Dave, curious… did you click the link on this post?
Should maybe bub should be the one apologizing?
Chet
Why do you assume that a person cannot register and use a trademark if some one else has ever used it any previous point in time?
Trademark searches are a very common thing. Especially for a company as frequently engaged in litigation as MS. They just didn’t give a damn.
In a way, though, it’s like me trying to sue the lead singer of Dangerous Toys
Are you directly competing? Trademarks aren’t universal.
I AM DIRECTLY COMPETING
Is Andrew directly competing?
Uhh… people like dave are getting all pissed off because gamerdad.com was first, and so ms should apologize, the outrage etc… yet they weren’t first with the use of the generic name and i bet bub even knows the person previously using it…
And this isn’t to say anything about a legal case etc, which I didn’t say, just with all of Dave Long’s spewing… again, you might want to click that link.
Chet
Let’s see, both are involved in providing advice to parents about video games. How could that not be competition?
Even though it’s just a little column? What if TIME started a column like that? Would it be an issue too? Or if CNN.com started a “Gone Gold” section? (while Gone Gold still existed, that is)
So, a guy on xbox.com with a column called gamerdad and a completely different site doing the same.
Holy shit, there are a ton of webmail services that are in so much trouble
I don’t know if I agree. For example, if I were wanting to protect my new website by trademarking the name, I wouldn’t TM “WoolyBooger.com”, I’d TM “WoolyBooger” and state the anticipated uses in the TM application. Generally, you want a mark to be as broad as possible, rather than narrow.
I see upcoming law suits for all sorts of leather daddys. I wonder who was first.
If it’s providing web-based commentary about games, yes, I’d say that a column named Gamer Dad on xbox.com and a website that covers games called GamerDad are directly competing.
If you have a website named Dangerous Toys, it’s not readily apparent that you are engaged in the same trade as someone who is providing musical entertainment under the name Dangerous Toys.
Ultimately, any question about TM infringement comes down to whether there will be confusion in the public mind about the origin of the services in question. If your reaction when hearing about the existence of a column on xbox.com called Gamer Dad was: hey, Bub got a column on Xbox.com, then the confusion is apparent.
WTF? “All of Dave Long’s spewing?” What am I spewing? I’ve made like three posts. Said I didn’t know anything in the first one, pointed out that Denny is the editor of Games at Xbox.com in the other one and … um… asked if Microsoft shitcanned someone’s similar site in the past that did something similar?
I know you hate me chet. I know you despise everything I stand for, but this is really out of line.
Maybe Bub is screwed? I don’t know? All I know is that this new Gamer Dad thing popped up, Denny is the Games Editor at Xbox.com and you’re out to get me.
When I saw The xbox gamerdad headline, i thought “awesome, andrew got a contract with microsoft!”
Disappointed that it wasn’t the case.
SUCK IT DOWN
Wait, I hope Romero didn’t see that
Yeah, same here.
That logic is fucked.
It is like Walmart set up a game section called ‘E & B Games’ with the purpose of selling games … and subtitled it 'Your #1 GameStop"
This is a sub-site called GamerDad being set up with the purpose of promoting MS’s XBOX pretense of family gaming, by co-opting an existing known entity that does exactly the same fucking thing.
He also owns making people his bitch.
I’m going to totally trademark the name “Coolest Dude Ever” and then go sue anyone that says it. I mean seriously, it’s a name. That’s like trade marking Friendly Father and then getting mad if someone is known as a friendly father.