Speech about trademarks, trademark registrations and free speech have bubbled so verily to the top of the public imagination that it’s all over the official organ of free speech, the New York Times!
Well, okay, that’s a bit much, but it sounded good for a second, no?
Here’s what I’m talking about. First, there was this:
Section 2(a) “would not be out of place in Thailand or in Turkey” observes @adamliptak https://t.co/Edt1AEWswT
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) May 2, 2016
That tweet gave birth, first, to a nice little conversation on Twitter involving Christine Haight Farley, who has definite and well-articulated views on the matter and ones which are worth hearing, and Marc Randazza, regarding whose virtually completely opposite opinion virtually the same can and hereby is said as well. But this is just the tip of the Times-y iceberg that’s forming.
Marco has already published an extensive, scholarly treatment of those views in a journal article that very few people will really read, being that it is an extensive, scholarly treatment, however so much he browbeats us to download it and send it to our loved ones. So too Christine — right here — though to my knowledge she makes no such requests, being a considerably more dignified specimen of a person — as befits her philosophy on the matter, as it happens.
Well, now Christine is back, this time in an online “debate” symposium in the Times called “Redskins, and Other Troubling Trademarks” — as usual, the Redskins get the headlines and other trademarks are consigned to “other,” but we can’t complain — our favorite bass player and “suspended” trademark applicant was invited to participate but, pursuant to the rigid rules of engagement he’s operating under now, was unable to participate. 
Interesting Times — on both coasts.
Originally posted 2016-05-04 09:48:11. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
