> > I just read this post over on the Arcade Controls forums and thought it was
> > interesting and worth mentioning here.
> Jesus, we've already had a thread on MAME.net and Arcade Controls.
> Do we really need another one here?
> It's now MAME's Trademark, defend it or lose it.
Is it really? In what manner of commerce is MAME(tm) involved with, using the mark of MAME(tm)?
As far as the federal trademark registration application goes - http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78578919&action=Request Status
It doesn't even look like it has been viewed by a trademark examiner yet. If/when it is, these dates may be an issue:
"First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)"
I can't tell from the site whether or not those fields are simply blacked-out from viewing during the application process, or whether they weren't present on the original application form. If they weren't present, then my guess is that the registration application is likely to be tossed out on its ear. Just a hunch.
> This hasn't been drawn up out of thin air, Aaron has had legal advice and this
> is what needs to be done. If your listing got killed, sorry but you can easily
> follow the above conditions and get it relisted.
Does that cost more money? I think those ebay'ers, if they were using the mark in a legal manner, should send the bill for the re-listing to MAMEdev. Just IMHO.
Edit: I was wrong, above - the reason for those dates not to be shown, is that the filings was under a "Basis: 1(b)", which is a registration for a trademark that isn't already being used in commerce, but soon will be. So it follows naturally that those dates wouldn't be present, until they are filled in later by a statement of usage regarding the mark.