rostigerpudel

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.

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.

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.

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.

This really is the original poster's problem.

Completely agree. They even recruited a native BBC level English speaker as the voice actor for the announcements.

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean to say. Could you elaborate?

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.

> 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...

Also, working Linux software to pair new devices with unifying receivers is great to have.

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.