On 8 Sep 2005 20:17:19 -0700, "Nico" > wrote:

>(responding to Derek's post from 9-8-05 7:41)
>
>Thanks, Derek. If your description is accurate, than I would say Jim's
>complaint is a stretch, to put it mildly. Was Jim selling this "cheat
>sheet?". I'm far from being a legal expert, but if you decide to use a
>term (a very common one at that) in your website, and then someone else
>decides to use that term, wittingly or not, you don't have a case. If
>Jim's site is commercial, then I might see the point. But If it's a
>trademark issue, I'm pretty sure those need to be registered. Plus, Fox
>did indeed loose said case.

Jim doesn't have a site, his only contributions are his posts to this
group. I don't believe the Rosetta moniker is the real issue, it is
just the only quasi-tangible, albeit still irrational, thing he can
hang his hat on to justify his vendetta against me. I offered to
retract it if he would commit to leaving me alone, he ignored the
multiple offers.

Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.