big riddle

[radios]

section 43(a) of the Lanham Act prohibits activity such as advertising one's self as maestro when one is in fact not a maestro.

just running through the class of potential plaintiffs: any coach who has or potentially may lose income due to this fraud, anyone who is in fact a maestro...

or let me guess, Mr. Riddle, the U.S. Congress was acting in some unpatriotic way when it enacted the Lanham Act?

Aside from a list of people already interested in pursuing damages caused by the actions of Mr. Riddle, if anyone else is interested, let me know.

radios, Esq.

[Purple Fencer]

Why don't you guys just drop it, huh? It's getting far too immature and spiteful.

Frankly, I don't give a flyin' rat's *** what someone advertises themselves as if they can teach well and get results (subject ot the "material" on hand).

This is fencing -- not the life and death of someone purporting to be a medical doctor.

Take it off line and get a life.

Sheesh!

[135711]

just in case someone really has a radio in their head, i'm taking this one off,

vty,
md,phd

[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: 135711 ]</p>

[MikeHarm]

This should be interesting.

[Pa55w0rd]

i would like to declare myself a maestro.


(a maestro of beer drinking that is.)

chill out guys

[swordsen]

Maestro in spanish means teacher. If you teach you can call yourself a teacher hence you can call yourself a maestro.
get over it.

[latenight]

What is it with the feud up there anyway? I personally could give a crap if someone calls themselves "Maestro". If you don't like it, beat their students on the strip and prove your point. Just don't set us up to be subjected to another paragraphless essay on capitalisma and the US constitution. M'kay?





[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: latenight ]

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: latenight ]</p>

[radios]

My previous post was primarily meant to be informative. The issue here is not the calling of one's self "maestro", the issue is the calling one's self "maestro" (in the present context of fencing) within the stream of commerce when one is in fact not qualified to do so.

[Philistine]

[quote]Originally posted by radios:
<strong>My previous post was primarily meant to be informative. The issue here is not the calling of one's self "maestro", the issue is the calling one's self "maestro" (in the present context of fencing) within the stream of commerce when one is in fact not qualified to do so.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry, but the proposition that calling oneself "maestro" would be a violation of the Lanham act is patently absurd.

The relevant part of the Lanham Act that I imagine you are talking about is:

[quote]
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services ... uses in commerce any word, term, name ... which--

(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html" target="_blank">15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A)</a>

What affiliation, sponsorship or approval is being "pretended to" here.

In the U.S., the three levels of accreditation are: Moniteur, Prevost d'Armes, and Fencing Master.

<a href="http://www.usfca.org/usfca/" target="_blank">USFCA Page</a>

Your protestations that your first post was only meant to be "informative" seems belied by your statement:

[quote]Aside from a list of people already interested in pursuing damages caused by the actions of Mr. Riddle, if anyone else is interested, let me know.<hr></blockquote>

Seems closer to barratry to me...

Whether or not you think the self-appointed term "maestro" is silly or bad, it's hardly a violation of the Lanham Act.

--Philistine

[radios]

The Lanham Act was enacted to prevent consumer confusion in regards to goods and services.

Fencing instruction, when done for any sort of compensation, is a service.

As an illustrative example, when I began fencing, my coach was a maestro. I asked him how one becomes a maestro and he informed me of the procedure and certification necessary to obtain this title (fencing master/maestro). Certainly, had I subsequently sought out a maestro and then found someone holding themself out as a maestro, I could have paid for the services of such a person. I would have been confused.

I have asked several fencers, coaches and maestros what it requires to become a maestro, and they have given similar responses i.e. certification from one of a small number of qualified organization. I spoke with one individual who was surprised to find out that Mr. Riddle did not have such certification. He was clearly confused as to the association or approval of at least one of those qualified organizations.

It is clear that one holding himself out as maestro is confusing to those seeking the services of a maestro ("maestro" as it is commonly used). (Incidentally, survey evidence is admissible in court for cases of consumer confusion).


And Philistine, my intent to inform was twofold. First to inform of a potential cause of action, second to notify Mr. Riddle of a future suit for injunctive relief I've discussed with some of my collegues.

[thebigriddle]

Well, you are not the only one who has studied law. I am very familiar with UCC. I instruct all of my students that I am not certified. Besides, if you do this, this could be very mess for everyone and for the sport. I would hate to see what effect this might have in view of the world at large. I tell my students that I am close to being a fencing master without being certified. Now of course if my students want to sue me that is fine. But this is fivilous. Which of course you know that it would be a frivilous lawsuit. Also I would be protected under the 1st amendment. If my freedom of speech was violated then I would file a title 83 Lawsuit. So before either party gets injuried any further I recommend dropping it.

