In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin.
The religious right is motivated by the suspicion that someone, somewhere,
is having fun -- and that this must be stopped.
Everybody knows that. Everybody, that is, except, apparently, She Who Must Not Be Named whose trademark application was bounced by the trademark office because it wasn't signed. Who apparently believes that signatures are for the little people, not for Republicans. Either that, or she signed with an X and the trademark examiner simply didn't notice it ;).
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.
WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Perhaps she marked it with her scent.
ReplyDeleteEw.
No, the simple answer is
ReplyDelete1) asking for her signature is unconstitutional
2) making her sign ANYTHING smaks of socialism
3) her 8 years of undergrad experience taugher her .......
IOKIYAAR
Look, the name in that signature is TRADEMARKED! Therefore, if McHuntress (it sounds better if you say the word aloud) signed it, she'd have to bill the Patent Office, and that might anger them so they wouldn't approve the application. Or something convoluted like that.
ReplyDeleteWhat, is she planning to sue those who use her name without her consent? Meaning, Faux News will be the only one who can cover her shenanigans without threat of retribution? ...Like anybody but them really gives a damn about Ms. Trying-to-claim-stupidity-is-a-virtue anyway....
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that she's going after the fetish toys that have her name on them (ewww! The right wingers who buy those things are *sick*!). Thing is, an individual already has an implied trademark on his/her name and image, and use of it for commercial (as vs. informational) purposes without the subject's permission is already actionable, see, e.g., Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996). Kareem didn't need to trademark his name to sue GM for using it in one of their ads. It's inherent.
ReplyDeleteNow, she may wish to trademark her name as part of a business name, e.g, like Arthur E. Andersen trademarked the name "Arthur Andersen" for his accounting business. But if so, her trademark application certainly made no mention of it...
- Badtux the Baffled Penguin