November 23rd, 2009

campaign for liberty

"Moderate" Democrat is a Misnomer

Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? Democrats believe in all of them. Democrats also believe in Utopia. But for the rest of us, none of them exist anywhere, except in the imaginations of children, fools and Marxists.

The outcome of Saturday's vote to proceed with debate on the Marxist Health Care Act was predictable. The only question was how much "pork" the "moderate" Democrats could get to buy their votes.

Moderate Democrats are role players in a drama. Per the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) , "The designated role for the 'moderates' is to protest and posture enough to claim to have 'improved' the bill before they inevitably acquiesce in it becoming law".

In other words, "moderates" resistance is BS. You see, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Democrat, except in the imagination of the liberal media.

Mary Landrieu who claims to have "grave concerns" about the cost of the bill, was granted a political gratuity (pork) of $300 million dollars. In her floor speech, she actually told reporters that she could not be bought for a mere $100 million. "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it."

WSJ editorial response to "moderate" Democrat Senator Landrieu of Louisiana says it best, "Note that Senator Landrieu's price included no substantive change in the $25 billion in Medicaid burdens that this legislation will impose on other states, or any reduction in its huge new tax burden on Louisiana small businesses, or any change in the rationing commission it will establish for Medicare. Mrs. Landrieu was voting to enable all of those provisions to take one more giant step toward enactment."

Voters can expect more BS from these so called "moderates" as the debate takes place on the Senate Floor. Don't be tricked by this "play-acting". This bill is fatally flawed and the only way to improve it, is to defeat it. I don't believe in Santa Claus or Moderate Democrats. The only hope for defeating this bill lies with Independent Joseph Lieberman. And by the way, the odds of Senator Lieberman doing the right thing are not very high.

Bonzer Wolf™ Trademark

Bonzer Wolf™ has established the existence of a common-law trademark right based on his public persona. BONZERWOLF™, bonzerwolf™, BonzerWolf™ & BONZERWOLF™ trademarks were established at the same tiime.

Readers can still take my name in vain, call me out and say whatever they want about Bonzer Wolf™ intellectual property. In spite of the ObamaNation, the Constitution is the law of the land in the United States of America and still applies to Bonzer Wolf™.

You can use a trademark for editorial or informational purposes without infringing. Such uses do not require permission because they inform, educate, or express opinions protected under the First Amendment. The laws protecting personalities' names only go so far. But you will likely run into problems if you sell goods or services using the trademark personality's name, or if you imply the endorsement of the celebrity for any goods or services.

When a person's name functions as a trademark, it's in relation to a product or service -- in this case the Bonzer Wolf™ live journal or "blog". You can only use the Bonzer Wolf™ trademark to stop others from competing against you unfairly, not to prevent the listing of your name on court documents, in newspapers or in any type of editorial use.

While celebrity or public personality names are generally not eligible for trademark registration, these individuals do typically have a right of publicity. The right of publicity provides such persons with the ability to control and profit from commercial use of their name. Though similar to a trademark, the right of publicity is not considered sufficient to satisfy the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) trademark element.

However, UDRP panels have created a way for public personalities to navigate around this problem. In these domain cases, panels note that the UDRP accepts claims based on common-law trademark rights. As such, public personalities may establish the existence of a common-law trademark right based on their recognized accomplishments or public persona. Therefore, people who are well known and able to show a current and direct correlation of their name with a brand or servi
ce, do not have a problem trade marking their names.

Even if a person can prove a common-law trademark right in the name, the right does not necessarily prevail at all costs. The second and third UDRP factors require celebrities to show that the domain owner lacked a legitimate use for the domain name and that the registration is in bad faith. A Panel may determine that the domain owner has a legitimate interest in the domain if they share the same personal name as the trademark name or uses the domain for a fan/gripe website.

However, regardless of a domain owner’s legitimate interest, a determination that the domain name was registered in bad faith will sway any decision in favor of the trade mark holder. Source confusion and intent to profit are the bad faith factors most commonly cited in domain name proceedings. With source confusion, panels worry that use of the trademark personal name will confuse internet users into thinking that a website is run, owned, endorsed or sponsored by the celebrity. This concern is more prominent when the name consists solely of a personal name and is not coupled with other terms such as “fans.”

In addition to confusion, any commercial use of a personality domain name will also be weighed against the domain owner. Commercial considerations include offering the domain name for sale or loading the website with sponsored advertisements. In fact, panels have generally held that even if the website is being used as a fan/gripe site, any evidence of commercial gain, i.e. sponsored links, will lead to a finding of bad faith.

©2009 Bonzer Wolf™