Re: Mostly Off Topic - Commodore is Back 'n Bad

[russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <8lMQa.10219$Vx2.4440923@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
Thomas McLaren <thomasnews@ameritech.net> wrote:
>In case you haven't read it, it's here
>http://www.tulip.com/aboutus/corp_article.asp?nid=109.
>
>After reading it and taking note of the following paragraph,
>
>    "Ironstone and Tulip invite the Commodore community to join the official
>Commodore
>    C64 web-portal. Currently there are about 300 commercial websites that
>use the name
>    Commodore or Commodore 64 without having a license from Tulip. Tulip
>will not allow
>    unauthorised use of the Commodore brand."
>
>I'd like to take back what I written in an earlier post about Commodore not
>having the power or interest to sue the C-One, Ms. Ellsworth, and other such
>interested Commodore hackers and extenders into oblivion.  Apparently, their
>new masters do!  :(

The trademark doesn't have the kind of power they're trying to claim
it does.  There's broad fair use for trademarks, in particular
nominative fair use, which is using the trademark to refer to the
trademarked item.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.