[conspire] Trademark law (was: In case we were not already clear about was NextDoor, Inc. is)

[paulz at ieee.org]

 I expect you know a lot more about trademark law than any of the main characters in the story.
The guy promoting the white T shirts has a long history of crazy provocative actions.  He doesn't seem to listen to his lawyers on this or any other matter.  I don't see him challenging the trademark application.
Harry on TMZ was lawyer.  He voluntarily resigned from the CA Bar because he decided to do show biz.  Years ago, he was a associated with Judge Judy.  IMO, TMZ does touch on legal details more often than many other news sources.
And a couple older stories:
"Black Lives Matter" became a popular slogan not long after some right-wing nut-jobs had a crazy confrontation with the Bureau of Land Management.  BLM was referenced in a lot of stories.   It took me a while to realize that "BLM" was over-loaded.
Also in that same time frame, my radio was set to KQED.  Two colored guys were discussing current events. One of them reported he had said something like, "Black Lives are Important" and got a lot of flack because he had not said exactly, "Black Lives Matter".   The two guys wondered if they had missed an invite to a meeting to decide exactly how everyone should talk.



    On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 03:22:30 PM PST, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:  
 
 Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

> Regarding discriminatory speech.   
> A rather (in)famous celebrity decided he would promote white t-shirts
> with the slogan in black letters, "White Lives Matter".   Turns out
> that the phrase "White Lives Matter" has been trade-marked.  The
> current owners are a couple of DJ's in Arizona.  They are discussing
> transferring the legal rights to the NAACP. 

Yep.

As people who followed the _Linux Gazette_ magazine legal dispute may
remember, trademark is a limited monopoly over the _brand impression_ 
of particular goods or services against confusing use in commerce by 
competitors, where that limited monopoly exists only within the specific
trade or industry in question.

Thus, one cannot simply and categorically trademark a phrase.  One can 
own trademark rights over a phrase (which must be distinctive enough,
and not _just_ a phrase, but a brand signifier) _within_ some specific 
area of commerce.  Like t-shirts, for example.

Too generic a phrase, and you run the risk that a judge will invalidate
your claimed mark.  

On a brief search, all the news story about Ramses Ja, Q. Ward, and
Maggie B. Knowin d/b/a "Civic Cipher" owning some Federal trademark or
other and offering to sell it to Kanye West d/b/a Ye for $1B or
something like that _completely_ omit any specifics about the alleged
USPTO registration.  Why?  Because this is being treated as a
human-interest man-bites-dog slow news day story.  And, actually, 
every news org phones in even that much, either reprinting or
paraphrasing TMZ's interview with Ramses and Quinton, and related
briefs.

One of TMZ's is less pathetic than most, and says "The trademark covers
the right to sell clothing with those words displayed."  As I said, it's
protection of _brand impression_ within a specifc area of commerce.

But no trademark number or USPTO.GOV link.


Update:  As usual with man-bites-dog stories, the reporting's sloppy 
and inaccurate.  Bloomberg Law did _actual_ reporting.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ye-the-claimed-white-lives-matter-shirt-trademark-explained

1.  There isn't registration.  There's a _pending application_.
2.  Application S/N is 97617868 .
3.  Covered field is "IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Jogging suits; Shirts;
    Sweatpants; Sweatshirts; Tee-shirts. FIRST USE: 20221016. FIRST USE 
    IN COMMERCE: 20221016"
4.  Bloomberg Law notes that the USPTO examiner will need to ensure
    (a) the claimed mark isn't "confusingly similar" to blah-blah, and
    (b) the claimed existing uses ("speciments" demonstrate valid use 
    of a brand identity in commerce, as per description.

5.  Bloomberg Law _also_ points out that alleged trademarks consisting
    just of slapping a phrase on a t-shirt are pretty much bushwah, 
    because, in USPTO's wording, such a subject matter, and specifically
    "a slogan", is "merely a decorative feature does not identify and
    distinguish the applicant’s goods" and therefore "does not function
    as a trademark."

So, total humbuggery.  But Ramses Ja, Q. Ward, and Maggie B. Knowin got
some fun publicity for the $330 (last I checked) filing fee mandated for 
a ten-year Federal registration.  I hope so, as that doesn't get
refunded just because you screwed up and tried to "trademark" a slogan.



FYI, I slightly misstated the ND matter, as the current escalation 
isn't to NextDoor corporate, but rather to a "community review" panel.
This being social media, the corporation offloads as much as possible
to users willing to do work for free.  (I do respect community
reviewers.)


_______________________________________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20221116/790a22f2/attachment.html>