The return of the scandalous mark denial?

Originally posted 2010-12-27 16:30:52. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

CocainePerhaps the “immoral and scandalous” rule is nothing to sniff at, after all. The Times asks: Will the COCAINE tradememark take a powder? I don’t know, but you have to just love the Cocaine pusher himself, Jamey Kirby, who strikes one as a thoughtful, public-spirited type:

Opinions differed on whether the probable loss of the federal trademark would affect Redux’s business. Jamey Kirby, the owner of Redux and inventor of the drink, has until April to file a counterargument, but sounded unconcerned about the probable rejection.

“All I have to do is look at the orders coming in and then I just laugh at the whole thing,” he said, adding that the company was producing about 200,000 cases of the drink this month and expected to double that amount in January. “As long as we sell drinks, I really don’t care.”

email

Tags: , , ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » Scandalous mark by anybama’s standard - February 13, 2007

    […] We’ve wondered aloud here whether there’s any life left in the “scandalous or immoral” ground for refusal of trademark registration. The Smoking Gun reports: Government officials have rejected a Florida man’s bid to trademark the term “Obama bin Laden,” ruling that the conflation of the names of a U.S. Senator and the world’s leading terrorist was “scandalous” and wrongly suggested a connection between the politician and the mass murderer. […]