So I will guess that is why they are obligated to defend against those who use ufo along with magazine, even though they only have the ufo part trademarked.

Ref - http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=hmf643.4.81

I’ll allow it! LOL! See how _easy_ it is to chill me out? [g].

Don’t post, man.

Cheating, “fair and square” is still cheating, and a pile of shrew hurl smells as sweet by any other name.

Oh, btw, ’sight’ above is ’site’. If you’re gonna kick a guy’s ass it’s more effective when you spell it right. This particular ass is crossing t’s and dotting i’s on.

Making a big deal over this one precludes the next one, eh?

alienview@roadrunner.com
> http://www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog — http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e — http://www.ufomag.com

I did search the trademark database. That’s why I mentioned that “over 20 other entities or companies have also registered the letters ‘UFO’ as well.” The link I provided for readers seems to have been broken. It is fixed now.

As I wrote in my reply to the mellifluous Mr. Lehmberg, I can’t figure why UFO Magazine didn’t trademark their full name. By the logic in their “cease and desist” letter, they could take legal action against all companies using “UFO” in their names.

I believe you’re right about the “trademark” versus “copyright” thing. Thank you.

Nice to see you stopping by again.

It seemed silly to me to bother with Colletta’s site in the first place, but of course the coupling of “UFO” with “magazine” might seem as it was designed to siphon off traffic from the ufomag.com site. Maybe it was, as you suggest.

I still wonder why the lawyer chose to complain about the term “UFO.” That aspect was what confused me in the first place. Perhaps the lawyers and the Birneses are working through the process to get the “UFO Magazine” phrase trademarked and this was the best they could do until then. I don’t see it on the trademark website mentioned in my post.

Do you know anything about that?

Otherwise we wouldn’t see trademarks for UFO Toothpicks and UFO Chassis.

By the way, you can’t copyright a term, you can only trademark it.

Lisa A. Shiel
http://www.BigfootQuest.com

I bought-up the domain names “Earthfiles.net,” “Coast2Coast.org,” and “Rense.us” and I’m running a mash-up of paranormal foo-feraw I procure from others and don’t properly attribute (rather like Victor Martinez) so as to capitalize on the traffic these sites generate and draw the spill-over back to _me_. Pretty slick, huh?

These sights I allude to shouldn’t miss the few thousand hits to their pages in the first place, I’m just a not-for-profit “hobby-site” in the second, and in the third? Well, think of the free publicity I can generate for myself if any of these trespassed entities _do_ squawk! I can play the part of stepped on little guy railroaded by the well-moneyed corporate big shots! You can’t _pay_ for publicity like that. Seems like a short-cut to the big vein of notoriety for me!

What?

Unethical you say? Unprincipled? Immoral? Unscrupulous? Dishonorable? Disreputable? …Wrong?

Well, all this and more happened over the weekend, reader. Bill and Nancy Birnes, owners of the one and only “UFO Magazine” are being stepped on in a similar fashion. Their investment, integrity, and property, as considered by one Mike Coletta (ufogeek.com) are without legitimacy and beneath the remotest respect.

http://ufomagazine.net/

~~~

The first time I saw the URL I thought the Birnes had a new feature and went to the address expecting to see something from them. I suspect that’s the problem, eh, and a problem not all that “beyond belief” as Mr. Coletta whines unconvincingly. The Birnes have no excuse to be nonplussed in the affair? I mean how _dare_ they?

Rather, “beyond belief” is Mr. Colette’s pretended incredulity and sullen intransigence in the matter!

I don’t know the legalities involved, but the history, investment, and justice outraged by Mr. Colette seems ponderous enough to trump whatever some crass pretender, like Mr. Colette, might trot out in a slimy ‘defense’, you know?

Mr. Colette obviously lives in a convenient dream-world where honesty and ethics are drawn only to suit himself. Sincerely, only one as apparently self-deluded as Mr. Colette could persist in seeing a lack of trespass in this matter. As to “watching and learning” as he advices on his Weblog… rofl!

I suspect that even his conjectured victory is likely to be Pyrrhic, in the end. But he should try to have the fun he can, I suppose. I suspect there will be precious little of that as this unwinds to a tedious denouement.

Additionally, Mr. Colette indicates that I am in the tank for Bill and Nancy Birnes, wrongly proclaims I am in their employ and demands to know what my wages are!

As to wages paid to me by William and Nancy Birnes? That’s really none of his business, is it? I can get a wage and still be ethical, unlike Mr. Colette it might be argued.

I point out that the magazine is quite clear every issue and on their web-site; however, that they do not pay their contributors.

I contribute, as it happens, because my contributions were requested by the Birnes, and they have treated me with respect and collegiality since the beginning of our association. I trust this was clear enough for the bystander, and adequate explanation why I am behind them on this matter.

That said, I remind Mr. Colette that, as he would admonish me, I _will_ be “watching and learning”… and commenting on his progress, too.

For now, the Birnes still have to dig into savings occasionally to get a _legitimate_ magazine on press (they are decidedly NOT Microsoft folks), but they’ll be plugging along with great good will and joy, I’m sure, regardless.

This unctuously earnest pretender and trespasser, Mr. Colette, seems so damned mean-spirited, inexplicably playing the naïf and painting the Birnes as “Big Biz” going after the “little guy.” Crap, reader!

He’s in fact, more a seeming intellectual thief and an errant spoiler — no better than a guy who throws a bottle of lye through your brand new plate-glass storefront, a storefront so lovingly painted, as it turns out, by a _volunteer_ effort.

I’m appalled at Mr. Colette, frankly. I suggest all fair-minded persons might be similarly appalled.

Circus indeed.

I wonder if UFO Mystic.org is available…

alienview@roadrunner.com
http://www.AlienView.net
AVG Blog — http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e — http://www.ufomag.com (legitimate)

Another tidbit, I discovered that copyrights are like patents, you are obligated to enforce them or you will lose them. In ufo magazine’s case I am not sure what means because only the ufo part is copyrighted. However, I honestly do not feel they are trying to attack ufo geek. I think they feel that due to the copyright laws, they have no choice.