Author: Ed Trice
Date: 20:11:46 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
>...patent was filed. So if you want to sue someone that does that same thing as >CapaGnu, then it's an obvious case of prior art. By using the phrase "pre-patent >exemption" you are implying that CapaGNU is only safe (exempt) since it was >written before your patent was filed. Saying this is admitting that CapaGnu was >prior art. You can't sling the term "prior art" around like a kid who has found his dad's gun. It means something in the legal sense, and you are misusing it. Because of this, I cannot respond to your comments as they are presented. >I would think that you would be more interested in protecting the name "Gothic >Chess" than in this patent stuff. I don't see any indication that "Gothic Chess" >is a registered trademark on the Gothic Chess Federation home page. It is protected. I had to contact members of the Devner Broncos, Jordache Jeans, Gothic Carpet Products, and a host of others (103 matches for prefix use, 26 matches of Goth, 73 image marks in use, 31 chess prefixes in use, 80 for all class suffix matches, 18 sub letterstring matches) to clear the mark searched. I you want to verify the research report, contact the law firm of Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.