Our minister responsible for energy is Katherina Reiche, a lobbyist for fossil companies. She has been suspected to dawdle on refilling gas storage to make it easier for her former employers to make a quick buck when gas becomes scarce in winter. She's also botched the transition to renewable energies by removing the incentives for state and industry to build out electric infrastructure, so it would not be out of character.
Plus, our chancellor has zero experience in governing anything (he's not even been mayor before) and is firmly stuck in thinking like a Blackrock executive.
So, to answer your question: We are waiting for a government that is not entirely in the pocket of those that want to stick to the status quo and profit from crises as long as possible.
Which former employer is going to make a quick buck? The grid operator or the grid operator lobbyist? Besides, who is going to profit from a price spike when the whole point is that the summer-winter spread is inverted, so no one expects to make money from injecting?
Regarding filling gas storage, I might have been too quick to judge. It seems that prices are just too high atm. However, this has been a long time coming and she did not act, so that's on her.
I stand by the rest, though. She's really a blight on our energy policies and development.
> Which former employer is going to make a quick buck? The grid operator or the grid operator lobbyist?
Well, both. Katherina Reiche was CEO of Westenergie until she joined the current government; and was, at the same time, listed as a lobbyist. She also caused controversy when she presented a plan for energy politics that was _very similar_ to plans by major electricity providers (including the parent company of her previous company). Or when she directly asked the electricity provider EnBW for better arguments why we should build more gas power plant (directly violating lobbying laws). That's just a small excerpt; the list of controversy is long.
But tbh, I don't think there's a big conspiracy about the empty gas tanks. Yes, Reiche is most likely corrupt (which is a huge deal), but afaiu, the gas tanks are empty because nobody wants to pay for the gas right now.
PS: Just today, Reiche ordered Sefe GmbH to stockpile more gas [1]. Sefe is conveniently a public company. So private companies don't have to buy expensive gas, because the public is going to take care of it.
I never liked Schröder very much. I somewhat respected him for working his way up to the top coming from a very poor family. But Schröder was not a lobbyist before he became chancellor and his actions during his reign do not strike me as guided by taking care of his cronies.
You get repeated hints like 20 times outside and inside the train. Announcements (also in english, recorded, by an english native speaker, repeatedly), the train displays explain it and when you get to the station where the train splits, every display in that train shows you whether you're in the right carriage and you get an extra announcement exclusive to the carriages that go somewhere else that you should change now if you want to go to the airport.
> Waffle House (or any other brand) must and 100% always will send out a C&D for trademark misusage, otherwise they lose legal protection for that trademark.
Actually, I'm pretty sure their request has no trademark law legs to stand on. Trademark infringement first and foremost requires two things: a) commercial use and b) for the goods and services the trademark is registered for.
Now I just checked and Waffle House has registered its trademark for "waffles", for "mugs", for "keychains" and other trinkets and for "restaurant services", but has zero registrations for "providing information online" or similar. So they really had nothing to defend with regard to a website that sells nothing.
Basically, had he just changed the website to use the name in text, they would have had a hard time to even forbid the nominative use of the trademark to refer to the actual waffle house (referring to the actual owner of a trademark in a nominative/descriptive manner is generally allowed).
There may be other areas of law that are more pertinent, but this is no case of good faith trademark defense. There was no "must" here. Looks like BSing someone who does not know better so he backs off. Also looks like using the archaic und expensive US legal system as a tool for coercion. Even if you're right, you need to be able to afford being right...
I think you're missing some nuance in your understanding of trademarks with all due respect.
The core use of trademark protection isn't a commercial use, necessarily. Rather, it's the act of infringing on the trademark holder's commercial use. So, if Waffle House is selling Waffle House t-shirts, and a business next door is giving away free Waffle House t-shirts that they printed - then yes, Waffle House would very likely win a lawsuit against someone giving away waffle house t-shirts.
Basically if someone is giving away or, especially, selling something that causes a confusion against the original trademark, then yes, the trademark "must" be protected.
By "must" I don't mean it's legally required. I just mean you're going to have a harder time in court if you need to pursue legal action against a company or person if there's a precedent you have not actively protected the trademark in other instances.
edit: and in this case, the site was causing confusion, so they sent a C&D. Also as the other commentor mentioned, the logo is trademarked.
To make it clear: The trademark is the combination of the sign (e.g. the word or logo) and the goods and services it is registered for. If you use the same sign for different goods and services then there is no infringement and no watering down/dilution, thus nothing to defend against.
There is a difference when treating well-known trademarks (say Coca-Cola, Sony, Google), however I doubt Waffle House gets over the threshold set for that for being too local (I counted at least 20 states that do not have one) and not sufficiently known by all demographics (if you want to know more read up on the Lanham Act).
