Cease and Disist

[P0P]

Trade Mark should and always will be respected (always) but threatening!! letterers in order to gain control of a WORD! ( folks its not even close)INSANITY!!!!!!!!! and FRANKLY! it would be cost effective FOR ME! to pay AIR FAIR!!!!! and fight them myself WE ARE ALREADY FISH IN A BARREL ALL OF US!! when you think you can control a single word in a name ( Haze ) (maze) (ridge) its sick,and adds to the Destruction of this community"s and small bizz ,freedom lets just say, I will die a free man $$$$ means .... too me but i do have a desire to live, fight and not Live, like an ... with cheap money the the fools borrowing money (investment! only to control ) to set president in order to control a common household word's TRADEMARK! Oh well this is what you get for trying. Let the war begin

God gave me a ... for two reasons, one was to use appropriately and I suppose to let some control empty pockets powered money fools TOO kiss BUZZ OFF! Frankly I really wish this was a joke but this is real


Mom@ Pops legal Dept

No certified mail needed you power pukes









not the kind of fun i wish for but life is a journey and i do have an ... smooches!

 

[Miata GT]

Wait...wut?

 

[P0P]

I am a very passionate man with all do respect

 

[thehangdude]

I don't care if you call it tobacco Haze or tobacco Trademark Infringement, it is still the best flavor in the world imho!

 

[thehangdude]

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.

Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

Note that the plantiff must show that the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. So unless there is a vapor vendor that has trademarked these names (before you started using them), you should be safe.

 

[P0P]

I understand but their are (for give me ) Fools that relay on power this is the behavior why scuba dont practice law. ITS called Ethical

Lord

 

[Rickajho]

I don't care if you call it Tobacco Haze or Tobacco Trademark Infringement, it is still the best flavor in the world imho!

Tobacco Trademark Infringement? I would buy that - just because I could! (assclowns be damned...)

 

[P0P]

DO IT!! maybe you could be rich!!!

 

[P0P]

This ....s a joke but It will end bad

 

[P0P]

opportunity just knocked on my door we will be expanding our product line

 

[Scubac00da]

Note that the plantiff must show that the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. So unless there is a vapor vendor that has trademarked these names (before you started using them), you should be safe.

You are correct and we had the names first by 2 years - we would be safe if we took it to court - retainer to take it to court - $50,000 - that is the retainer only!!!! It doesn't matter if you are in the right, which I fully believe we are - it matters if you are bigger than the other guy unfortunately. Haven't heard back from our attorney but not looking good cause we are the small guy.

BTW - it is no one on ECF or anyone even associated with vaping, we love our competitors here on ECF and they are even extremely helpful to newcomers, which they certainly do not have to be, I have seen them take lots of time out to help new vendors.

 

[dre4runner]

This kinda reminds me of how Big Tobacco likes to push it's weight around. There was a vape shop called Newport vapor shop and as soon as Newport cigarettes heard of the name, they sent them a warning to change their name due to the fact that it was infringing on their trademark name and might be mistaken for the cigarettes. Also never mind the fact that the place was in Newport Beach, CA, hence the name Newport which has nothing to do w/ the tobacco product.

 

[P0P]

The 3 big beer Company's kinda did the same with micro brewing company's its on Net flicks ( Beer Wars ) it gives you a point of view of how things work in DC any how we are doing research ( on the subject matter ) with input from folks that do use such, we will change the names of some of our juice but add new product with VERY LITTLE INTENTION! to make a profit!!!! Oh with the hopes that is not a violation OHMY!!

 

[P0P]

Hooka!!!!! Time

 

[P0P]

Wait...wut?

????????????????????????????

 

[P0P]

Wait...wut?

OH how Fun

 

[P0P]

OH WELL ! I'm in love with what i do

GOD BLESS FOLKLS

 

[wvducklady]

Just wanted to say hey snd thanks Pop