SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : The New Iomega '2000' Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rocky Reid who wrote (1478)7/6/1999 11:10:00 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (2) of 5023
 
Rocky -

I submit that your legal opinion is not based upon a knowledge of the applicable law.

If I am not mistaken, it is illegal to use trademarked names without noting that they are trademarks of the holder. Castlewood hasn't been very careful in that regard.

In my opinion, their whole manner of presenting themselves, on their web site and elsewhere, is bush league.

I am sure that Iomega is well aware of the publicity benefit that Castlewood will derive from this lawsuit. Since Castlewood doesn't have the capacity to produce more drives, however, they won't be able to capitalize on any publicity.

Moreover, it is unlikely that Iomega's claims are completely unfounded. The suit says that Castlewood has infringed upon two Iomega patents, which is more serious than the trademark issue.

The record shows that most of the rulings in the Nomai cases in Europe went against Nomai. Why assume that the current case will go any other way?

- Allen
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News