In article >,
George Orwell > wrote:

> My 60 day boycott of Subway has ended. I initiated this action because they
> don't put much roast beef on their roast beef subs. From now on, I'll
> purchase only the foot long cold cut combo. At least there are almost enough
> cold cuts on the sandwich.

Did you even bother to ask? Most of those kind of places will put
double meat on, for a small price.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On May 26, 9:14*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George Orwell > wrote:
>
> > My 60 day boycott of Subway has ended. *I initiated this action because they
> > don't put much roast beef on their roast beef subs. *From now on, I'll
> > purchase only the foot long cold cut combo. *At least there are almost enough
> > cold cuts on the sandwich.
>
> Did you even bother to ask? *Most of those kind of places will put
> double meat on, for a small price.

The Subway in the local WalMart stinks up the whole store.
>
> --
> Dan Abel

--Bryan, who will be back Tuesdayish

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> George Orwell > wrote:
>
>> My 60 day boycott of Subway has ended. I initiated this action because they
>> don't put much roast beef on their roast beef subs. From now on, I'll
>> purchase only the foot long cold cut combo. At least there are almost enough
>> cold cuts on the sandwich.
>
> Did you even bother to ask? Most of those kind of places will put
> double meat on, for a small price.
>


Here's another reason to boycott Subway. Not that I ever go anyway.

They are trying to trademark the term "footlong".

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...u_cant_se.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/27op4uk


-Tracy

On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:23:06 -0400, Tracy wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> George Orwell > wrote:
>>
>>> My 60 day boycott of Subway has ended. I initiated this action because they
>>> don't put much roast beef on their roast beef subs. From now on, I'll
>>> purchase only the foot long cold cut combo. At least there are almost enough
>>> cold cuts on the sandwich.
>>
>> Did you even bother to ask? Most of those kind of places will put
>> double meat on, for a small price.
>>
>
>
> Here's another reason to boycott Subway. Not that I ever go anyway.
>
> They are trying to trademark the term "footlong".

"After explaining that Subway "has applied for the trademark FOOTLONG (TM)
in association with sandwiches," the letter says:

You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist from using FOOTLONG
(TM) association with sandwiches. You must immediately remove all
references to FOOTLONG (TM) in association with sandwiches."

Lawyers need to be shot.

There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.

-sw (I should have been a lawyer)

On 5/26/2010 11:13 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> "After explaining that Subway "has applied for the trademark FOOTLONG (TM)
> in association with sandwiches," the letter says:
>
> You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist from using FOOTLONG
> (TM) association with sandwiches. You must immediately remove all
> references to FOOTLONG (TM) in association with sandwiches."
>
> Lawyers need to be shot.
>
> There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
> competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
> fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
> Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.
>
> -sw (I should have been a lawyer)
>

For as long as I can remember, I have seen "footlong" or "foot-long"
po-boys, submarine sandwiches and hotdogs. How could they get that
trademark? That is like the Hilton celebutante trying to trademark the
words "that's hot", as if nobody had ever heard that before.

Becca

On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:34:20 -0500, Becca wrote:

> That is like the Hilton celebutante trying to trademark the
> words "that's hot", as if nobody had ever heard that before.

Or the Texas Tornados trying to trademark, "Hey baby What's Up?". Talk
about the LAMEST SONG ON THE PLANET.

-sw

On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:34:20 -0500, Becca wrote:

> On 5/26/2010 11:13 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> "After explaining that Subway "has applied for the trademark FOOTLONG (TM)
>> in association with sandwiches," the letter says:
>>
>> You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist from using FOOTLONG
>> (TM) association with sandwiches. You must immediately remove all
>> references to FOOTLONG (TM) in association with sandwiches."
>>
>> Lawyers need to be shot.
>>
>> There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
>> competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
>> fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
>> Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.
>>
>> -sw (I should have been a lawyer)
>>
>
> For as long as I can remember, I have seen "footlong" or "foot-long"
> po-boys, submarine sandwiches and hotdogs. How could they get that
> trademark? That is like the Hilton celebutante trying to trademark the
> words "that's hot", as if nobody had ever heard that before.
>
> Becca

i associate it mainly with hotdogs. subs are usually 'eight-' or
'twelve-inch.'

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:13:32 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:

>....There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
>competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
>fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
>Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.

Wrong, as usual.

