Trade names

[ironlady]

Hello all,

There is a relatively new user at this site who has chosen as his/her screen name a title that I have been using continuously since 2000 to market art. I have sent a PM to this individual but have not received the courtesy of a reply.

I do not have a registered TM in this name (obviously) but I seriously doubt that this individual does, either (I worked in a patent/trademark law office so I know something about the process and the costs). Generally speaking it is not considered "kosher" to use someone's trade name if the products are similar to the point of causing possible substantial confusion on the part of the consumer -- and since we are engaged in the exact same field of art, this would seem very likely.

I do not wish to make trouble for anyone, but as I always have business cards, other materials, a Web site that is not yet up but has been made, and have been using the title in question on EBay for some time now, I would appreciate the user having the courtesy to find another name.

[ironlady]

Well, a flat response that "I am not willing to discuss this matter" has arrived. I am very disheartened that a person in the art community, where I have always found people to be supportive, helpful and reasonable, would come back with that. If we were not in precisely and exactly the same business, I would say "Hey, no problem." In fact, I might even have done so to accomodate the individual, HAD the mail been even a bit considerate or accomodating, which it definitely did not seem to be (everyone has bad days, and I've e-mailed to ask the person involved to clarify in case that was the case, but really, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.)

[paintergirl]

I am not understanding this... neither one of you have a trademark on the name but you want her to cease and desist?
How can you ask her to stop when you have no legal claim on the name yourself?
I am not understanding the issue, names and nicknames are fair game till someone takes 'ownership' of them through the necessary fees and filing the paperwork. Here in a forum like WetCanvas, I don't understand why there would be conflict when she is using it as a log-in name for an art site.
Sorry, I am not understanding your sense of entitlement to the name ...

[arlene]

Originally posted by paintergirl
I am not understanding this... neither one of you have a trademark on the name but you want her to cease and desist?
How can you ask her to stop when you have no legal claim on the name yourself?
I am not understanding the issue, names and nicknames are fair game till someone takes 'ownership' of them through the necessary fees and filing the paperwork. Here in a forum like WetCanvas, I don't understand why there would be conflict when she is using it as a log-in name for an art site.
Sorry, I am not understanding your sense of entitlement to the name ...

Exactly.

[ironlady]

There exists a conflict because of the way the United States handles copyrights, trademarks and trade names.

Basically, this is the scoop:
A person starts a business. He or she goes down to the local office (usually the city), flips through a huge book to see that no one else is using the name, and if it's "clear", he or she can set up a DBA (doing business as) and start doing business in that name.

If the name is being used, it may be possible to use it anyway IF the products are substantially different. The legal test is that there be no likelihood of confusion among consumers. So, if I'm selling oil paintings, and the other person is already using the name "Great Oils" but is selling, say, designer motor oils, I might be able to use the name regardless, because most consumers would not mix up those two products.

However, if we were *both* selling oil paintings, then the average consumer would not be able to differentiate between us, and the later aspirant to the name would not be able to use the name.

This was all very clear-cut back when people only did business within 50 miles or so of their homes. The city or state registry was quite sufficient in that situation. however, these days, with the Internet and such, I can sell art to people I've never even met, via the Web. The only knowledge that person has of me is my trade name and any information I put up on the Web, just as the only knowledge a walk-in customer has of me would be my trade name and what he or she sees in a brick-and-mortar storefront I run.

So, in this case, although the person who began using the trade name a year after I did does not live in my vicinity, there exists a real potential for conflict and confusion among consumers, because the products are the same and the name is the same, and the scope of business overlaps (because everyone sells on the Web, Ebay, etc. these days.)

Very few small businesses actually register a trademark, becuase the registration process is expensive, and the process of litigation is even more expensive (prohibitively so) to defend your rights in a trademark should you feel it has been infringed. So in most cases, the law considers what it calls "first use". In this case, I have proof of first use in October 2002 on Ebay, selling this class of goods under this name.

As I've stated before, however, there are two issues here. One is pure legality/rights; the other is the fact that a person who was informed that this problem exists chose to treat it in an inappropriate and dismissive manner. This is not only disrespectful, but potentially dangerous, were I a large corporation with lots of money to sue, instead of a fairly mild-mannered nobody as I am.

