https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2014/10/18/is-no-on-m-making-illegal-use-of-the-walmart-brand
Original post made by Gern, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks, on Oct 18, 2014
Comments
No.
The use of the name "Walmart" in these political ads is
1- Protected speech,
2 - And it does not involve "Trademark dilution", "Defamation" "Tarnishment" nor is it intended to create "a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods or services."
Your Number 2 doesn't pass the smell test, Peter (pun intended).
Gern
"metronomic frequency"
ding ding ding, winnah winnah chicken dinnah!!!
Too bad, but predictable, that Gern does not like the law regarding trademarks.
The cited ad it does not involve "Trademark dilution", "Defamation" "Tarnishment" nor is it intended to create "a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods or services.
Measure M supporters: Please debate the real issues.
Ironically, Measure M's rigid approach actually makes it more likely that a Walmart could be built. Perhaps better than the blight on ECR? At least there would be sales tax revenue for MP.
If you disagree, please cite to Measure M's language to support your position. As has been previously pointed out, the language says what it says and, absent a future majority vote, no one --- not even you -- could change it, if it were to be approved.
"Ironically, Measure M's rigid approach actually makes it more likely that a Walmart could be built."
I'll defer to Peter on this one. Peter, how likely do you think it is that Greenheart will build a Walmart with all the required surface parking on their property instead of, say, 3-400,000 s.f. of office, residential and retail should Measure M pass?
My point, Observer, is simply that in no likely scenario before us, with or without Measure M, would it make economic sense to build a Walmart on the Greenheart property. Something drastic, far and above Measure M's power to bring about, would need to happen to make a Walmart the best economic opportunity for that property.
Gern
Gern states - "I'll defer to Peter on this one. Peter, how likely do you think it is that Greenheart will build a Walmart with all the required surface parking on their property instead of, say, 3-400,000 s.f. of office, residential and retail should Measure M pass?"
Very likely. Why should Greenheart put up with all the opportunities for lawsuits with the "frustrate" language in Section 4 of Measure M?
so is greenheart threatening blackmail? If they can't build exactly what they want, which is not at all like what residents asked for, then they are threatening to build a Walmart instead? Really?
I find it disgraceful that city officials are putting their names on garbage like that.
There is no "blackmail" involved in being informed that if office space is unreasonable constrained and there are no constraints on retail that, SURPRISE, what you might get is RETAIL.
The Specific Plan creates an excellent BALANCE between a variety of uses in order to BALANCE the desires of the community with the economic interests of property owners.
Measure M would destroy that balance.
The supporters of Measure M do not want you to know what happens when that balance is destroyed. Hint - big box retail is one possible outcome that is totally permitted by Measure M.
The Specific Plan's studied balance is NOT at all what is transpiring. Measure M enforces the exact same balance that was studied and accepted during the Plan's process. The constraint on office is entirely reasonable. In fact, it's necessary because our council won't constrain offices.
Retail includes restaurants, shopping. If those serve our community, that's good because we wouldn't have to drive to another city to dine and shop.
"The Specific Plan's studied balance is NOT at all what is transpiring."
That is your opinion. I and a lot of other people disagree:
Web Link
Measure M is a Mistake
.){kind=link}