Tradename or Copyright?

[dochand]

The notice, I notice, makes a statement regarding the UCC-1 filing.

Is this really necessary?

Can one publish this notice without having filed a UCC-1 by leaving that part out of the notice?

If so, will that change any of the effects of the trademark?

Thanks,

Doc

A UCC filing is absolutely unnecessary with respect to publishing a trademark notice.


R1

[dochand]

Thanks R1!

Doc

[Jerseee]

However, I would file it with my UCC1 to further give public notice of my contract and intentions.

Thanks for the insight R1.

Jerseee:


Honestly, my humble opinion with regard to filing the trademark notice along with your UCC filing; the concept or practice&is no bueno.& The reason being is that a Financing Statement is to reference only the plegde of collateral&from the Debtor to the Secured Party.& I do understand the intention, however it will not help you achieve anything further with respect to your perfected security interest.& If it were me, I would spend more time nailing down other methods of perfecting public notice or evidencing that there is a All Caps name that functions in commerce, and you are the authorized rep for that name but not the surety or accomodation party for that particular name.


R1


&

[Jerseee]

R1,


Good point.& My DBA should take care of that matter.& There is a clear distinction between my commercial person and me.


thoughts...

[Jerseee]

Maybe this will help:


<SPAN class=backtrail>TITLE 28 &gt; PART IV &gt; CHAPTER 85 &gt; Sec. 1338. </SPAN><SPAN class=backtrail>
<DIV class=statute>
<P class=dataText>
<DIV class=divDataText></DIV>
<DIV class=divDataText>
<P class=labelLeader-nohead-1><A name=1338.a><SPAN class=label-1>(a) </SPAN></A>
<P class=labeltext-1>The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases. </DIV>
<DIV class=divDataText>
<P class=labelLeader-nohead-1><A name=1338.b><SPAN class=label-1>(b) </SPAN></A>
<P class=labeltext-1>The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or trademark laws. </DIV>
<DIV class=divDataText>
<P class=labelLeader-nohead-1><A name=1338.c><SPAN class=label-1>(c) </SPAN></A>
<P class=labeltext-1>Subsections (a) and (b) apply to exclusive rights in mask works under chapter 9 of title 17, and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17, to the same extent as such subsections apply to copyrights</DIV>


</DIV></SPAN>

[Jerseee]

Even more info:


&


<SPAN class=backtrail>TITLE 28 &gt; PART VI &gt; CHAPTER 151 </SPAN>
<H1 class=tocheader>CHAPTER 151 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS </H1>

Greetings,


I am sticking with the original CN. The text of the document discloses that it is a tradename/trademark. If THEY don't like it, prove it! The confusion comes from&non-enforcement/fear of enforcement, not from the notice being BOGUS. Even if it is BOGUS?BOOTLEG, it has worked for me sometimes....


Just&my thoughts.&

[Jerseee]

Seeklight,

Good stand. basically, that is what it is all about. I agree with the tradename/trademark reasoning because that is what my dba says.

"Tradename"

If they are going to use this terminology, I just want to be conisistent so there is no controversy.