I think the crux of the matter is just what you all have stated. Very few people really understand the law behind trade names and how it operates. It may seem small, but if I am trying to "brand" myself or produce a particular image for my trade name and my business, obviously I wouldn't want someone else using it to put up whatever information he or she desired, including photos of his/her work, which the average consumer would then feel came from my business. If s/he is a better artist than I am, this is misleading, and if s/he is not, then it is a nuisance.

I would be interested to know if the above posters still feel this complaint is unfounded given the above facts.

[paintergirl]

Do you know the date she first started to sell under the same name?
Do you know for a fact that she is doing business under this name or if she is using it casually as a nickname on an arts bulletin board?
Do you reside in the same town or state?
Do you both sell on eBay? Do you have identical user names on eBay?
Are your works in the exact same media?
Do you both have web sites?

There are too many facts missing to be able to assess this is as clearly as you seem to...You have posted 3 times at Wet Canvas and all with regards to the use of this name. Did you go on a search to see if it was already in use and find Wet Canvas? And how long has this name been in use by the member here?

You said you have proof that you were using the name in October 2002,( "In this case, I have proof of first use in October 2002 on Ebay, selling this class of goods under this name. "
...and also referenced that she was using the name a year after you ( " So, in this case, although the person who began using the trade name a year after I did does not live in my vicinity, there exists a real potential for conflict and confusion among consumers, because the products are the same and the name is the same, and the scope of business overlaps (because everyone sells on the Web, Ebay, etc. these days.) "
- the dates are not matching up ...

I stated before, if you have not chosen to secure the name via the appropriate fees and paperwork, I still do not see that you have a true claim to the name. Even having chosen to use it as of October 2002 , that is very recent and not even a year has passed. It would appear to be fair game until someone takes the appropriate steps to secure it. In the context of 'trade names' as you mentioned, do you attend the same shows? Or why not make a minor alteration to the name and alert previous customers...

I'm sorry, but as I see it, a nickname used on an art bulletin board is not a large infringement on your rights. If the name is that important to you, it seems that you should take the appropriate steps to secure that name.

[ironlady]

The only information I have is first, the use of the name on this board, and second, the information that the individual in question has chosen to give me. According to him/her, s/he has been using this name since 2001, and is known to suppliers under that name, has a bank account in that name, and is doing business under that name. (I'm still not saying the exact type of art or the gender/identification of the individual out of respect.) The works are in fact in the exact same medium. I have sold on EBay under that name, although by no means extensively, due to considerations in my personal life in the recent past. I am not aware whether or not the individual in question has sold on EBay and if so under what name. The person has a Web site with this trade name as the domain name. We do not live in the same area, but as I have stated, with global sales due to the Internet, the locality issue is now not as germane nor as protective as it once was.

As for why I have not posted except for this issue -- I generally don't post if I don't have much to say. I prefer to watch and listen. You tend to learn more that way. Unfortunately sometimes you learn things that undermine your faith in the maturity of your fellow artists, as in this case.

I did not search specifically to find a person using this name...in fact, I was quite surprised to see someone using it on this forum. I sent a PM to the individual to point out the conflict, at which time I was informed rather categorically that s/he was using it, had the above facts, and did not care to "discuss" the matter further. I was not seeking him/her or that name out...I was quite surprised to see someone posting under that name in the forum I was browsing (logically, the one for the medium in which I work). If it were merely a screen name, that would be merely an annoyance, but the use of the same trade name in the same medium by two people is obviously an area which has large potential for conflict and confusion.

You may not "see" the conflict, but this is the law, and it is also common courtesy. The problems seem to be that people are not informed about the law (no one thinks that duplicating someone else's design is right, but a trade name is nothing?) Now, it is fairly common that two individuals could come up with the same thing independently, and I have no doubt that is what occurred in this case. However, I think that if we all wish to be considered professionals to any degree, it is necessary to front up to facts and inform oneself of what the true situation is with regard to the legalities that are not central, but related, to being in the art business. Intellectual property is one such area.

My claim of "first use" is based on the information s/he supplied saying that that individual's first use occurrred in 2001, while my first use was in 2000. Simple as that. Having said that, I contacted this person to discuss the options open to us...I was in no way dismissive or categorial in my response to the problem, although the other person involved apparently chose to be.

One does not HAVE to secure the name through fees and paperwork, because the law recognizes the principle of first use. Larger corporations choose to do so to avoid just this sort of thing -- having to spend a lot of time negotiating. I've seen the Children's Television Workshop (owners of the "Sesame Street" trademark) go after a tiny cafe in Asia which was trading under that name. But then they've got money. :D Most people are more reasonable, and I was certainly hoping this would hold in this instance.

