Since the petition from ASLA and press release from UT are contradictory, please help me understand what’s going on with the following questions:
- UT States: “UT has never had a formal partnership or any legal agreement with ASLA, despite our efforts over the past two years to develop one.” ASLA states : ” The SITES trademarks were developed through a partnership between ASLA, the U.S. Botanic Garden and UT.” Does this mean that there was never even a formal memo of understanding between these agencies the entire time they developed and worked on SITES?
- What is the legal designation of SITES, or SSI? Is it its own nonprofit or what?
- If it is its own entity why would UT act instead of SSI?
- If it is not its own entity, WTF ASLA? Why would you have participated in this without getting the foundation set up properly?
- Why did development on SSI continue past page one if they didn’t have the partnership resolved? Don’t they know that these things always unravel at the end?
- If SITES is an independent organization, what the heck is UT doing? They are way out of line obtaining TMs on their behalf!
- Litigation is good if it teaches ASLA to get their act together before jumping into something, even something as cool as SITES!
SITES is a great program, don’t get me wrong. But this isn’t nonsense – this is basic business organization! Help me understand?