> I'd written,
> >> Again, the question as regards infringement (though not dilution) is
> >> or not the use is likely to confuse consumers as to the source, origin, or
> >> affiliation of ExI. Some uses of "Extropian"--even by huge, for-profit
> >> corporations--may not go that far. Consider, for example, "Not Extropian
> >> Cremation, Inc."
> By way, I suppose, of counterexample, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >[The owner of internic.com] has succeeded in court to force internic.com
> >to put a disclaimer
> >on every one of its pages that Network Associates, internic.net, and the US
> >are not affiliated with internic.com.
> But, of course, those two parties were in exactly the same line of business.
> Consumer confusion really did look likely. The MacDonald's examples to which
> Mike later alluded better prove his point, I think, that aggressive trademark
> holders can push the fuzzy boundaries of consumer confusion a long way. As
> Mike says,
> >It tends to be a matter of who has the most money.
> Mike adds an important but not dispositive element to the analysis:
> >In general though, it is the intent to which the name is used which
> >decides the acceptability of its use. Using
> >a name for a purpose which overlaps that of the original trade name owner is
> >definitely treading on thin ice.
> I'd massage that point to say that intent *can* prove very important but that
> it does not alone resolve the question of infringement. Courts use a mult-
> factor test, only one element of which considers intent. Innocent parties can
> be held liable for duplicating non-distinctive marks. Contrarywise, even
> parties who intentionally duplicate an existing mark can be found to have put
> it to a non-infringing use. (Again, I caution that I am not here addressing
> >Given that ExI is, shall we say, not the most
> >well endowed think tank, someone could probably start a company called
> >Extropian Holistic Nose Pickers, Inc. and not give a fig about what ExI
> >thinks or says about it, since it seems like they probably can't afford
> >to contest it in court.
> In theory, a contigency-fee attorney might take ExI's case. A party suffering
> infringement can recover damages, the defendant's unjust profits, costs of the
> action, and, in extreme cases, treble damages and attorney's fees.
> T.0. Morrow
Hello from the suburbs of beautiful downtown Beaubier, Sask:
I, personally have been a list member for a bit more than 2 years.
I will give you all a very short summary about what our venture is all about. We are a small cap venture with about 1 million $ can. of fixed production assets located in a sparse close knit farming community pretty near to the junction of the north-south Montana/North Dakota state line junction and the international boundary between Canada and the USA.
Our aim is to revitalize a marginalized local agriculture product base into a knowlege based product line of leading edge research based products which we feel will become known world-wide.
Nutraceutical products to combat AIDS, optimize immune function, normalize and resore cardivascular health, provide alternatives to conventional immunization. We have aspirations to commercialize novel functional foods, and medical treatment methods. Our agricultural base utilizes a combination of crop production areas to harvest permaculture crop products and selected tree materials. The system also creates wildlife habitat and allows commercial ecotourism and conventional game hunting. We also incorporate mycological products into our product line. We are still several months from having a product to market but the science is good and our ambition level is high. If the list members are show interest we'll provide a more detailed overview.
Chief Knowledge officer
Extroian Agroforestry Ventures Ltd.