Absent any resolution of this specific issue, I think this is a real issue in our trade which needs to be discussed, especially if as it seems, no one has much knowledge about this area. Art is all about originality, isn't it? There is no reason why I, with proof of first use, should be required to change my trade name. I might have considered it, had I received a somewhat more moderate response, because I feel that accomodating people when one can is the right thing to do *ethically*, not legally. But I do not seem to have received much in that line from the person in question. While it is undoubtedly true that this has "ruffled my feathers," legally I am on quite solid ground with proof of first use.

[timelady]

The way I see it either way someone loses big time if they give up the name. Personally, I wouldn't give up my trading name very easy if someone else claimed it. Like you and the other person I have invested in advertising my name, set up business papers, have a bank account etc. To be honest, even with the web it's still extremely unlikely that you'd be confused unless one of you is extremely well established (by that I mean that your name is a 'household' name in the industry, to galleries and retailers). I'd give a polite 'sorry' and carry on with my life and business. IF the other person actually brought legal action, then I'd decide to fight or change, not before.

The important point is: are you actually losing business now directly because of this? My guess is probably neither of you can afford to change. Ethics ARE important of course, but keep in mind that most full time artists are not rich and can't afford to relaunch and republicise their businesss, reprinting all their materials and contacting previous customers to inform them of the change. It's a lot of work and expense. Unless an actual case of mistaken identity was made, I wouldn't worry. I don't know what type of work you do but usually people looking for artists are looking for their particular style and would realise they'd found the wrong person. To me, the ethical thing to do would be to let any customers that sound a bit lost know that they might be looking for the other 'artist x'. Common courtesy extends to realising that both of you and the other person have been using this name for a few years and have an investment in it. If someone emailed you and said they used the name in 1999 would you jump up and offer to rename your business without question or compensation?

Unfortunately trademark and copyright is treated on a case by case basic in the courts. And I thought that names that were considered quite general could not be trademarked or the trademark couldn't be enforced? (like 'Pretty Paintings' or 'Bright Lights' or that sort of thing. Generic and easy for several people to think up.) The only real way to solve it is to go the legal route. :(

Tina.

[arlene]

the only reason you discovered this is because of it being an art website...you yourself state you don't know if this person sells on ebay or not.

yes you're right...everyone sells on the web now, but obviously if it wasn't for wc you wouldn't even know of this person.

so far i see nothing that indicates this person did anything wrong.

i think you wouldn't have a case even if you did pursue it...unless of course you go out tomorrow and register the trademark...and there's no guarantee if it's a common media that others who you don't know of have been using the name longer then you.

in NYC there is tons of Ray's pizza...most owned by different people...the original is famous...but so far as I know there is no trademark infringement...even though the original ray had the name first.

my suggestion would be to do as paintergal said and inform your customers.

[ironlady]

Well, opinions are free, and you are entitled to yours. However, in this case you do not know the law, nor are you in the same situation. I am sure your tune would change if it were someone using *your* trade name!

I am however saddened by the cavalier attitude that people take toward the issue. I am NOT saying that I should have the exclusive use of the name and the other person can just go whistle, although the law is on my side on this one...that is not a nice way to handle the problem, and I wanted to handle things in a way that would be a win-win situation. However, I expect the other party to cooperate to solve the problem, not merely pretend it does not exist, and do so in a rude and dismissive fashion.

This kind of attitude is one reason why artists frequently find that others do not respect them as businesspeople. We are as obligated to respect intellectual property in whatever form as anyone else in our society.

It's interesting, also, that a person who bothers to post a copyright notice about her own work, including barring educational uses, would pooh-pooh the intellectual property concerns of others on the site, as you wrote:
"All my work is copyrighted and may not be downloaded to your computer, copied (including to learn from) or reproduced in any form without written permission from me. "
:rolleyes: ;)

[arlene]

Originally posted by ironlady

It's interesting, also, that a person who bothers to post a copyright notice about her own work, including barring educational uses, would pooh-pooh the intellectual property concerns of others on the site, as you wrote:
"All my work is copyrighted and may not be downloaded to your computer, copied (including to learn from) or reproduced in any form without written permission from me. "
:rolleyes: ;)

YES MY WORK IS! Not my name. I happen to know plenty of artists using the name arlene...matter of fact I couldn't get a domain with my first name because of another artist...should I then go tell her to stop because I've been using just my first name on my art since 1976? I don't think so.

