The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Indeed. He's an unhinged moron and a waste of good oxygen!it was a long time coming
Last edited:
Why is @RickyDiBiase bushed?!
- Thread starter ViShawn
- Start date
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
You just didn't like him rightfully calling you out on your bullshyt.
get these nets
Veteran
Clown moderators. Likely upset that he brought up their support of Trump, as he dismantles Civil Rights legislative gains every-single-day.
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Nah, his hallucinations are bullshyt. He needs help.
Plankton
All Star
No one said anything about trademarking a lineage silly whiteboy.
I'm pointing out how you yourself posted evidence that helped my argument in post #63.
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."
Which basically confirms that the argument of "fair use" can only be used if the term "Foundational Black Americans" has "secondary meaning" but the only "secondary meaning" would be "lineage" because that's the term that everyone already knows it as. Meanwhile Tariq has trademarks on every variation in product form for the term "Foundational Black American." So he has all angles covered. Anyone else attempting to use the term "Foundational Black American" in any variation form would be dealt with by Tariq. And they can't use "secondary meaning" because, again that is a term for "lineage" familiarized by Tariq
My dude....I'm pointing out how smart Tariq is for covering all angles like that. That's some different shyt. You came in here putting the cape on trying to save ol boy when he himself admitted that everything he said was theoretic because Tariq has done something new and different. The laws aren't even caught up yet to what Tariq did. Ol boy admitted that he was just theorizing and you put the cape on trying to save him by posting that Lanham Act but all you did was help my argument. You were more focused on the fact that you just don't like me that you thought you were doing something to help ol boy but instead you helped me. Thank you.
O really
No one said anything about trademarking a lineage silly whiteboy.
I'm pointing out how you yourself posted evidence that helped my argument in post #63.
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."
Which basically confirms that the argument of "fair use" can only be used if the term "Foundational Black Americans" has "secondary meaning" but the only "secondary meaning" would be "lineage" because that's the term that everyone already knows it as. Meanwhile Tariq has trademarks on every variation in product form for the term "Foundational Black American." So he has all angles covered. Anyone else attempting to use the term "Foundational Black American" in any variation form would be dealt with by Tariq. And they can't use "secondary meaning" because, again that is a term for "lineage" familiarized by Tariq
My dude....I'm pointing out how smart Tariq is for covering all angles like that. That's some different shyt. You came in here putting the cape on trying to save ol boy when he himself admitted that everything he said was theoretic because Tariq has done something new and different. The laws aren't even caught up yet to what Tariq did. Ol boy admitted that he was just theorizing and you put the cape on trying to save him by posting that Lanham Act but all you did was help my argument. You were more focused on the fact that you just don't like me that you thought you were doing something to help ol boy but instead you helped me. Thank you.
You don't get it. Reread my initial post you quoted... But, this time read it slowly.
One of @BillyOcean alts and his own dad rightfully called him a fakkit. fukk that immigrant c00n and anyone that love him 
Plankton
All Star
Ain't no more need to be said. You posted the Lanham Act which confirmed everything I said in post #63. You're now playing dumb talking about 'read slow' you saying that 'you can't trademark lineage' when I never once said any of that. But it was you who posted that Lanham Act which covers "Secondary Meaning" and I already pointed out that Tariq has a trademark for product variations covered for all angles while the only "Secondary Meaning" for Foundational Black Americans is "lineage", which according to the Lanham act you posted, means that no one can go "but it's fair use" when the "secondary meaning" ( as defined by the court case that you yourself posted as being a "popular term" or "the most familiar term") of "Foundational Black Americans" is "lineage", a definition that Tariq created. Which again, points out how smart Tariq is for covering all angles. I feel like I'm going in circles repeating myself. So either you are playing dumb or you weren't paying attention to what you posted when you posted that Lanham Act. It's one or the other.
Ain't no more need to be said. You posted the Lanham Act which confirmed everything I said in post #63. You're now playing dumb talking about 'read slow' you saying that 'you can't trademark lineage' when I never once said any of that. But it was you who posted that Lanham Act which covers "Secondary Meaning" and I already pointed out that Tariq has a trademark for product variations covered for all angles while the only "Secondary Meaning" for Foundational Black Americans is "lineage", which according to the Lanham act you posted, means that no one can go "but it's fair use" when the "secondary meaning" ( as defined by the court case that you yourself posted as being a "popular term" or "the most familiar term") of "Foundational Black Americans" is a definition that Tariq created. Which again, points out how smart Tariq is for covering all angles. I feel like I'm going in circles repeating myself.
You quoted me, I didn't start this back-and-forth. So, I don't care what you meant, because if I did, I would have started a conversation with you.
