Subject: RE: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:58:27 -0700

eNetWizard may not be a registered trademark, but it certainly seems as
if it is being used as a common law trademark -- and that's good enough
to get protection.  /Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: Colin Percival
> Cc: Robert Samuel White; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard 
> Content Application
> 
> 
> Colin Percival scripsit:
> 
> >    I may be wrong here, but isn't this covered by trademark, not 
> > copyright,
> > law?
> 
> Only if "eNetWizard" is in fact a trademark, which may not be 
> the case. Even if one is not "in trade", one may wish to 
> avoid confusion between one's own software and someone else's.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
> I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3