On Mon, 28 May 2018 07:43:44 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:37:19 -0500, dpb wrote:
...

Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than
what is actually in the contract, either.

Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.

Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying
that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that
everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry
about such silliness.

But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous
work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics
conveyed by the contract did they?

What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered
within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and
similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't
give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court
settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just
how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll
one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation"
as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.

Per the USPTO web site:

"ROUGH CUT WOODWORKING WITH TOMMY MAC" registered April 12 2011,
registrant WGBH, with Thomas MacDonald's consent to register on
record. "Woodworking" explicitly excluded from the trademark.

"Rough Cut" registered March 1, 2011, WGBH.

"Tommy Mac", first use in commerce 12/30/2010, filing date May 21,
2018, applicant Thomas J. MacDonald LLC.

Now, whether WGBH misrepresented the authorization to the USPTO is
another story, but it looks like he's trying to close the barndoor
after the horse has left.