Names do not fall under the same catagory as original art. If that was the case, then we'd all be in trouble.

[ironlady]

[i]Names do not fall under the same catagory as original art. If that was the case, then we'd all be in trouble. [/B]

Well, lots of you might be.
It *is* a different category -- art is copyright and trade names are more a trademark issue, although many are copyrightable, and, in case you don't know it, copyright is perfected at the time of creation, with no registration required to perfect rights.

Trade names are intellectual property. The only thing is that most individuals do not have the resources to litigate the disputes that arise. Go try opening up a theme park named "Disnay" or a shoe store selling "Nikays" (even with the different spellings) and see what happens... :)

It is, however, unfriendly and unethical behavior to simply pretend that the problem does not exist, as this individual is doing.

[arlene]

seems to me that since this person didn't know you before wetcanvas anymore then you did the person, then both were operating in a vacuum for over a year. To ask someone else to change their name under this circumstance (you are NOT Disney) is just meanspirited.

Does this person do the same exact work you do? I mean if you do red swirl glass coasters, does this person also do red swirl coasters?

My guess is no. You can keep trying to drum up sympathy, but honestly you won't get it from me. And yes I know about copyright.

[arlene]

also you come here and your only posts are to look for sympathy for a cause you don't even really have a legal leg to stand on. If you're so sure you do, there is free lawyer help for artists...sorry I can't recall the name off the top of my head.

[paintergirl]

Originally posted by ironlady
Well, opinions are free, and you are entitled to yours. However, in this case you do not know the law, nor are you in the same situation. I am sure your tune would change if it were someone using *your* trade name!

I am however saddened by the cavalier attitude that people take toward the issue.

There is nothing cavalier about it... this is a basic thing...file and pay for the rights to the name ...Tina said it earlier, this woman has probably invested her time and business in this name as well. You were both 'out there' without being the wiser of each other...

In the realm of the .com, the likelihood of someone else also having that name and you are unaware of it is very,very high ...

I am sure you can both share the name without ill feelings and continue to do well and prosper without ever even crossing each other's path. With all the piracy and theft of images that artists face in this age of the information highway, there are bigger fish to fry then finding out that you share an unregistered trade name with someone else in a similar business...

[timelady]

Instead of just being negative let's discuss this constructively. Ideas that other artists can reference in future cases:


My earlier question - how would you have reacted in the other person's shoes? If someone emailed you saying they used the name in 1999 what would your response be? This will help us build a idea for solutions.
You mention wanting a win-win solution. What were your ideas on how to acheive that? Again, good for reference for future cases where neither party can afford legal action.


Discussing legal action and what the courts would do, etc, isn't constructive if you don't intend to pursue this in court anyway. The law is vague, as I said, and approached on a case by case basic. Quoting Sesame Street and Disney isn't relevent because your trademark name will not fall into a category with the same global exposure or the same time and money investment that those companies have put into their trademarks. Saying the rest of us aren't knowledgeable or caring about the law is also unconstructive. Many of us are, but that includes knowing when pursuing a legal angle is productive or not.

Tina.

[paintergirl]

Originally posted by timelady
Instead of just being negative let's discuss this constructively. Ideas that other artists can reference in future cases:
You mention wanting a win-win solution. What were your ideas on how to achieve that? Again, good for reference for future cases where neither party can afford legal action.
Many of us are, but that includes knowing when pursuing a legal angle is productive or not.
Tina.

Very inclined to agree here...
It is no doubt disappointing to find out that a name you have chosen to represent you is also in use by someone else...
BUT, since there was no intent what-so-ever on the other party's behalf to knowingly use your (unregistered) name ( she/he was equally unaware of your existence ) this just seems more like an unfortunate accident and you should either:
A ) make a minor alteration to your name if you really feel like there will be a conflict- then duly notify past customers and your mailing list..
B) let it go and just proceed on as you did before- when you were unaware of this name conflict to begin with...
C) chose a whole new name, register it and notify customers and your mailing list...
D) Register this name in question and decide if legal steps would be appropriate once you have completed that registration step...

My opinion : legal recourse on this matter would be like putting out a lit match with a fire hose...can you not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion through another route? I don't think asking the other party to cease and desist is a win-win situation for anyone but you...or is that what you wanted?
But I suspect she/he ( the other party) is probably equally disappointed to have found out this name is in use for a similar business ...

