Main > Everything Else
Discussion: Ultracade and the Mame Trademark
Crazy Cooter:
So has anyone sent in the $75 bucks to trademark ultracade?
Fat_Trucker:
Strange. His email responses were coming fairly fast. This is the last one I sent and all of a sudden he has stoppped responding.....wonder why?.
--- Quote ---Thanks again for responding.
I am not trying to be deliberately pedantic but there has already been one member of our community who has been approached by you (or your company) whom you demanded a royalty from for his distribution of MAME branded artwork. There are no shortage of hobbiests who charge for their skills and services in providing artwork and hardware to other hobbiests. This would seem to run contrary to your wish to simply put vendors who 'advertise machines with thousands of roms' out of business.
You have to understand that there are thousands of us dedicated to this hobby and regardless of your stated ambition the fact remains that once in control of the MAME name and logo you could then decide to claim royalties or shut down anyone using the software and or logo for any reason. Indeed judging by the actions demonstrated so far this would seem to be your intention.
I would be far more inclined to actively seek dialogue with the various people involved with the continued development and distribution of MAME and work in partnership with them and if necessary actively assist them in obtaining the relevant trademark.
Trying to trademark someone elses work particularly when this is something they have provided freely simply to promote your own business is not going to be a winning strategy even if your intentions are honest.
Regards,
CJ
--- End quote ---
A little disturbing that there still appears to have been no official response from any of the MAME team or vendors (mamemarquees, ultimarc etc) with an interest in maintaining the status quo. Hopefully things will start moving soon as regardless of how much we might speculate it requires the people he is attacking directly to help support any kind of credible defence.
mdekkers:
--- Quote from: DarkKobold on February 21, 2005, 02:14:58 pm ---
--- Quote ---There is a correct way to bring such things to the attention of the Trademark Office, and this is not it.
The constructive next step is to monitor the status of the application, and when it gets "published for opposition" then file an opposition [uspto.gov].
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmep/1500.htm#_Toc536249467
One convenient way to monitor the status of a pending US trademark application is by means of free software called Feathers [patents.com].
http://www.patents.com/feathers/
--- End quote ---
Thats from slashdot. Nicola needs to get his <auto-censored> together. BTW, to recap:
--- End quote ---
DarkKobold, the /. poster was actually a bit misleading with that post (he is a laywer, after all) in that the process he outlines is what you would do when you discover that somebody is stealing *your* trademark - This situation is different, in that we are general members of the public, and as such can act as material witnesses to the fact that this guy is breaking the law. What you do when you email the examiner or the trademark office is making them aware of the facts of the case *before* the trademark is awarded, instead of trying to undo the damage *after* the trademark is awarded. Even if the USPTO were, in a fit of insanity, to award the marque to this guy, the fact that these mails have been sent will make the subsequent case easier, since you can point out that it should never have been awarded in the first place - this is way easier then arguing that the marque does not belong to the guy. Former case is simply a procedural matter, whilst the latter case is much more involved, requires testimonies, witnesses, etc.
Popcorrin:
I think Mr. Foley realizes he won't be able to trademark the mame logo.
GGKoul:
Great Post...
mame.net message thread
Finally, I'm curious (simply that, no more) about the legal ramifications of this application. A patent applicant must file a "Declaration" that avers to the USPTO that he is the true inventor of the invention. Similar averments are required for copyright regiatrations. I don't know whether a trademark applicant must make the same averment regarding the use of a trademark - specifically, that the application is not claiming business goodwill generated by a completely different company - but if so, your application might run afoul of this. I would also be curious to investigate whether the Sherman antitrust act has any bearing on trademarking MAME in order to exclude lawful competitors from the cabinet market.
(Again, these are not legal opinions - merely areas of interest, and a very quick response based on my understanding of the law.)
- David Stein