On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Curt Sampson wrote:

> That would likely still leave us open to trademark infringement,
> because `spark' is sufficiently close to `sparc,' and is used in
> a similar context, such that it would (as it's obviously intended)
> likely make people believe that we are talking about the thing
> referred to by the `Sparc' trademark.


Uh, "Sparque"?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 sabat <sabat@area51.org>  .
   http://www.area51.org   .    " You have no right to despise
purveyors of modern myth   .      the present. " --Baudelaire