<div dir="auto">I got cited in one footnote myself, which is a little exciting. The article seems to raise some good points at first glance, but I'll read it in full soon. Thanks for sharing, Lara.<br clear="all"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">\u2014<br><br>Jeremy<br><br>Jeremy Peter Green Eche<br>Founder and Managing Attorney, JPG Legal<br><br>Office: (917) 268-7054<br><br><a href="http://www.jpglegal.com">www.jpglegal.com</a><br>254 36th St, Suite B541<br>Brooklyn, NY 11232<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 5:05\u202fAM Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<div>
<p>A big smile here. My name appears four times in this document
-- each time in very small print in a footnote. :)</p>
<p>Now to turn to the important things in this article.</p>
<p>The article comes out and says several things that I imagine many
of us have thought from time to time as we interact with ABR and
as we try to serve clients in the US trademark registration
system. The article introduces the reader to the notion of
"nonsense marks" -- marks that quite literally have no content or
meaning in any ordinary sense, and that in many instances cannot
be pronounced. The article points out that such a "mark" when
introduced into the US trademark application system, will in some
sense automatically be distinctive -- by definition it will not
have been even remotely similar to any word in any language, thus
poses very little risk of being deemed (by the USPTO trademark
examining attorney) of being generic or descriptive. And poses
very little risk of being deemed (by that examining attorney) of
being confusingly similar to anything that would turn up in the
EA's search of Office records. The article helps the reader to
appreciate that while such a nonsense mark makes absolutely no
sense in the traditional trademark system, the mark is absolutely
ideal for the purposes of securing a position of exclusivity in
the ABR system.</p>
<p>The article talks about the Tunisian trademark system. I will
note that it was I who first made use of the Tunisian trademark
office as a way to secure a trademark registration quickly, so as
to sidestep the poorly crafted Network Solutions domain dispute
policy. I used the Tunisian gambit at least a dozen times to
protect legitimate domain name owners who had done nothing wrong
but who were being unfairly treated by Network Solutions. Later,
others used the Tunisian gambit to try to protect bad-faith
cybersquatters. I wrote <a href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/three-law-review-articles-about-internet-domain-name-disputes/" target="_blank">three
law review articles</a> about these things.</p></div><div>
<div>On 9/2/2025 11:34 PM, Lara Pearson via
E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">\ufeff
<div dir="ltr">\ufeffHappy midweek everybody I hope this finds you
smiling here's an insightful article of the effects of the
ABR on modern day TM law Let's discuss!
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://www.californialawreview.org/print/amazon-trademark" target="_blank">https://www.californialawreview.org/print/amazon-trademark</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>