That said, it's fair to guess that there may be even more cases of PrCa than thought, which would lower its mortality rate.
Personally, my father is in the hospital as we speak s/p prostatectomy (he's fine, don't worry), and having studied cancer genetics, I am much more concerned about pancreas and colon cancers which my grandparents had. I am pretty certain that i'll need a prostatectomy myself (I'm 31), but that doesn't really concern me except for the inconvenience and fear of associated impotence.
Hope this was informative
But just the same I beg of you all, get your sh*t checked!!!
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 10-08-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Would have been a better link tbqh.
And generally speaking, while the "color" is protected, it's more the NAME of the color ("Tiffany" Blue) than the color itself that is protected. But point made.
Blue, the color, is not protected or protectable. If color was so easily controlled, why isn't every color controlled in such a manner by claim-holders or speculators (I got dibs of Jets Green dammit!).
The quoted section was a large portion of the basis of my claim (more cases than reported by a large amount due to factors, etc, etc, etc). I won't lie, I'm also biased as to the coverage and attention to Breast Cancer (which men also get, sadly) that Prostate Cancer has yet to get, for many of the same factors and cause underreporting.
But in terms of stats, I happily defer to you as the subject matter expert.
Glad to hear it, best wishes to him.Personally, my father is in the hospital as we speak s/p prostatectomy (he's fine, don't worry),
Frankly the whole thing just pissed me off, really. Protecting your IP is one thing, but just the way SGK went about it just seems 'wrong to me'.
I think the last thing one someone's checklist on doing a fundraiser is 'checking to see if my slogan violates any trademarks'. Such a thing is Herculean to organize and run to begin with, without having to worry about legal issues etc.
I've actually donated to this charity in the past- (through partnership with my company)-which is probably what set me off in the first place. (Post first, ask questions later I guess). SGK's actually done other things to fall out of favor with a lot of people (including my company) mainly by their own hand. It's also part of the reason my company no longer has an affiliation with them.
(Side note: This is also why you'll see a lot more 'pink' going towards The National Breast Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society, etc - instead of SGK)
Anyway this prolly belonged in the Poli forum to begin, which is a place Im not comfortable with entering or even visiting. This topic got me far angier and cane-shakier for some reason, and I'd prefer to not let that get the best of me.
In closing, I'd just like to add what I do best - posting URLs
Oh teh irony - got this email from the Jets shop today - I wonder if SGK is going to go after them?
Yes, phrasing can be limited in regards to advertising an entity. It only means others cannot us ethe phrase in for-profit activity a la advertising.
As to the Jets for the Cure, I'd wager the Jets (more likely the NFL) has an agreement (MOU) with Komen, i.e. a partnership, legally allowing the teams to use the phrase/color combo. Just a guess.