<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Tasty Trademark Dispute</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Madison</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-224229</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/#comment-224229</guid>
		<description>The question isn&#039;t whether Eat &#039;n Park has a valid mark.  Clearly, it does.  The question is whether that mark is infringed by use of an image that has been used widely and publicly for roughly four decades.

If the cookie company&#039;s cookies had &quot;noses,&quot; this would be a different case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question isn&#8217;t whether Eat &#8216;n Park has a valid mark.  Clearly, it does.  The question is whether that mark is infringed by use of an image that has been used widely and publicly for roughly four decades.</p>
<p>If the cookie company&#8217;s cookies had &#8220;noses,&#8221; this would be a different case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trademark registration</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-224228</link>
		<dc:creator>trademark registration</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/#comment-224228</guid>
		<description>Just because the image is commonly used by the public does not necessarily mean that a company such as Eat &#039;n  Park cannot claim trademark rights to the image with respect to their cookie products.  Lots of trademarked names are commonly used by the public (think of Apple, for example, a very common word).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just because the image is commonly used by the public does not necessarily mean that a company such as Eat &#8216;n  Park cannot claim trademark rights to the image with respect to their cookie products.  Lots of trademarked names are commonly used by the public (think of Apple, for example, a very common word).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Boyden</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-224227</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Boyden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/11/15/a-tasty-trademark-dispute/#comment-224227</guid>
		<description>The name of the restaurant reminds me of this classic Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32182</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The name of the restaurant reminds me of this classic Onion article:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32182" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32182</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

