Isn't "wine and dine" a generic term?.
It's definitely a cliche, and distinctly remember hearing the term back when I was a child.
Can't wait to see someone like Dr. John Berryhill tear them apart for filing a BS lawsuit...
They could not get a typed drawing (older term) or standard character mark (new version of typed drawing at USPTO used to align with Madrid protocol), and probably knew that from the beginning, so they filed for a stylized mark.
The folks with weaker marks are getting more bold in their claims. I suppose the next step is to sue wine.com for likelihood of confusion with the Stylized mark for "Wine & Dine"...
I posted this on the other forum so thought I'd repeat it here as an FYI. The Marchex case has been posted on PACER but the complaint has not been logged. For some reason not contained in the docket report, the case was terminated on Sept. 19th, the same day filed. The termination entry made today. See below.
Date Filed # Docket Text.
09/19/2008 Case assigned to None Assigned NA - DJ and None Assigned NA - MJ. (MJZ) (Entered: 09/22/2008).
09/19/2008 Civil Case Administratively Terminated. Case opened in error by counsel. (MJZ) (Entered: 09/22/2008).
Deborah A. Logan, Esq..
Intellectual Property, Internet & Technology Law.
LIPTON, WEINBERGER & HUSICK.
Newtown Square, PA 19073.
Office No.: 610.228.4195.
This looks, from the outside, laughable. I would be interested to know if any "stylized mark", basically a logo image TM, has ever won a tm claim in a udrp proceeding for a domain. I remember one recently where the logo 'looked' like 2 letters, and they went after the 2 letter .com and lost horribly.
And yes, wine and dine is extremely descriptive, and used as a generic phrase and has for as long as I remember (only 26 here tho )... thus they couldn't get a standard tm like the last poster stated.
This is exactly why business owners really need to think hard about how they name their business, and try not to describe it as a name that describes the business is a good chance you cannot tm it. That is the biggest lesson I have learned in tm law... you need to be careful and very thoughtful in how you name a business if you intend to protect it!..
Deborah Logan, who's also a member here, posted in that thread I've linked to.
That the case was terminated:..
It's meant to be " wine me,dine me, .............69 me!".
Not "........screw me!"..
Hey Dave, sometimes I am a bit fuzzy on lawyer speak:.
"Civil Case Administratively Terminated. Case opened in error by counsel.".
For us mortals out there, does this mean "oops, our counsel was a complete moron so we backed off"?.
Other translations to English are appreciated.....
Npcomplete - yes, essentially without actually saying it, that does mean the lawyers were idiots to even think they could have a dispute over that domain...
No, he wasn't moron, he was probably paid to open case in illegal way(counsel might have been bribed to abuse his competence)..
One who wants 250Mega$ will do anything. Power of money is that You always find someone who is willing to harm anyone for certain sallary...
This is going to be fun to watch... oops there goes my sadist side again.
May be as entertaining as that *other* thread about printlinks.
Hey Arnie, break out the popcorn. Too bad we don't have somebody speaking up for the plaintiff. Any takers out there?..
Ah, looks like they took out the 3 extra zeros: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-61957/..
The claim has been changed from $250M to $250k.
Now it is not so funny, and much more realistic. Playing devil's advocate, I wonder if this might be a situation where the common law claim based on the magazine might be stronger than the Stylized mark claim. It will be interesting to see what the facts are, and whether the Mark holder was approached by Marchex in an attempt to sell (yeah - selling is not their primary business, but ppc is tanking).
Getting much more interesting now that the claim is reasonable. I am sure both parties are taking this very seriously...
Zip. Like I said I was playing devil's advocate. Care to share some info?.
Oops... I guess I won't get a response to that last question. Here is what JB said on the other forum: It will be interesting to see how the case develops...
And I wonder why JB can't participate in this discussion..
It was more in the way of an invitation for you to go out and find out as much as you can about them. You'll probably find some fun facts...
He may not be able to comment due to being involved...that's one of the common reasons for not being 'able' to say anything on the matter...
Yup. the "no comment pending an open investigation" thing is quite typical...
I wonder whether.
Nahrungwein.com & nourriturevin.com.
Are also in trouble..
Sounds just about genius to sue a company like Marchex (which to be fair, does own some questionable names) and spread the news as best possible... Poop and Scoop at it's finest...
Ok, that's stupid. "Wine and Dine" is way too generic to go through a lawsuit that will cost you at least 50K in legal fees, on top of the humiliation when you lose.
People are too quick to sue...
You're absolutely right. However a name like "wine and dine" wouldn't be at all descriptive or generic if it were applied to something altogether different like say laundry soap or copy machines. Not that those two examples make sense but thats my point...