Full disclosure: I am a TM lawyer, but not in the US. YMMV and what I write here is no legal advice ;-) since only gathered from US colleagues' explanations regarding cases clients had in the US.
The notorious/well-know concept is part of an international treaty (Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention) and its interpretation is similar in most western countries, so I'd expect the US interpretation to not be that far off.
Though, I am, again not a lawyer, but I am 99% sure you can't go use the Waffle House logo to sell anything, let alone waffles. I only say that because no one is using, say, the Coca-Cola brand to sell shoes, and if they did, we all know Coca-Cola would prevent that. That goes for any trademark in the US. So perhaps trademark law is different here?
Also, Waffle House are ubiquitous as a brand in the United States - certainly not as well known as Coca-Cola or Sony, but I have no doubt they'd be able to prove national awareness in any demographic.
In this particular case if you look at the C&D, it is for the trademark usage. It's likely that this person could have simply removed the trademark from the page and it would have been fine.
edit: I think the key in other industries would be proof of brand dilution - that is, if you start using the Nike logo to sell waffles, Nike would send a C&D if not a team of lawyers because you are diluting the trademark. So I guess you're technically right, although functionally, brand dilution is easily provable.
No prob. Just some random bits I found looking around for clues whether there already were any decisions from US courts wrt whether Waffle House is a well-known trademark:
Interestingly enough, Waffle House is mentioned in a 2007 article related to a US trademark law reform as an edge case [1].
This does not seem to be the first time that Waffle House appears to be overreaching: [2]. The balls to pull this off with a straight face, kudos to the colleagues.
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
What do you believe is actually covered by trademark law? Maybe, the name of the website, but clearly the location and open status can't be, that would mean Google and many other map providers are violating trademarks on a massive scale. Or another example those websites with maps of petrol stations and their prices?
Except what Russia states and what Russia does are only aligned when it serves Russia. Russia stopped delivering gas through NordStream 1. After that, Germany took note of the danger and decided it would do better without that dependency.
> Germany took note of the danger and decided it would do better without that dependency.
So they just swapped dependencies. And it's not that the new dependency will have no strings attached.
Diversifying while keeping russian energy in the loop, as part of a risk-management strategy, would make more sense. Completely cutting off russian energy just gives more bargaining power to their new energy provider.
If we put half the effort into shoring up our institutions and reinforcing our shared norms and cooperative values as we are into "de-risking" everything, right now, and all at once, we'd all be in a much better place. Overnight we all just accepted that this new transactional, mercantile, hostile mentality was the way of things and the only way it can be. This is a self-fulfilling fatalistic prophecy and is going to move us backwards into a much worse, less prosperous world, empowering the bullies and the tyrants even more.
Greed got us here. There's a rules based world possible where Russia sells gas to Germany. Russia did not transform from an free and democratic society with respect for human rights and the international community into an authoritarian dictatorship overnight; we turned a blind eye to this when it suited our short term economic needs and that is how we allow ourselves to sleepwalk into the situation we are now. Had we held first to our principles we'd have either had the impact the neoliberal trade focused policies were supposed to eventually deliver or at the very least not ended up with dependencies that gave such governments leverage and eventually blow up in our faces. Had we instead put human rights first and foremost we would not have created and empowered these monsters.
Same thing with Trump's reelection in the US. By all rights in a functioning democracy Trump should be sitting in jail right now along with the January 6th insurrectionists. The Biden administration had 4 years to prosecute, but felt it was not politically expedient to do so. Likewise what is left of the GOP within the republican caucus right now faces a similar choice between short term benefits and upholding the principles which nearly everyone in congress and even the Trump administration has previously claimed they would uphold.
Most Logitech devices have settings for particular parameters that are not covered by generic drivers. E.g on my MX Master, I can set what events the buttons (it has 6) will generate. My K810 has borked function keys (they trigger special events instead of just being good old F1). You can switch these back to standard function using software.
Edit: typos
That is a very good approach imo. It takes into account a very basic truth: As an engineer or scientist, you really do not know how to explain technical stuff to a judge with whom you have very few common professional points of reference. It is the patent attorney's job to translate engineering lingo into something a brain subjected to years of legalese can comprehend or at least handle sufficiently well to make a reasonable decision.
That one year grace period is specific to the US and does not apply in most other countries. So by publishing your invention before filing a patent application you create prior art that will stand in your way in most of the world.
Plus, our chancellor has zero experience in governing anything (he's not even been mayor before) and is firmly stuck in thinking like a Blackrock executive.
So, to answer your question: We are waiting for a government that is not entirely in the pocket of those that want to stick to the status quo and profit from crises as long as possible.
reply