1) That's not a thing; trademark abandonment under US law requires non-use *anywhere* for a period of three years. Registration of your TM gives you national rights, even if you only sell in a small town.
2) US TM law has NOTHING to do with rights in Israel @AttorneyNitsana
4) They say they intend to remain within pre-67 Israel so unless you're suggesting Judea and Samaria are legally distinct from Israel (which you don't want to do, right @AttorneyNitsana?) then...
not selling in Judea and Samaria is no different, for purposes of revocation, from a company deciding it won't sell in Afula but will sell everywhere else in the country.
Note: @AttorneyNitsana likely knows this, which is why she's talking about "the Israeli registrar of companies" and not the Israeli *Patent* Office, which handles trademark registrations. gov.il/en/departments…
ANYONE can name ANY company anything. I can register a corporation in NY called "Coke&Sprite Soda Corp." and not violate anyone's trademark, as long as I don't use "Coke" or "Sprite" for public-facing business/products. And if I do use that name to the public? I'll get sued ...
But the "Company Registration" will have gone through just fine. Watch @AttorneyNitsana tell her followers that the company getting registered means that Ben & Jerry's actually lost its TM, when all it means is that *Israel's government* won't stop you from naming your co. that
And that makes sense, btw. What if B&J's decided to go back into Judea & Samaria with a new licensee who wanted to form a company with that name? What if it's being formed by someone ambitious enough to think they can do that? At the *corporate formation* level, TM doesn't matter
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We begin with the table of contents. It suggests Wood is arguing two issues: 1) I never authorized Sidney Powell to put my name on this complaint; 2) I didn't violate a court order by sending out a clip of the hearing on Telegram. That second one is, of course, new.
Wait - no. This isn't Wood's supplemental brief on the sanctions motion. The court actually ordered him to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for the video thing, entirely separately. I missed that.
I want to spend some time taking you through what looks like a case with actual merit - a discrimination case against the USDOJ. Full disclosure: the plaintiff is a friend of mine - a former mentee, a deeply good human being, and an excellent lawyer.
In other words, while I don't have personal knowledge of anything alleged here, if Shamiso is saying something happened, I believe it. And after you look at the DOJ's answer, I'm guessing you will too.
Here's the basic story: Shamiso got pregnant and had a child who, for medical reasons, needed to have breast milk. That sometimes meant that when Shamiso travelled for work, so did the baby. Her supervisor did not like any of that, and fired her for it.
There isn't really any context that makes it ok, or better, or whatever. And that's not something that "youth" or "ignorance" explains away; you knew enough to know that Hitler had murdered Jews, tried to exterminate us, and were saying he was right
Being pro-genocide isn't a function of youth, or ignorance. It's a function of a deep moral failing. And that you still seem to think it's somehow excusable is enough evidence, for me, that you still deserve to be fired
I will never not be tired of people who think "he was exercising his right to free speech" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card no matter what the free speech was.
Let's take @pegobry through some examples. Hey, Peg - if Eastman had spoken at a rally and argued that the age of consent should be lowered to 7, because he thinks kids start getting sexy at that age, would you take the same position?
To be clear: Such advocacy would be both abhorrent and *entirely protected by the First Amendment*. Should such a scholar's think tanks and other non-1A-bound associations distance themselves from him, @pegobry?
I personally love that the theory of the case is "Congress passed a law clarifying that website owners would not face liability for speech they hosted by moderating content, one that applies to *whatever content the site owners choose,* b/c they wanted to censor"
Trump: Congress wanted censorship!
Court: Censorship of what?
Trump: Anything, really. They just like censorship.
Court: Right wing ideology?
Trump: Obviously
Court: Left wing ideology?
Trump: That too
Court: Cat videos?
Trump: Of course. More than anything else.
Congress's goal, obviously, was a content free internet.