Teachingaway

talk at me here, or @teachingaway or teachingaway

US Trademark Law Discussion - 12/2012

Hello! Like your edits on US trademark, the History of Trademark section is nice for solidifying the US-specific legislation and legal history. Awesome benefits section as well.

I have an unrelated question about the "consumer confusion" Wiki page. It's currently structured for just discussing the economic aspects, but I want to flag it as a "WikiLaw" page and add the legal aspects of consumer confusion. Is this the right way to go about it? Or do you think it'd be better to create a second page for consumer confusion (law)? Arttechlaw (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm new, so grain of salt: The economic aspects are not country-specific. But consumer confusion law is. Maybe you should create a second page for "United States Consumer Confusion Law"? I don't have a strong opinion (or an informed opinion) on the issue. There is also a page for Confusing similarity and Trademark infringement. Both could use some work. Whatever you decide, I'd be happy to lend a hand. Teachingaway (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Eesh, confusing similarity isn't even a term of art, if I remember correctly. That's conflating substantial similarity and 'likelihood of confusion'. It'd be better to change that to likelihood of confusion and include a section that cross-references between them and comments on the term 'confusing similarity' if, as the page seems to imply, it's an antiquated term which has been made pretty much obsolete after TRIPS. Trademark infringement might be better situated as a subheading in another page, unless it's rewritten to discuss the history to and issues surrounding trademark infringement in particular. Copyright infringement gives a pretty good idea of what that might look like. Arttechlaw (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also - I noticed a number of small inaccuracies in the information you added to the page. I'm going through and correcting them. Please be more careful, especially if trademark is not your specialty and you're just adding information so you have an account to launch your law firm page from. Arttechlaw (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My specialty is IP and Technology law. I'd like to think I know the basics, but "to err is human" as they say. I zipped through your changes, and I'd characterize them as 'insightful amplifications", "formatting improvements", and "useful examples". Maybe this is just a silly point-of-pride, but I didn't notice any corrections. Teachingaway (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just corrected a minor issue in the intro (it seemed to imply that you need to register to get federal protection) and haven't done much editing on that page yet. It's cool you overhauled the page, trademark law is a mess on wikipedia, in stark contrast to copyright which has been fastidiously gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Seems odd the Trademark page is so together, while a lot of the other subtopics aren't (including United States trademark law). I did a once-over of the List of trademark case law, I'd be interested to have a second pair of eyes. It was pretty dismal when I started in on it a few weeks ago. Arttechlaw (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The list of TM Cases looks OK to me. I'm not sure how much I can help. We could compare it to the table of cases in Callman or McCarthy's on TM Law... But that seems like a lot of work. Teachingaway (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Further corrections, edits and improvements are appreciated.

One note: I'd call "Starbucks" arbitrary, but not coined. Starbuck is Ahab's first mate in Moby Dick (one of my favorite lines: "Owners? Owners!? Thou art always prating to me, Starbuck, about those miserly owners.") But if there's some caselaw that says Starbucks is coined, I'll defer to the judiciary. Teachingaway (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard "coined" as a term of art, anyways. Not sure what the case law is on names being arbitrary or fanciful - some of the companies commonly referenced as 'fanciful' were named after a company's founder. Arttechlaw (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, "Coined" seems more accurate (or more modern?) than "fanciful". But I don't know how widely accepted it is. Teachingaway (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just launching a firm!? I'm not Rankin & Taylor, if that's the implication.Teachingaway (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilaw Discussion - 12/2012

Hey, have you managed to get much of a response from the Wikilaw project? It seems pretty quiet to me, and it'd be cool to see it more active and to participate more. Arttechlaw (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even tried. I just messaged you because you had been active on some IP pages this December. Teachingaway (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rankin and Taylor.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

tomorrow. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Still to do: (1) Remove all "Mr.". We refer to people by their first and last name, & after the first time, by their last name only. (2)Include all other law firms in all of the joint cases,, not just the names of the lawyer, but the firm also. (3)Try to combine into fewer paragraphs. (4) Remove the displayed quote: it's advertisement. (4) In the section, "The firm represents clients in Freedom of Information Law litigation. ", I assume these two cases are meant to be representative )5). Change all "the firm represents" which is an advertisement, to "the firm has represented," which is statingthe facts. Again, indicate if the instances are samples.

• The wording will then take some adjustment. I'll take care of it. Remind me when you finish. My apologies for taking this long.

• . In the meantime, I've been checking the least informative law firm articles & deleting a few. A major international firm will be assumed to have additional sourcing available; a small firm will not, so it needs to be stated. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Rankin and Taylor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Klondike Bar

See this article. Your change to the article Klondike Bar was reverted and this ref added. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwpaul - Look at the primary source. It's an 11th circuit case. The Supreme Court denied cert in 1987 - meaning they never reviewed the case. It's wrong (or at least misleading) to say the Supreme Court "upheld" the case. Even the AP article notes "The [Supreme] court, without comment, let stand a ruling that prohibits..." Its far more accurate to call it an 11 Circuit case than a "Supreme Court case" if there was no Supreme Court decision. Teachingaway (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but it is very significant to the (lay) reader that the case was presented appealed to the Supreme Court and denied Certiorari, actually more significant to the lay reader than that the 11th Circuit ruled in the case. I think we agree that the problem is with the word "upheld". Perhaps it should say that they declined to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling, or, per AP, that they "let stand" the lower court's ruling. There are probably several ways to fix it, but removing the fact that it was appealed to the Supreme Court and the lower court's ruling prevailed is not the right way. I can take a shot at it, or, sensing that you have far more expertise, leave you to do it. Let me know. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwpaul - not a big deal in the grand scheme of wikipedia. What I was really looking for was a picture of the Kraft "Polar B'ars" that lost the case. Teachingaway (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is helpful. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, this appeared on page 41 of the May 31, 1991 issue of the Logansport, Indiana Pharos-Tribune, complete with polar bear graphic. Unknown what color it was. The coupon had no expiration date, so if you can find the product it's still good. ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 01:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that was some kind of metadata error at newspapers.com. It (from the page image itself) was actually on page 23 of the Indiana Gazette of March 5, 1986, which makes a whole lot more sense since that ad art should have been out of use long before 1991. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwpaul - Wow!! Thats old coupon is just about perfect. I've seen the first image (side-by-side comparison) in a few google searches, but it's just too small/low quality. The coupon is much better. Thank you! Teachingaway (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's still good. ;-) 'welcome. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

History of US Copyright Law

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of US Copyright Law, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://williamdbailey.wordpress.com/tag/statute-of-anne/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of History of US Copyright Law

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on History of US Copyright Law requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://williamdbailey.wordpress.com/tag/statute-of-anne/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)