The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, Inc. v. Mary Queen of the Third Millennium, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
If nothing else, the caption of this case is interesting. In 2009, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) agreed with Mary Queen of the Third Millennium that the Foundation for a Christian Civilization’s “habit” could not be registered as a trademark because (1) the habit was not inherently distinctive and (2) the habit had not acquired distinctiveness. On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
According to my source (Wikipedia), the Foundation is an alternate name for the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property — “an organization of Roman Catholic Inspiration” that “opposes liberal and egalitarian ideas, policies, and trends.” The Foundation traditionally funded a Catholic counterrevolution against communism. Mary Queen of the Third Millennium is part of the a Vatical recognized “private association of Christ’s faithful.”
Members of both organizations wear the habit with its identifying markings.
It’s OK to kiss a religious person as long as you don’t get in the habit.
Noise,
I don’t recall ever making that case, nor does it sound like something I would have advocated. Another “Moose”, perhaps (or mouse, etc.)?
If Anon E. Moose is the same poster that previously indicated a desire for the total destruction of the patent system, then his comment above would be a sad, but true statement aligning with that belief.
One can amend the claims in responding to a restriction requirement.
To: Hagbard
Re: 6
Our patent system is in the very best of hands.
You would think they could have settled this out of court… actually, I’m surprised they sued at all. Don’t they want more people wearing that type of clothing and identifying that way?
@6
RTFM
I has a question.
If an office action is sent out in a case, the applicant amends and responds and then a restriction requirement is sent out then is the applicant allowed to make another amendment? Is this second amendment “by right” or “by permission”? If the applicant is allowed to make such an amendment then does he not have to make a discussion of the newly amended claims with respect to the previous office action?
Prof. Crouch;
You should know better than to lend any credance to Wikipedia on matters of religion, politics, or the intersection of the two – dubious at best.
Dear Professor Crouch,
“Regsistration” ?
Yay, these religious slapfights are always entertaining in their utter pointlessness. Mary Queen of the Third Millenium, Inc. definitely has the better of the two names though. For some reason the name suggests body thetans attached to communion wafers to me.
Comments are closed.