nls-legal
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nls-legal] Draft plan for completing work on acquiring Augment IP

To: NLS Restoration Legal Discussion <nls-legal@chm.cim3.net>
From: Philip Gust <gust@NouveauSystems.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:32:41 -0800
Message-id: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121842.07df9020@NouveauSystems.com>
Looking at the Augment software trademark 
(http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=puovrk.2.11), it's 
kind of interesting that its only on the Supplemental Register.    (01)

USPTO has two registers, PRINCIPAL and SUPPLEMENTAL.  A mark is 
normally registered on the Principal Register.  Such a mark is 
entitled to all the rights provided by the tradmark act.    (02)

The Supplemental Register is for certain marks that are not eligible 
for registration on the Principal Register but are capable of 
distinguishing goods or services. Such a mark enjoys fewer 
protections than one on the Principal Register, epecially in the case 
of an action for trademark violation.    (03)

All of Nouveau System's trademarks, for example, are on the Principal 
Register except "The Information Commerce Company", which is on the 
Supplemental Register.  The examiner said the USPTO generally doesn't 
allow things like "The x Company" on the Principal Register any 
more.  Xerox's "The Document Company" went on before this policy went 
into effect.    (04)

At 11:09 AM 11/3/2005, Jonathan Cheyer wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>I just did a quick skim of the draft plan and it looks quite good. I'll
>go through it more thoroughly this evening.
>
>A few things to note:
>
>   * Thanks for sending the PDFs. I actually came across the same
>information about trademarks last night when I was searching myself.
>There are actually two separate relevant serial numbers for the AUGMENT
>trademark: 73647182 and 73256814. Both are considered dead. I've
>documented the information on the wiki. Please see
>http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Legal/Trademarks
>
>   * British Telecom sued Prodigy in 2000, based on a patent that they
>owned, which they claimed covered "hyperlinks." However, they lost the
>case. Interestingly, they did not lose based on prior art. The patent is
>not related to any work done by NLS or Augment teams, and isn't relevant
>at all, except for BT's original claims. But you should be aware of the
>history and make your own conclusions.
>http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Legal/Patents
>
>   * typo in your text - "Tymshare"
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>Philip Gust wrote:
> > Here is a draft of a plan we can present John Toole tomorrow for
> > completing work on acquiring Augment IP.  Sorry this is late.  Your
> > feedback is appreciated.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-legal/
>Shared Files: http://chm.cim3.net/file/work/project/nls-restore/
>Community Portal: http://www.computerhistory.org/
>To Post: mailto:nls-legal@chm.cim3.net
>Community Wiki: http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NLS_Restoration    (05)


Philip Gust
Nouveau Systems, Inc.    (06)

phone: +1 650 961-7992
fax:   +1 520 843-7217    (07)


mailto: gust@NouveauSystems.com     (08)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-legal/
Shared Files: http://chm.cim3.net/file/work/project/nls-restore/
Community Portal: http://www.computerhistory.org/  
To Post: mailto:nls-legal@chm.cim3.net
Community Wiki: http://chm.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NLS_Restoration    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>