[Bigtoe]

They sent me the letter by email which to me makes it a non existent communication. Huff and puff and blow your house down.

[OCTeam]

Originally Posted by Bigtoe

They sent me the letter by email which to me makes it a non existent communication.

Mine came Certified Mail, signature required. I have no control over Jay putting my link on the site. I don't use the trademark. Hope you win, Jay. We use the word relo almost every day and it has nothing to do with that company. Wow, amazing how some people want to ruin others success after years of friendship.

[Darla]

RELO® is a proprietary company name which has been trademarked for over 30 years.

http://www.leadingre.com/PageEngine....&subCatID=1011

Infringing on a trademark. Period.

[Jay Griffin]

Originally Posted by Darla

RELO® is a proprietary company name which has been trademarked for over 30 years.

http://www.leadingre.com/PageEngine....&subCatID=1011

Infringing on a trademark. Period.

Darla,

Just because something has been trademarked does not make it that way forever. For example, here are some names that were once trademarked but have lost that status:

zipper
aspirin
escalator
heroin
yo-yo
kitty litter
lanolin
dry ice
pilates
Webster's Dictionary

and the list goes on.

[Ryan Ward]

We use the word relo almost every day and it has nothing to do with that company.

That's my point. It may have had some significance in years past, but, I've never heard of them. I've heard the term used in a general sense as long as I can remember.

Anyone want to go in with me and trademark "real estate" (Just a joke to emphasize the absurdity of relo being unique enough to keep for oneself).

[Ryan Ward]

Darla,

That may or may not matter. It would be subject to interpretation. If you are a lawyer (or even if you play one on tv), can you please explain that a little better?

Just for some background, I purchased the domain atlantarealestateinc.com and spoke with several lawyers about whther or not someone with the company name Atlanta Real Estate Inc, could ask me to cease and desist using it.

Let me tell you what all four of them told me.

"To get a definite answer would cost AT LEAST $50,000" Even then, no one would be willing to say for sure that their answer would be definite.

My point here is simply that it is definitely not that cut and dry. There are numerous factors:

• Did they protect there trademark well enough?
• Has the terms usage changed such that it is readily used in public discourse? or a common term? Define common?
• Does it in fact infringe on a the businesses ability to operate and maintain its identity.....
• And many others

[Darla]

Jay
Interesting spin on the trademark infringement lawsuit brought against your company. It appears you are attempting to bring two issues into one.
You are and have been infringing on a trademark. Period.
Whether Bob “stirred” it up is not at issue. At issue is your company is in a heap of trouble and you are trying to blame someone else for the legal problems you have. For as long as I’ve know you, you have mentioned the “legal” problems you are attempting to resolve.
Maybe the next post you make should be more factual, instead of blaming someone else for the legal nightmare you find yourself in.
The post's you refer to occured way after your legal problems and in fact it's mighty low of you to mention the agent here in as much as he does not post to this forum any more.

[Ryan Ward]

Darla,

While I appreciate and respect your right to post, you have not offered anything whatsoever to back up your argument and it makes your points (you made no points) invalid or deflective of the issue.

Would like to explain why it is in fact that you are so sure that he is infringing? Otherwise your post is nothing more than banter and spitefulness towards Jay.

Make an argument one way or the other. Don't just take shots at him.

[Jay Griffin]

Darla,

First of all it is not a legal nightmare yet because I have not been served nor is Bob behind the problem. He just stirred it up as evidenced by the numerous emails he sent me regarding his converstions with Reliance.

Whether Bob posts on here or not was a decision he made. He asked Morgan to remove his account. Maybe REW will restore it so Bob can chime in if he chooses.

To quote Terry Light in an email he sent to Bob on August 1st of this year:

Bob:

Think clearly about what you are saying, please.
1.. You've known about Jay's alleged trademark ethics issue for years.
2.. You remained in his directory for years.
3.. You say the reason Jay wasn't charging you to be in his directory is because you had private knowledge about Jay's trademark issue.
4.. You didn't raise this ethics issue as a public issue for the entire time you knew about it.
5.. Once you are no longer listed in his directory, you adopt the trademark issue as your personal crusade.
Conclusion: As long as you benefited from the trademark issue by being in Jay's directory, you were willing to compromise your ethics.

[Smuck]

Originally Posted by webmaster

...I am going to have Jay lead off so that you guys can get the straight goods right from Jay.

Thanks for asking me to set up this thread Jay, we appreciate your support on this issue.

Jay,

You requested Morgan open this topic up for discussion. In a sentence or two, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Curious