Tuesday
Back to the grindstone
I just started reading for my Intellectual Property class, and I'm pretty sure there are two grammatical errors in the Lanham Act (15 USC § 1051). Actually, it's just the same grammatical error twice, but it's a fairly bad one. Subsection (a)(3) reads, in relevant part:
The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify that —
(A) the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the jurisitic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered;
Is there any reason it's not a mistake to use "to be" instead of "is," when "he or she" clearly requires "is"? I've checked both my statutory supplement and lexis, and both of them include this error, and it's repeated in (b)(3). If you want to either agree or call me an idiot (for this or any other post), comment.
|
The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify that —
(A) the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the jurisitic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered;
Is there any reason it's not a mistake to use "to be" instead of "is," when "he or she" clearly requires "is"? I've checked both my statutory supplement and lexis, and both of them include this error, and it's repeated in (b)(3). If you want to either agree or call me an idiot (for this or any other post), comment.
