if only i was good at titling my posts. tho maybe that would be helped if my posts were actually about anything.
so in the middle of taking my trademark practice exam (actually, i say "in the middle," but what i really mean is that the practice exam was 7 questions long (SEVEN QUESTIONS?!?!) and so i just gave up after a few. tho i do think i get some credit for having made it around to this at all. i mean, in the last 3 days, i really have spent all of about 6 hours on preparation for this exam) and eating half a box of lightly toasted rice cereal for no apparent reason at 1am, i decided to look at facebook again.
i am seriously tempted to join some of these groups, just to tell them that their groups are hysterical and have been the highlight of my evening. it's too bad that you can't post to groups, or on pictures w/o being a member/friend. b/c there is probably nothing at all creepy about my commenting on groups or pictures consisting solely of people i do not know.
anyways, if you're interested, here are some of the sample answers from my practice trademark exam. you know, before i gave up. you can see that i am a force to be reckoned with.
I. ...... finally, this little lady might have herself a claim about the misappropriation of her image, either false endorsement or right of publicity. she’s not a celeb, but that doesn’t matter. like the court in cheatham said, the Q is about the distinctiveness of the identity and the degree of recognition amongst those receiving the publicity. so if she is a famous skier and people who get this mag, who are largely ski buffs, are going to think this means she is supporting the line of clothes, she’s got a case. but if she is just some girl, then nope. also, what’s she doing just standing around wearing their shirt where they can take a picture of the sort of quality they would put on a magazine? i mean, that’s a bit weird, right?
II. WELL THERE MIGHT BE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION! AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OR AS TO SPONSORSHIP OR AFFILIATION. that pretty much takes care of that, now doesn’t it! we want to keep consumer search costs low! and consumers of alcoholic beverages are probably even more susceptible to confusion b/c they might be drunk when reading this ad and maybe we should account for that as a market factor. just saying.
III. oh no! why the hell did they go and do this! they are genericizing their own word! in an ad! oooooooh, it pains me just to see! didn’t their lawyers tell them anything about running this sort of ad and the potential ramifications of your trademark becoming generic! shudder!!
also, i was pretty pleased to have occassion to give a WHAT WHAT to the federal trademark dilution revision act of 2006. i thought it only fitting to give a WHAT WHAT to a statute that has really done a lot to clarify the status of trademark dilution as a federal cause of action.
and those were supposed to be 20 minute questions, but really, my answers pretty much sum it up. it is clear that i have a knowledge of the law that will be unparalleled by other takers of the test.
WHAT WHAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE OF TRADEMARK LAW!
i am seriously tempted to join some of these groups, just to tell them that their groups are hysterical and have been the highlight of my evening. it's too bad that you can't post to groups, or on pictures w/o being a member/friend. b/c there is probably nothing at all creepy about my commenting on groups or pictures consisting solely of people i do not know.
anyways, if you're interested, here are some of the sample answers from my practice trademark exam. you know, before i gave up. you can see that i am a force to be reckoned with.
I. ...... finally, this little lady might have herself a claim about the misappropriation of her image, either false endorsement or right of publicity. she’s not a celeb, but that doesn’t matter. like the court in cheatham said, the Q is about the distinctiveness of the identity and the degree of recognition amongst those receiving the publicity. so if she is a famous skier and people who get this mag, who are largely ski buffs, are going to think this means she is supporting the line of clothes, she’s got a case. but if she is just some girl, then nope. also, what’s she doing just standing around wearing their shirt where they can take a picture of the sort of quality they would put on a magazine? i mean, that’s a bit weird, right?
II. WELL THERE MIGHT BE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION! AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS OR AS TO SPONSORSHIP OR AFFILIATION. that pretty much takes care of that, now doesn’t it! we want to keep consumer search costs low! and consumers of alcoholic beverages are probably even more susceptible to confusion b/c they might be drunk when reading this ad and maybe we should account for that as a market factor. just saying.
III. oh no! why the hell did they go and do this! they are genericizing their own word! in an ad! oooooooh, it pains me just to see! didn’t their lawyers tell them anything about running this sort of ad and the potential ramifications of your trademark becoming generic! shudder!!
also, i was pretty pleased to have occassion to give a WHAT WHAT to the federal trademark dilution revision act of 2006. i thought it only fitting to give a WHAT WHAT to a statute that has really done a lot to clarify the status of trademark dilution as a federal cause of action.
and those were supposed to be 20 minute questions, but really, my answers pretty much sum it up. it is clear that i have a knowledge of the law that will be unparalleled by other takers of the test.
WHAT WHAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE OF TRADEMARK LAW!
posted by laura at 2:15 AM
2 Comments:
Feel free to join my group "George is a Good Dog." Its always looking for new members, even ones who have not met the worst / crappiest dog in the history of the world.
I love your answers! If I were the professor I'd give you an A for those answers. Really, I would. Any exam answers that make me laugh automatically get you in the A catagory. Too bad I'm too stupid to be a professor.
Post a Comment
<< Home