"which not unreasonably points out"

That'd be "reasonably points out" then.

I wonder what the odds are of getting a link submission of this green lit on fark?

didn't despair.com already successfully trademark the unhappy smiley :-( ?

...was probably farked again after another farking Fark party and thought it would make a farking good joke; farker.

/am registered with Fark

//slashies

///farking stupid idea

...Fark were they thinking?

...is putting it mildly! The endless litigation alone would sink them financially, just ask uncle Darl over at SCO.

They might just thinks it's a laugh to own it, and have no intention of enforcing it. I'd do it for kicks, if it were me.

your NSFW are belong to fark!

(no i cant think of anything more original that this!)

They really were farked from the offset. Fark the farking farkers, the farking farkers, farked!

I can say fark. Fark fark fark fark fark.

Isn't that (c) Ben Elton?

This strikes me as an attempt at pseudo-political irony...

I'm trademarking WTF, so cough up now or I'll sue your ass !

> Barclays Have trademarked "Hole in the wall".

Next time I go into the Hole in the Wall pub in Great Southsea Street, Portsmouth, I'll have to remember to point this out to the Landlord!

Paris Hilton Angle!

/coat

Far Queue :)

looking VERY much like a bizarre joke now. Naturally, complete with some rather amusing NSFW language.

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDBlog=15

I've seen some strange trademark claims come out of the USA. But the important thing to remember is that they can be very specific, which is how Orange was able to trademark a colour.

And I remember the game company story. It was a set of fold-up cardboard tokens, intended to represent the characters, for a game based on the first Indiana Jones move. So the word "Nazi" was a part of the whole, including trademarked character design.

@Adam, Graham Dawson

The correct term is "litotes"

"ironical understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary (e.g. I shan’t be sorry for I shall be glad)."

[from http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/litotes?view=uk]

It's a bit different from the classic double negative. Which incidentally is, and always has been, proper natural English, despite what a handful of 18th century logicians thought say about it. And there ain't nobody who can tell me nothing different.

Eponymous Blowhard.

One of the "Read more" links on the Trademork.com article is the El Reg article, which serves no other purpose than to link to the Trademork article......

Circular logic!! NSFS (Not Safe for Sanity)