[paintergirl]

Here is a true and unfortunate example of theft with regards to an artist and his work:
http://www.jonathonart.com/LotusMaiden1/saddam.html

And how will he take this one to court???

[pinkrybns]

Well this is certainly an interesting thread.

I too am wondering what a "win-win" situation means to
ironlady-(1) ? What is/was your proposal to resolve this situation amicably?

I'd have to agree with the others, that if it plagues you so much, haunts your dreams, etc., then take the neccesary next step and register the name - legally with all the protection it entails/provides, even if it's costly...

Otherwise, live and let live...and I am NOT being cavalier!!!

Consider this:
How many other women (maybe even men), not on the internet yet, possibly working in the same medium as yourself (but for a longer period of time) might also be using the name "ironlady"? One day these other "ironladies" decide to set up and run a web-site/s and "oops" all of a sudden there are several "ironladies" on the net, here at WC and other places ( maybe they are Ironlady1, or IronladyAgain, or IronladyRedux...still, none the less, ironladies). If that is a "troubling" scenario, then I suggest you register the name as a trademark.

Paintergirl:
As to that unfortunate painter who was "ripped-off" by the old Iraqi gov't ... WOW! Thanks for posting that paintergirl, that is/was most interesting, most distressing and I'm so happy I'm not in his shoes! I suppose he might be able to make it "work" for him in some way... infamous/famous ? It's a toss up, eh? He could turn it into an "interesting" selling point!

[ironlady]

Originally posted by timelady
[B]Instead of just being negative let's discuss this constructively. Ideas that other artists can reference in future cases:


My earlier question - how would you have reacted in the other person's shoes? If someone emailed you saying they used the name in 1999 what would your response be? This will help us build a idea for solutions.
I would let them have it. The law is clearly built upon first use in a particular field. If it is clear that the party is selling, and has been selling, the same product under the same name, but began before I did, and can prove it, then too bad for me. No cause for me to be rude to that person, either. :mad:

You mention wanting a win-win solution. What were your ideas on how to acheive that? Again, good for reference for future cases where neither party can afford legal action.

A win-win situation is obviously, in this case, one where the other party, although not legally in the right, could still retain the goodwill and other benefits s/he has built up in that name. I am no monster. If s/he had had the courtesy to respond nicely and say, "Well, I am really doing a lot of business under this name, etc. etc." then it is not the only name in the world and I would be happy to consider changing or modifying my use. However, a win-win situation implies that both parties are participating and want that outcome.



Discussing legal action and what the courts would do, etc, isn't constructive if you don't intend to pursue this in court anyway. The law is vague, as I said, and approached on a case by case basic. Quoting Sesame Street and Disney isn't relevent because your trademark name will not fall into a category with the same global exposure or the same time and money investment that those companies have put into their trademarks. Saying the rest of us aren't knowledgeable or caring about the law is also unconstructive. Many of us are, but that includes knowing when pursuing a legal angle is productive or not.
:mad: :mad:

You may think it is irrelevant, but is it OK to kill someone just because you will not be prosecuted for it? To steal because no one will find out? The principles of the law are the same for rich and poor, big corporation and little guy. At least they are *supposed* to be.

The point I was making with those examples is that first use is sacrosanct in these cases. That is how rights are determined, except in rare cases (like those cases where speculators bought up dot-com names of large corporatiosn and then tried to get big bucks for them.) And even in those cases, the corporations in question had first use. I've heard of cases where small guys were permitted to keep names which later became famous -- because of first use. (No, I don't have the reference. I no longer work in the law office.)


Everyone has an opinion, but in the end, there are laws that govern. The copyright and trademark law in the US is based on registration, but registration is NOT always necessary to perfect one's rights in a work or mark. If someone registers, s/he has an iron-clad case 90% of hte time -- but the other 10% a first-user can overturn that, registration or no.

And to the other poster who commented about protecting the name "ironlady" -- that is irrelevant, as I am not doing business under that name. There is no reason for me to zealously guard it. But if someone else were selling first as "Ironlady" in the same medium I work in, I would change my screen name out of courtesy should that person ask, if it seemed it was infringing on their use on the site. However, the issue here is NOT screen names but trade names, and the two are quite different. Heck, I could always become "the artist formerly known as Ironlady". It worked for Prince, right? ;)

[ironlady]

Originally posted by paintergirl


...can you not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion through another route? I don't think asking the other party to cease and desist is a win-win situation for anyone but you...or is that what you wanted?
But I suspect she/he ( the other party) is probably equally disappointed to have found out this name is in use for a similar business ...

