[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] "Thanks" is Trademarked!

[Stephanie Perrin]

I am with Carleton on this one.  Everybody should be allowed to say 
thanks.  not enough of it around....

Stephanie Perrin



On 2016-06-10 21:13, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Greg:
> I hold no brief for Reuters. I looked at the PTO database and saw all 
> you said. And quite frankly if I were an IP lawyer in the trenches and 
> on the clock,  I probably would be encouraging these fellas to fight.
>
> All that aside, howsoever you slice or dice it, granting exclusive 
> commercial rights to [qualified] "thanks" or "thankyou" seems over the 
> top.
>
> Carlton
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:13 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Not sure anyone needs to be tarred and feathered here.  But let's
>     get the facts straight. (Perhaps those who don't get the facts
>     straight are the ones who should be tarred & feathered, etc., but
>     that seems rather harsh.  I prefer to educate rather than vilify.)
>
>     Citi did not sue AT&T for "using the word in a commercial." Citi
>     sued AT&T for apparently seeking to brand its new customer loyalty
>     program as AT&T THANKS when Citibank already has a longstanding
>     (since 2004) customer loyalty program branded as CITI THANK YOU,
>     with about 15 million members in the US, and a trademark
>     registered since 2011 for "Promoting the goods and services of
>     others through administration of incentive reward and redemption
>     programs by distributing rewards for credit and debit card use,
>     and for banking and wealth management customer *loyalty*". And
>     AT&T didn't merely use the THANKS brand, they applied for a
>     trademark registration for AT&T THANKS for "Providing incentive
>     award programs for customers for the purpose of promoting and
>     rewarding loyalty."
>
>     It seems like an entirely reasonable claim that consumers could be
>     confused between a THANK YOU brand loyalty program and a THANKS
>     brand loyalty program.  Without opining on the likelihood of
>     success, it's an entirely reasonable claim of infringement. 
>     Indeed the subject matter of this email demonstrates such
>     confusion -- THANKS is not "trademarked" by anyone, in spite of
>     the attention-getting headline.  CITI THANK YOU is a registered
>     trademark of Citigroup.  AT&T THANKS is the subject of a pending
>     application by AT&T.
>
>     If AT&T had merely "used the word in a commercial" and not as a
>     trademark, there would be nothing to object to, and no claim, and
>     this email wouldn't exist.  The actual facts are significantly
>     different.
>
>     That's the problem with suggesting tarring and feathering, and
>     other such actions of a mob mentality.  They are based on
>     incorrect facts and a desire to inflame people, rather than to
>     inform them.  Unfortunately, information can come too late to save
>     the victims of such an attack (hot tar causes serious and often
>     fatal burns). Thankfully, all that was suggested was a rhetorical
>     tarring and feathering, so no one actually suffered at the hands
>     of an ill-informed, intemperate mob.
>
>     Hope that is informative.
>
>     Greg
>
>     [Caveats: (1) I am a CITI THANK YOU cardholder and use my THANK
>     YOU points regularly on Amazon where they are available as
>     dollars. (2) From around 1999 to 2004, the firm I was with
>     represented Citigroup in trademark matters, though I personally
>     didn't do very much of that work.  I have not had any professional
>     relationship with Citigroup since 2004 (3) This should not be
>     construed as legal advice.]
>
>     On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Carlton Samuels
>     <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         ..and Citi sues AT&T for using  the word in a commercial!  It
>         also owns thankyou.com <http://thankyou.com> as well!
>
>         I checked the USPTO database and it was a revelation; lots of
>         "thankyou" there, dead and alive. See:
>         http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4803:ku1j42.1.1
>
>         So I ask you, who're the halfwits that need to be tarred,
>         feathered and put in stock in the village square for a quick
>         kick in the butt from every passerby?
>
>         http://www.reuters.com/article/us-at-t-citigroup-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YW1K3
>
>         -Carlton
>
>         [Disclosure: I'm partial to AT&T on account they paid for
>         graduate school.]
>
>         ==============================
>         Carlton A Samuels
>         Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:876-818-1799>
>         /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>         =============================
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160611/12940382/attachment.html>