Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anyman]

Assertions without facts or explanations. Sounds like a Danny clone.

Now there is a substantive response . . . you've reduced yourself to tired cliches . . .

[Fran]

Assertions without facts or explanations. Sounds like a Danny clone.

Now there is a substantive response . . . you've reduced yourself to tired cliches . . .

And, So?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

ANYMAN,
You did not follow up with the usual dissertation. Perhaps you could answer why your wondrous and illustious counsel has yet to move for an injunction against any of the SAVE-NOT sites?

Let me summarize it for you...you are Lanhamed to death!!! Not to mention first circuit and supreme court decisions that leave you in the public square naked!!! Oh, yeah, did I mention the Massachusetts statutes and precedence as well?  And don't forget decisions by the good Judge Dennis Saylor, presiding judge.

So, pull that pipe full of dope out of your mouth, reread Lanham and get real...you are Lanhamed to death!!!

If Falwell and fortune 500 hundred brands could not shut down gripe sites, 3ABN does not have a chance!!!
I understand the thought of it drives one to drink, but you are going to loose this case!!! All will be revealed, contrary to the purpose of the suit, and you are going to pay!!! So pass the hat and get some more OPM because it will not be a small dent!!! I'll take mine in Franklins. please!!!

Gailon Arthur JOY

Lanham Act isn't going to help you one iota . . . you've continually misapplied the law and the case law that has been generated by it. Bang on that drum all day GAJ . . . but you might want to find some work . . .

Bob, I am not going to debate you point by point.

My job is not to teach you law.

As to your comment:

You mention a copyright violation often being associated with a trademark violation. I think you are suggesting that even if there was no broadcast in question, there would still be a copyright issue, but I'm uncertain what exactly you are referring to.

Exactly.  Copyright and trademark are closely entwined.  Even if there was no broadcast a violation of trademark could also carry with it a violation of copyright.

Frankly I did not understand that until the lawsuit against you and Gailon was filed.   But, I do now.  If you want to understand it, you need to obtain competent legal advice.

Mr Gregory, begin your education with the Lanham Act and then look carefully at decisions from the Circuit courts and the US Supreme Court. Then come back and give us a dissertation on where any of these allegations really violate Lanham, Copyright or Trademark, particularly when a firm, res judicata, has asserted a non-copyright status.

I regret to inform you that upon the completion of discovery, we will teach you copyright and trademark. Just keep track of pacer.

I believe you will discover they suffer from collateral estoppel.

But if you have questions,  Maybe you need to have your legal expert re-look at the issue and then re-consider your insinuation that there is a problem on our side. I believe you know full well they are up the creek without a paddle on this one and that makes you factually challenged. Or simply contentious without foundation. And certainly representing very poor legal analysis.

I will assert that if they were on sound ground regarding Trademark or Copyright, they would move to shut down the troubling sites with a preliminary injunction. Would have slightly more sense than a Motion for Impoundment of the entire case, now wouldn't it?

But, I await your dissertation challenge.

Gailon Arthur Joy