No doubt s/he is disappointed as well. But that does not excuse him/her from the responsibility of education him/herself as to the law, and communicating with me as an adult. I did NOT ask him/her to cease and desist the business activity -- indeed, I was not given any opportunity to communicate, negotiate or do anything with him/her as s/he chose to cut off communication unilaterally. When I thought this was a new screenname (and the individual in question registered here with that name only last month, BTW), I thought it likely the s/he was not doing business under it, or had only just begun to do so, and that a change would not be a big problem for him/her. I do not think that is either illogical or inappropriate.

What is inappropriate is ostrich-like behavior and cutting off communication. And, just perhaps, all these innuendoes that I am merely out for my own interests, and somehow want to harm the other party...yes it is annoying to read that sort of thing when no one was privy to the mails exchanged before the forum posts. And I won't post those because they were private mails and I do not have the permission of the other party -- whose privacy I have done my best to guard -- to post. There is no way to guess what the trade name in question is based on my activity on this board, and I intend to keep it that way. There is no reason for me to harm or embarass another person just because s/he has chosen to take the ethical "low road" by trying to ignore the whole thing.

[pinkrybns]

Originally posted by ironlady
And to the other poster who commented about protecting the name "ironlady" -- that is irrelevant, as I am not doing business under that name. There is no reason for me to zealously guard it. But if someone else were selling first as "Ironlady" in the same medium I work in, I would change my screen name out of courtesy should that person ask, if it seemed it was infringing on their use on the site. However, the issue here is NOT screen names but trade names, and the two are quite different. Heck, I could always become "the artist formerly known as Ironlady". It worked for Prince, right? ;)

Ok, I guess I am "the other poster" mentioned here. So help me see the light.

Did I read your first post incorrectly? Did you not say that since 2000 you have been using "ironlady" to "market art", even using it on EBay? Does that not mean "doing business", or have I apparently lost the knowledge of my mother tongue?

Was the following not your first post?

Originally posted by ironlady
Hello all,

There is a relatively new user at this site who has chosen as his/her screen name a title that I have been using continuously since 2000 to market art. I have sent a PM to this individual but have not received the courtesy of a reply.

I do not have a registered TM in this name (obviously) but I seriously doubt that this individual does, either (I worked in a patent/trademark law office so I know something about the process and the costs). Generally speaking it is not considered "kosher" to use someone's trade name if the products are similar to the point of causing possible substantial confusion on the part of the consumer -- and since we are engaged in the exact same field of art, this would seem very likely.

I do not wish to make trouble for anyone, but as I always have business cards, other materials, a Web site that is not yet up but has been made, and have been using the title in question on EBay for some time now, I would appreciate the user having the courtesy to find another name.


So, if you're not doing business under the name "ironlady"and you don't consider it a trade name and you're not talking about screen names... then I'm lost.

I can understand and empathize that you have been possibly offended by the lack of response from whomever the other "ironlady" is, but I also have to say that I don't believe any of the rest of the "posters", myself included, are making inuendos or pointing a finger at you.

I believe that most people here at WC, genuinely like to help others, lend a sympathetic ear, make suggestions ( however lame they may be), learn and try to understand, which is what I think we are doing.


Judy
the artist formerly and presently known as Judy ;)

[pinkrybns]

Ok........let me correct myself here.

I DID misunderstand about the moniker "ironlady" I was under the impression, wrongly, that it was the name in question ( fortunately, I have a WC "guardian angel" that pointed this out to me ... heehee). So yep, that bit is sort of irrelevent and then again sort of not, since my example of others "popping" up under a similar name (whatever that name) still is a good example.

But I do stand firm on my other statements about no one pointing fingers or making inuendos.

Simply or simpleminded,

Judy

[timelady]

I would hardly compare killing or stealing to unregistered trademark conflicts. Ah well, best of luck to you however you decide to pursue this.

There seem to be no further constructive ideas coming out in this thread. The legal point of view has been stated. The ideas for how you could approach it non-legally could be stated. Responses continually refer to how this 'other person' is either ignorant of the law or lacking in ethics, so I am closing the thread but leaving it in the forum for future reference in case anyone else has trademark questions.

Tina.