New PCGS contract

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Simple solution, change "its" to "the".

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in the holder"

 

 

No, no, no...that is still misleading and not clear, and if the Ad was changed to correct the meaning, by using "the" after the fact, Mr. A would look like an azz trying to run a con. I would jump all over it as avoidance.

 

Clarity is as clarity does.

[Afterword]

"He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question."

 

 

 

 

 

I sense (not to be confused with "since") a little hostility on your part, so I withdraw the question.

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question."

 

 

 

 

 

I sense (not to be confused with "since") a little hostility on your part, so I withdraw the question.

 

 

 

 

That would not be a 6th sense, and would be wrong.

The way to Mr. F's heart is clarity of question.

The very last attitude I would think Mr. F would display is hostility about a precise question. A question that is not precise tends to confuse him.

Remember, he is the architect of the hypothetical conundrum. He knows one when he sees one.

It is like, well, a 6th sense.....

[MarkFeld]

"He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question."

 

 

 

 

 

I sense (not to be confused with "since") a little hostility on your part, so I withdraw the question.

 

 

 

 

None, whatsoever. As I stated previously, I don't understand your question. If I did, I would be happy to try to answer it.

 

Please re-read what each of us wrote, put yourself in my position (without my having the benefit of knowing what you were thinking) and tell me how you would answer the question you posed.

 

Below is the exchange in question.

 

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

[MarkFeld]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

 

John, I can't decide whether I agree with you. Can't the phrase below reasonably be construed to mean "Look for the CAC sticker - you'll find a quality coin in the CAC sticker's holder"?

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder"

 

 

Not when it is "its".

 

I am sure you can see the cause of action.

 

CAC can very easily rectify this. Of course it is an unintended mistake. But (blah blah) that is exactly the kind of mistake that gets attorneys spouting off the wrong baloney citations, for the wrong reasons, and collectors that are for or against posing silly hypothetical titillating nonsense.

 

There is no man as honorable as one that corrects his own spelling mistake, rather than take advantage of it.

 

Make it clear- it is not in a CAC (its) holder. It is in another entity holder.

 

 

Thank you, John.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

 

John, I can't decide whether I agree with you. Can't the phrase below reasonably be construed to mean "Look for the CAC sticker - you'll find a quality coin in the CAC sticker's holder"?

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder"

 

 

Not when it is "its".

 

I am sure you can see the cause of action.

 

CAC can very easily rectify this. Of course it is an unintended mistake. But (blah blah) that is exactly the kind of mistake that gets attorneys spouting off the wrong baloney citations, for the wrong reasons, and collectors that are for or against posing silly hypothetical titillating nonsense.

 

There is no man as honorable as one that corrects his own spelling mistake, rather than take advantage of it.

 

Make it clear- it is not in a CAC (its) holder. It is in another entity holder.

 

 

Thank you, John.

 

It is always my pleasure.

Did I win, did I win??? Oh, the joy.....

[MarkFeld]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

 

John, I can't decide whether I agree with you. Can't the phrase below reasonably be construed to mean "Look for the CAC sticker - you'll find a quality coin in the CAC sticker's holder"?

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder"

 

 

Not when it is "its".

 

I am sure you can see the cause of action.

 

CAC can very easily rectify this. Of course it is an unintended mistake. But (blah blah) that is exactly the kind of mistake that gets attorneys spouting off the wrong baloney citations, for the wrong reasons, and collectors that are for or against posing silly hypothetical titillating nonsense.

 

There is no man as honorable as one that corrects his own spelling mistake, rather than take advantage of it.

 

Make it clear- it is not in a CAC (its) holder. It is in another entity holder.

 

 

Thank you, John.

 

It is always my pleasure.

Did I win, did I win??? Oh, the joy.....

 

Maybe....

[Kurtdog]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

I want to know more about the use of the word "its", and the possessive intent of the word 'its".

Gosh I'm slow. Two pages later I finally catch on to what you meant by this. Good point on that awkward possessive use in that ad you brought in here, Sherlock.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

I want to know more about the use of the word "its", and the possessive intent of the word 'its".

Gosh I'm slow. Two pages later I finally catch on to what you meant by this. Good point on that awkward possessive use in that ad you brought in here, Sherlock.

 

Thank you.

[Afterword]

"None, whatsoever. As I stated previously, I don't understand your question. If I did, I would be happy to try to answer it."

 

 

 

We will just have to tolerate one another. I think the message boards are big enough for the both of us. If anyone else has a problem with my questions, the same applies.

 

I will ignore any attempts to lure me back into your flaming session.

[MarkFeld]

"None, whatsoever. As I stated previously, I don't understand your question. If I did, I would be happy to try to answer it."

 

 

 

We will just have to tolerate one another. I think the message boards are big enough for the both of us. If anyone else has a problem with my questions, the same applies.

 

I will ignore any attempts to lure me back into your flaming session.

 

I had no problem with your question - I simply didn't understand it. And I am baffled by your "flaming session" remark. If you later change your mind, I would still be happy to try to answer your question.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"....but occasionally buy non-CAC examples."

 

 

 

 

 

And slap CAC stickers on them, no doubt.

 

Thanks.

 

Mr. Afterword, Good Morning.

 

Is it possible that the above commentary you posted, in reply to Mr. F (and your reply selected just certain words that Mr. F posted), was slightly discourteous, and unnecessary? You received a very mannerly reply form Mr. F, and you chose to be somewhat confrontational and disparaging.

 

When he replied to you, letting you know that your use of the words "no doubt" was absolutely wrong, you choose to take offense, and now describe his Posts as flaming.

 

Your words were accusatory and meant to be titillating, toward CAC and Mr. F, as if he was somehow replying to you with a hidden agenda and responding to you under false colors.

 

Mr. F is not CAC, does not speak for CAC, and has no reason to flame you. You posted a falsity. You received a hard reply. You didn't like the reply. So be it.

 

Words mean something. Might you consider you were slightly passionate and interpreted replies incorrectly?

[Kurtdog]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

I want to know more about the use of the word "its", and the possessive intent of the word 'its".

Gosh I'm slow. Two pages later I finally catch on to what you meant by this. Good point on that awkward possessive use in that ad you brought in here, Sherlock.

Thank you.

Although, don't get me wrong, I do think that was nice of CAC to let PCGS go down on its holder, as well.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

I want to know more about the use of the word "its", and the possessive intent of the word 'its".

Gosh I'm slow. Two pages later I finally catch on to what you meant by this. Good point on that awkward possessive use in that ad you brought in here, Sherlock.

Thank you.

Although, don't get me wrong, I do think that was nice of CAC to let PCGS go down on its holder, as well.