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

[Elise Scher]

My ex husband is a patent, copyright, and trademark lawyer. But I never
talk with him anymore. Too painful.
My dad was a nice lawyer. That is why he never made much money.

Elise Scher

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM paulz at ieee.org <paulz at ieee.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>
-- 
KI6PUO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20221115/a16508fc/attachment-0001.html>