Why is @RickyDiBiase bushed?!

[Born2BKing]

Damn my dawg got bushed???

 

[TEH]

I'm FBA and a Tariq follower.

Love y'all !

Fixed that for you

 

[TripleAgent]

 

[Peter Popoff]

Fixed that for you

I dunno dawg. I follow Tariq but I don't necessarily agree with everything he says 100%.

I just understand. I wouldn't treat it like the NOI did Malcolm because no one agrees with 1 person 100% ever.

I ride more along the lines of Dr. Claude Anderson and Garvey.

 

[Tair]

You're right, everything I said is theoretical. As you mentioned this is brand new ground being broken, we'd have to see it challenged in court to know anything and then we'd have to see it challenged again if the term took off and replaced African American. You think they're about to let Tariq monopolize an ethnic identifier and I don't. We'll see what happens.

You were on the right track.

Lanham Act (read final bolded sentence)

Use in Commerce" Requirement
The Lanham Act defines a trademark as a mark used in commerce, or registered with a bona fide intent to use it in commerce ( 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ). If a mark is not in use in commerce at the time the application for registration is filed, registration may still be permitted if the applicant establishes, in writing, a good faith intent to use the mark in commerce at a future date ( 15 U.S.C. § 1051 ). Under Lanham Act registration procedures, exclusive rights to a trademark are awarded to the first to use it in commerce.

"Distinctive" Requirement
The second requirement, that a mark be distinctive, addresses a trademark's capacity for identifying and distinguishing particular goods as emanating from one producer or source and not another. Trademarks are traditionally divided into four categories of distinctiveness: arbitrary/fanciful, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. See Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke House, Inc. , 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) . If a mark is categorized as either arbitrary/fanciful or suggestive, it is considered to be inherently distinctive and exclusive rights to the mark are determined solely by priority of use. A trademark that is categorized as descriptive is only protectable as a trademark if it has acquired a secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public.

Secondary meaning is also necessary to establish trademark protection for a personal name or a geographic term. Generic terms are never eligible for trademark protection because they refer to a general class of products rather than indicating a unique source. A mark may be generic ab initio and refused registration, or it may become generic over time through use.

Lanham Act

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Kasper KArr]

Someone spill the tea!

Man fukk all that respond to more serious shyt like that diamond engagement thread

 

[Kasper KArr]

To be specific son said " fukk FBA "

And then @CHICAGO was like "BET "

 

[Child_Of_God]

He must of did/said something very terrible because the mods are usually pretty tolerant/less strict on here compared to a lot of other forums I frequent.

 

[ViShawn]

Man fukk all that respond to more serious shyt like that diamond engagement thread

Link??

 

[Kuma the Bear]

Because he's annoying

 

[Wiseborn]

For the people who love the term FBA you know you don't have to constantly make threads about it.

Not one mind has been changed on the issue so its just a circular argument.

Anytime the mods want they could simply ban all suspected tethers and pan Africanist and just turn the board into an expanded glaze fest on the last Tariqism

 

[Rakim Allah]

I'm FBA and a Tariq follower.

Love y'all !

, friend.

 

[Plankton]

You were on the right track.

Lanham Act (read final bolded sentence)

Lanham Act

www.law.cornell.edu

Hey whiteboy. All you did was help my argument.


You posted case: Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke House, Inc. , 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) which speaks on "fair use" for a term with "secondary meaning."

If Tariq is covering trademarks for all possible variations while at the same time the people are led to believe that "Foundational Black Americans" is directly linked to a lineage that Tariq created then anyone who dares use the term in any possible way would have a difficult time arguing fair use if 1) Tariq already has a trademark for all variations of the term FBA as products while at the same time 2) Tariq already got people believing that the term FBA as a secondary term means "lineage."


Tariq already has the "secondary meaning" covered against fair usage. This is why I said in post #63 that Tariq is smart. He covered all angles against "fair use" by having the "secondary meaning" be "lineage" while at the same time trademarking products under FBA. But you just ignored that part and posted this case from the Lanham Act which just confirms what I already said.And you thought you really did something.


Your own evidence confirms this dumbass with the case you posted in Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke House, Inc. , 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)


1) Tariq covers variations of products with numerous trademarks

2) Tariq already created "Secondary Meaning" for FBA meaning a "lineage" because that's what he's been stressing for years. FBA meaning "lineage" is the most popular term so anyone attempting "fair use" by your own evidence would get shut down by Tariq because the "secondary meaning" is the most popular.


At the end of the day, all this confirms is that Tariq is smart as hell for covering all possibilities for anyone else using FBA as a trademark. Thanks for helping my argument dumbass.

 

[Tair]

Hey whiteboy. All you did was help my argument.


You posted case: Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke House, Inc. , 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) which speaks on "fair use" for a term with "secondary meaning."

If Tariq is covering trademarks for all possible variations while at the same time the people are led to believe that "Foundational Black Americans" is directly linked to a lineage that Tariq created then anyone who dares use the term in any possible way would have a difficult time arguing fair use if 1) Tariq already has a trademark for all variations of the term FBA as products while at the same time 2) Tariq already got people believing that the term FBA as a secondary term means "lineage."


Tariq already has the "secondary meaning" covered against fair usage. This is why I said in post #63 that Tariq is smart. He covered all angles against "fair use" by having the "secondary meaning" be "lineage" while at the same time trademarking products under FBA. But you just ignored that part and posted this case from the Lanham Act which just confirms what I already said.And you thought you really did something.


Your own evidence confirms this dumbass with the case you posted in Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke House, Inc. , 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983)


1) Tariq covers variations of products with numerous trademarks

2) Tariq already created "Secondary Meaning" for FBA meaning a "lineage" because that's what he's been stressing for years. FBA meaning "lineage" is the most popular term so anyone attempting "fair use" by your own evidence would get shut down by Tariq because the "secondary meaning" is the most popular.


At the end of the day, all this confirms is that Tariq is smart as hell for covering all possibilities for anyone else using FBA as a trademark. Thanks for helping my argument dumbass.

You cannot trademark a lineage.

 

[Paper Boi]

I don't mind the breh, but he is a little bi polar