[E-trademarks] Discouraging work

[Pamela Chestek]

Thanks for the laugh. Exactly.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com



On 5/9/2024 4:36 PM, Dan Feigelson via E-trademarks wrote:
> Reminds me of this classic movie scene:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCkagYixpuc 
> <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/nPTq71P2OcqmztuW_6qKRHEiQBO77rnkPSDzo8zxoWOCc3zMO3wLFJWnuPDk4MijZJTmpMa1hS2bZu1POr7yaTbsfPnUqbM7vmu6GAcOeQuYqr-mihKILpD7sDz6ZU3dFAgMIpLijUd5BY-TovYZf66R8aAQHF8h6s5UahE8mDQM3JU4fCe9dKD10jeHMG-lBup7-_PdopcNk8fbn83GzgTf00Rs0bygvg6vd7m8BHWNZLufhDWw8n6rTnhh2PNvWl22U8Bd-GS8Jk-3Qw1XPs4jZIyLrKKu3ZeCTUgYBoVlsO7C_v2e>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 11:26 PM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks 
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>     I'm doing a clearance for a potential mark for a client. One
>     registered
>     mark is clearly a sham; Photoshopped specimen, long list of unrelated
>     goods, Shopify store no longer exists, the proof of sale submitted
>     as a
>     specimen shows that the order was created, marked paid, and fulfilled
>     all in the same minute. I don't know why the obvious Photoshop
>     isn't a
>     flag to take a little harder look at the rest of the specimen?
>
>     When I Googled the address for the second, the first hit is a news
>     article about scams run from the address, which is used by at
>     least 21
>     registered agents, the particular one mentioned in the article the
>     agent
>     for over 50,000 companies. How is that address a domicile?
>
>     How is it that our clients get caught trying to use a WeWork
>     address but
>     obvious fraudulent applications like this get registered?
>
>     Pam
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240509/56f358f0/attachment.htm>