But,
when you say:
If it's based on a lineage, the term "Foundational Black Americans" will be considered generic.
The "secondary distinction" means the consuming public must associate that specific trademark with a specific good: "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.
That is the point of a secondary meaning because you cannot sell FBA lineage (or a group of people).
"Foundational Black American" is a descriptive term as it is described as a lineage. It's secondary meaning cannot be it's description as there is no distinction that gives the person attempting to trademark it a unique brand identifier.
And that's the reason why I quoted @UpNext and not you, he was on the right track. Based on how Tariq uses the term, and based on the public seeing it as a lineage and not a good, it will become a generic term, and people will be able to claim "fair use".
That is why I told you to read it again slowly. You don't understand what you're reading and keep responding with just a bunch of nonsense.
Plankton
All Star
Liar.
Oh my God you are such a fukking liar.
You alerted me in this thread unprovoked not once but twice.
Here's my first alert from you
And my second alert from you.
Both alerts related to this thread you fukking liar. Now everyone can see how you will straight up lie for no reason and how your words have zero merit.
Liar. "Generic" according to the Lanhan Act applies to products or services only. Did you think I wasn't going to read all the specifics you posted?
Straight from the same Trademark links I've already posted:
Generic Terms Legally Excluded From Trademark Protection
What are generic terms, which are not protectable as trademarks, and how can an initially valid trademark become generic and unprotectable?
www.justia.com
Everything you just said after is related to that first lie and gets dismissed as complete made up bull all together.
My dude, there is literally no law applicable to trademarking that which would apply to a possible lineage. You said that yourself now you over here lying and saying that "generic" would be applicable to lineage. WTF
But this part here is where you really messed up. You said:
Based on how Tariq uses the term, and based on the public seeing it as a lineage and not a good, it will become a generic term, and people will be able to claim "fair use".
Why do you think I keep bringing up post #63? Because those are the links to every possible variation of "Foundational Black American" based on "goods" Tariq already has a trademark for silly whiteboy. There is nothing anyone can use in terms of goods that Tariq hasn't already covered. Books, electronics, stylizing the way FBA is written...Tariq has every possible way you can trademark any good covered. If anyone tries trademarking any possible goods with the name " FBA" Tariq already has it covered. The fact that you just completely ignored that part confirms that you are not about speaking facts at all. You think that this is a battle to just say anything that negates my words. You first posted the Lanham act which helped my argument but in your last comment all you did was lie but the evidence is right there for everyone to see that you are a liar who will say bullshyt in an attempt to negate my words even when
I am right.
Liar.
Oh my God you are such a fukking liar.
You alerted me in this thread unprovoked not once but twice.
Here's my first alert from you
And my second alert from you.
Both alerts related to this thread you fukking liar. Now everyone can see how you will straight up lie for no reason and how your words have zero merit.
"This back-and-forth" as in this current discussion starting with the post you quoted of mine initially in this thread.
Liar. "Generic" according to the Lanhan Act applies to products or services only. Did you think I wasn't going to read all the specifics you posted?
Straight from the same Trademark links I've already posted:
Generic Terms Legally Excluded From Trademark Protection
What are generic terms, which are not protectable as trademarks, and how can an initially valid trademark become generic and unprotectable?
Everything you just said after is related to that first lie and gets dismissed as complete made up bull all together.
My dude, there is literally no law applicable to trademarking that which would apply to a possible lineage. You said that yourself now you over here lying and saying that "generic" would be applicable to lineage. WTF
But this part here is where you really messed up. You said:
Based on how Tariq uses the term, and based on the public seeing it as a lineage and not a good, it will become a generic term, and people will be able to claim "fair use".
Why do you think I keep bringing up post #63? Because those are the links to every possible variation of "Foundational Black American" based on "goods" Tariq already has a trademark for silly whiteboy. There is nothing anyone can use in terms of goods that Tariq hasn't already covered. Books, electronics, stylizing the way FBA is written...Tariq has every possible way you can trademark any good covered. If anyone tries trademarking any possible goods with the name " FBA" Tariq already has it covered. The fact that you just completely ignored that part confirms that you are not about speaking facts at all. You think that this is a battle to just say anything that negates my words. You first posted the Lanham act which helped my argument but in your last comment all you did was lie but the evidence is right there for everyone to see that you are a liar who will say bullshyt in an attempt to negate my words.
You are dumb.
I was @ing UpNext initially talking about the term can be concluded to be generic if the public doesn't see it as a good rather a description of a lineage to which Tariq says it is a lineage.
go @ someone else.
Plankton
All Star
The receipts posted confirmed you as a liar. No more needs to be said.
Just because you have comprehension issues doesn't mean I lied. It just means you have trouble understanding what you've read.