Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Really? Are you saying that because you're involved in IP law and know it to be true, or because you threw "Loramin" in to Google and some random webpage came up?
Because if you search the actual USPTO search for "Loramin" you get ... |
My RL career is not relevant to the p99 naming policy, sir.
So far nobody has produced a legal notarized trademark application for "Loramin" but several different websites who compile that information for a living all give the same very specific information: Loramin--colgate palmolive corporation-1974. There are also dates of filing and a NYC-based address associated with this info. Anyone properly motivated could get those papers, or you could test this by attempting to sell something branded "Loramin" and you'd find out very quickly whether colgate-palmolive holds this trademark or not.
Your vocal defense in the face of a preponderance of evidence is inspiring but we cant fight reality here.
The only potential defense I see for the name "Loramin" would be to claim that it is two "acceptable" names put together as a compound (such as Lor Amin) but that seems like a stretch after the statements you've made.