<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/union_square_venture_firm_gets_sued/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:28:30 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/02/union-square-venture-firm-gets-sued/#comment-14677223</link><description>&lt;p&gt;To add more confusion: anyone walking through Union Square in NYC might notice the logos on trash cans for "Union Square Partnership" (&lt;a href="http://www.unionsquarenyc.org" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.unionsquarenyc.org"&gt;http://www.unionsquarenyc.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ken Berger</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:28:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/02/union-square-venture-firm-gets-sued/#comment-14677222</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It will be interesting to see how they fare in their lawsuit. For instance, in checking the USPTO trademark files, Union Square Ventures didn't even file to register their trade name until February 5, 2007 and most likely that was in response to preparing for this legal action. The point, is though, until they actually have a federally registered trademark how can they enforce a trademark they don't have? Secondly, even after they receive the trademark, assuming it is not invalidated or they abandon it, this other firm may continue to be allowed to operate since they started before this trademark was applied for and they could be grandfathered. And somehow, that's probably the way it would play out legally I imagine. But it also raises other questions -- if the Union Square Ventures brand is so important and sitting on such large cash piles and cash flows, why put off registering the trademark for a measly $325 fee (last time I checked) or get your attorney to do it for another $500 to $1000 or so in fees? A stitch in time, surely saves nine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- James&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word Mark  UNION SQUARE VENTURES &lt;br&gt;Goods and Services IC 036. US 100 101 102. G &amp;amp; S: private equity investment services; venture capital services, namely, providing financing to emerging and start-up companies. FIRST USE: 20040110. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040110 &lt;br&gt;Standard Characters Claimed  &lt;br&gt;Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK &lt;br&gt;Serial Number 77099323 &lt;br&gt;Filing Date February 5, 2007 &lt;br&gt;Current Filing Basis 1A &lt;br&gt;Original Filing Basis 1A &lt;br&gt;Owner (APPLICANT) UNION SQUARE VENTURES, L.L.C. LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 915 BROADWAY SUITE 1408 NEW YORK NEW YORK 10010 &lt;br&gt;Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED &lt;br&gt;Attorney of Record John L. Slafsky &lt;br&gt;Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE VENTURES APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN &lt;br&gt;Type of Mark SERVICE MARK &lt;br&gt;Register PRINCIPAL &lt;br&gt;Live/Dead Indicator LIVE&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">James</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:29:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/02/union-square-venture-firm-gets-sued/#comment-14677221</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Isnt USV suing vs getting sued (see article hed)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zeke</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:17:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/02/union-square-venture-firm-gets-sued/#comment-14677220</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Not a typo... Union Square is also a landmark in SF. Marshall was noting that despite it being a SF landmark, no SF firms have used it in their monikers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dave!</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:25:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Union Square venture firm gets sued</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/02/union-square-venture-firm-gets-sued/#comment-14677219</link><description>&lt;p&gt;typo in last line -- not SF, but rather NYC.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Steve Poland</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:52:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>