There are two live (current) US food service trademarks for "footlong,"
both owned by Doctor's Associates, Inc., of Plantation, FL.

There are three dead US food service trademarks for "footlong," all of
which were owned by Skyline Chili.

This is all a matter of public record at tess2.uspto.gov.

-- Larry

On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:04:13 -0400, pltrgyst wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:13:32 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>>....There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
>>competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
>>fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
>>Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> There are two live (current) US food service trademarks for "footlong,"
> both owned by Doctor's Associates, Inc., of Plantation, FL.

I assumed the story was recent. I didn't research whether the trademark
was granted or not. Apparently they first used the term in 1967, and filed
for a trademark almost a year ago.

But it has NOT BEEN GRANTED. IT HAS BEEN DENIED, and they are fighting it.

So go suck an egg.

> There are three dead US food service trademarks for "footlong," all of
> which were owned by Skyline Chili.

Wrong again, Buckwheat.

-sw

On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:04:13 -0400, pltrgyst wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:13:32 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>>....There is no way they're going to give them "Footlong(TM)" and by telling
>>competitors that they are cease and desist using "Footlonmg(TM)" borders on
>>fraudulent trade practices and is illegal. Footlong is NOT a a (TM), for
>>Subway or anyone else at the time of that letter.
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> There are two live (current) US food service trademarks for "footlong,"
> both owned by Doctor's Associates, Inc., of Plantation, FL.

Why do some of you even bother trying to prove me wrong?

This makes Subway's letter even more fradulent. They were just denied
(again) the Footlong trademark just 3 weeks ago. Yet they're claiming they
own the trademark - THEY DON'T.

-sw


UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/752328
MARK: FOOTLONG
*77752328*
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
VALERIE A. POCHRON
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES INC.
325 BIC DR
MILFORD, CT 06461-3072
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:
http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
APPLICANT: Doctor's Associates Inc.
CORRESPONDENTÿS REFERENCE/DOCKET
NO:
DAIUSTM/077
CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
OFFICE ACTION
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS
OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE:
Introduction
This Office action supplements any previous Office actions issued in this
application. Upon further
review, the following issue(s) has been raised and must be addressed. The
Office apologizes for any
inconvenience this may cause. Applicant must respond to all issues within
six months from the date of
this new Office action in order to avoid abandonment of the application.
TMEP §1104.09(h).
Failure to Function
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the
specimen of record, does not function
as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicantÿs services from
those of others and to indicate the
source of applicantÿs services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15
U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see
In re Moodyÿs Investors Serv., Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043 (TTAB 1989); In re The
Signal Cos., 228 USPQ
956 (TTAB 1986); In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263 (TTAB 1984); TMEP
§§904.07(b), 1301.02
et seq.
The applied-for mark, as shown on the specimen, does not function as a
service mark because the mark
refers specifically to sandwiches, which are Class 030 goods. A term that
serves only to identify a menu
item does not function as a service mark for restaurant services. In re El
Torito Rest. Inc., 9 USPQ2d
2002 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1301.02(a). Attached are additional case laws
supporting the determination
that a mark for a menu item does not function as a service mark for
restaurant services. See attached.
Applicant has submitted numerous specimens and exhibits showing use of the
mark in commerce. All of
the evidence shows the mark being used to refer to a type of sandwich, not
restaurant services. For
example, the specimen of record shows the mark under ´Your Menu Choices¡
along with other menu
items, such as 6¡ (referring to a 6¡ sub as opposed to a footlong sub),
salad, and flatbread. Another exhibit
submitted on October 16, 2009 is of a banner stating ´ALL FOOTLONG SUBS¡
are $5. And a similar
exhibit shows $5 FOOTLONGS with the phrase A VARIETY OF GREAT SUBS. In the
latter cases, the
mark specifically refers to a menu item costing $5.
The specimen of record, along with any other relevant evidence of record,
is reviewed to determine
whether an applied-for mark is being used as a service mark. In re Volvo
Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46
USPQ2d 1455, 1458 (TTAB 1998). Not every word, design, symbol or slogan
used in the advertising or
performance of services functions as a mark, even though it may have been
adopted with the intent to do
so. See TMEP §1301.02. A designation cannot be registered unless purchasers
would be likely to regard
it as a source-indicator for the services. Id.; see In re Moodyÿs Investors
Serv. Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043,
2047-49 (TTAB 1989).