[Kimmie1913]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
I can understand where you are coming from, but I do not beleive the Supreme Court if it gets that far is going to give them a judgement from a legal stand point! It could get there if is puched up enough.

You do not Trademark Years or Colors. You Trade mark Designs and Names!

I of course could be very wrong, at it does seem like an advertising gimmick! Not my decision to make!

But the only ones who will come out of this with money is the Lawyers who are handling the case!

While some of your National Officers are upset, who will it really cost, is you the members!

I dont think anyone in their right mind would come out with Purple, Green and Gold Shoes with 1909, The Year LXA was Established!

Yes, there is a difference between Men and Womens shoe designs!

Ever wonder why Mens Clothing is different than Womens?

Personally, I think that the more important aspect of the case is the trade dress infringement piece. For those who don't know,

"Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action for unfair competition. This statutory provision prohibits the sale of goods by use of "any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which -- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person. . . ." 15 U.S.C. ? 1125(a) (1988)." Article by Timothy P. Ryan, Copyright News. Trade Dress protection extends beyond copyrighted material and covers unregitered words and marks. I think this gets at the heart of what Converse tried to pull- implying that these items were for NPHC members and hoping that we would beleive they were sanctioned as all NPHC para is supposed to be.