[thebigriddle]

And also fivilous law suits are felonies. And would press charges. Like I said I do belong to the USFCA. I guess I really don't have a choose though in what someone might do, nor what I might do legal in return. So lets quit arguing.

[thebigriddle]

You are right and I am wrong, feel better.

[radios]

In regards to the frivolity of a potential case, evidence of specific harm is not required for injunctive relief. Mere potential for harm is sufficient for standing.

In regards to the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has often stated that false or misleading commercial speech is not Constitutionally insulated from appropriate regulation.

[Philistine]

And we wonder why the general public thinks so little of lawyers...


[quote]Originally posted by radios:
{snip}
As an illustrative example, when I began fencing, my coach was a maestro. I asked him how one becomes a maestro and he informed me of the procedure and certification necessary to obtain this title (fencing master/maestro).

{snip}

I have asked several fencers, coaches and maestros what it requires to become a maestro, and they have given similar responses i.e. certification from one of a small number of qualified organization. I spoke with one individual who was surprised to find out that Mr. Riddle did not have such certification. He was clearly confused as to the association or approval of at least one of those qualified organizations.
<hr></blockquote>

Here is where I am confused. What qualified organizations give out a certification of "maestro" (as opposed to, say, "fencing master")?

Remember, the Lanham Act requires the confusion relate to approval or sponsorship of the services "by another person.". Whose sponsorship (in specific) are you saying is being usurped?

[quote]
It is clear that one holding himself out as maestro is confusing to those seeking the services of a maestro ("maestro" as it is commonly used). (Incidentally, survey evidence is admissible in court for cases of consumer confusion).
<hr></blockquote>

Again, what does "maestro" mean as it is "commonly used"? I've seen it used any number of times to respectfully refer to any fencing teacher--usually by those who are inexperienced.

The only people who are even likely to know of any hypertechnical definition of "maestro" are unlikely to be confused by someone taking the appellation on himself.

--Philistine

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Philistine ]</p>

[radios]

(I realize it requires more than standing for a lawsuit to be nonfrivolous, I should have pointed out that I am a fencer and aspiring coach and that there is potential for direct harm to me from the aformentioned actions in issue.)

[latenight]

Ladies and gentleman , welcome to this weeks addition of Smackdown (tm)!



vs




in a steel cage match.


Let's get ready to RUUUUUMBLE!!!!!!!


(a serious aside. This is not the right place to be making threats, idle or otherwise. Obviously you all have some issues with each other. Pick up the phone and work it out)

[radios]

Philistine, perhaps you are right and the people I've interviewed are in the minority, though I'm not entirely sure that is true. However, confusion by even a small number of consumers is sufficient grounds for suit regardless of how hypertechnical the wording resulting in the confusion is perceived.

In other words, you can't wisk away the whole of consumer protection law because you feel those seeking such services are educated enough to tell a phony from the real thing. For example, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 13L. Ed. 2d 904, 85 S. Ct. 1035 (1965), which held that misrepresentations of any fact which may materially induce a purchaser's decision to buy is a deception prohibited by FTC Act sect. 5, regardless of the irrationality of the purchaser's decision.

[Philistine]

[quote]Originally posted by radios:
<strong>Philistine, perhaps you are right and the people I've interviewed are in the minority, though I'm not entirely sure that is true. However, confusion by even a small number of consumers is sufficient grounds for suit regardless of how hypertechnical the wording resulting in the confusion is perceived.

In other words, you can't wisk away the whole of consumer protection law because you feel those seeking such services are educated enough to tell a phony from the real thing. For example, FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 13L. Ed. 2d 904, 85 S. Ct. 1035 (1965), which held that misrepresentations of any fact which may materially induce a purchaser's decision to buy is a deception prohibited by FTC Act sect. 5, regardless of the irrationality of the purchaser's decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point was more that you were putting the rabbit into the hat. The main question I have, and, I presume, the one that would be raised on any motion to dismiss, is:

What body gives out the title of "maestro?"


--Philistine

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Philistine ]</p>

[madousa]

Wow, Mr. Radio I am thinking you have too much time on your hands. Did you ever stop to think about the bigger picture, in which others on the board have tried to illuminate for you. It would be best to drop the subject and move on in life before this gets to big for you to handle. Think smart, not hard.
This is silly, other instructors and coaches of the fencing sport have not been affected by Riddle, so why would you? I think you need a hormone pill so you can grow up and chill out.
Down boy!

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: madousa ]</p>