Ah, the sweet smell of an "intellectual property" C&D. Apparently our man Sam is a wholly owned subsidiary of an east-coast beer company. Who knew?

It's not a matter of saying, it's a matter of registering the domain names. Two entirely different things.

Were it me, I'd offer the beer company the option to purchase the domain names in question. If they choose to decline, they're essentially admitting that it really isn't any big deal. If they choose to purchase, the owners are then free to contribute the funds derived to Mr. Adams' campaign.

Apparently our man Sam is a wholly owned subsidiary of an east-coast beer company.

That's not right. He's the wholly owned subsidiary of Homer Williams.

Now there's a source for Sam's campaign funding...HE should sue the brewer for trademark infringement.

They ARE the deep pockets in this, aren't they?

They're only concerned about the sale of goods or services, so Sam should be totally in the clea . . . oh, wait, that's what our elected officials do, isn't it?

The beer company brews hops. The City Council is a bunch of hops in the a*s.

Hey Jack --

Since you're the law professor... If I remember right, doesn't the Boston Beer Co. only own the trademark "Sam Adams" within that particular industry or product line, i.e. beer (or maybe beverages)?

If I wanted to start a Sam Adams -brand line of say, skytrams, that wouldn't infringe their copyright, right?

I'm not current on my trademark law. When I studied it 30 years ago, the key to the whole thing was whether someone else's use of your name was likely to cause confusion of their product or service with yours. If it wasn't, they could use it.

In this case, from my armchair, there are serious First Amendment questions being raised. I would hope the radio station owners would fight back, or that the ACLU would take the case. If it matters, it's not clear to me from this who actually owns the domain.

It's not a matter of saying, it's a matter of registering the domain names. Two entirely different things.

From a constitutional standpoint, maybe not.

I think that there are a lot of marketing opportunities in a beer town like Portland for Sam Adams the beer with a Sam Adams as mayor. This looks like an example of a company taking an action in spite of itself.

This sounds like the controversy about about eBay going after the depoebay.com for infringement. Looking up the domain name, it looks like the little town lost on that one.

What a slap in the face to Sam, the commissioner not the beer. I think they need to send everyone in Portland a free six pack as a peace offering. Otherwise, would should declare war against Sam Adams, the beer, not the commissioner, although that might not be a bad idea either.

Don't say "Sam Adams for Mayor"
Because if you do, you are confused.
He was never a genuine leader or qualified to hold any public office.

I read in the PDX Tribune of a one Nick Popenuk running for mayor. He challenged Commissioner Adams at one of Adams' dog and pony transportation fee shows. I don't know much about Popenuk other than he's pretty young. Maybe there's some hope for a real choice in this upcoming Mayoral election?

Sam Adams, the commissioner, ought to bring his own lawsuit against the corporate jerks who are throwing their weight around. They're interfering with his supporters' rights to express their views in favor of his election as mayor. That probably violates some law or other.

Since we all live in "beervana" who cares about the not even close to real beer Sam Adams?

Just register the domain name MayorScamAdams.com and everything will be cool.

"Apparently our man Sam is a wholly owned subsidiary of an east-coast beer company. Who knew?"

Can they own him when he is already bought and paid for by the transit builders and design firms?

Personally it is a better beer than he is a commissioner.

BGTI

It might matter more if the beer represented was any good. (Compared with Oregon Beer it hardly does)