.D. Va. 2006).

]]> By: Dave Zan http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-3533 Dave Zan Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:44:01 +0000 http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/01/23/personal-name-must-have-trademark-significance-for-protection-under-acpa/#comment-3533 <blockquote>Agreeing with Meadows’s interpretation of the section</blockquote> So my name isn't subject to trademark protection? Dayem. (just kidding, of course. :D) Well, at least the judge settled the question on 1125. I happen to also agree with it (despite not being a lawyer) since trademarks arise from use in commerce...whatever that means. :P

Agreeing with Meadows’s interpretation of the section

So my name isn’t subject to trademark protection? Dayem. (just kidding, of course. :D)

Well, at least the judge settled the question on 1125. I happen to also agree with it (despite not being a lawyer) since trademarks arise from use in commerce…whatever that means. :P

]]>