3 ms·
That's a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. Some very simple searching lands you at this page, which has some helpful information about trademarks, ho
by JoBrad 10y ago
That's a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution.
Some very simple searching lands you at this page, which has some helpful information about trademarks, how to pick one, and how to enforce it. Properly enforced, trademarks are a source of financial stability for entrepreneurs, and it is entirely in the realm of the US government to regulate them. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/basic-facts-about-trademarks-videos http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-ba...
- jsprogrammer 10y agoUnfortunately my current network appears to block that site. Perhaps you could paste a quote from that page that is relevant to this discussion? The argument here is that this use is non-commercial (we are also apparently arguing about a non-respondent trademark), so the financial stability of entrepreneurs is irrelevant.
- thomasfoster96 10y agoIntellectual property is still intellectual property, even if a non-profit is using it. Your argument would allow any nonprofit to use the trademarks of any business in the United States, which is clearly neither good for entrepreneurs nor legal.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoNonprofits are typically engaged in commercial activity.