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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

> In a totally different matter, a celebrity had her application for trademark turned down.https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63647164

The problem with commmenting on news reports concerning legal matters is
that the reporters, diligent though they may be, so often omit crucial
details that it's often futile or at least difficult to do so.

Here, BBC doesn't exactly say _what_ Mariah Carey attempted to do at
USPTO, i.e., what category of thing this alleged mark was claimed to
reside in (except something about "music and merchandise"), and what was
claimed to comprise the mark _specifically_.

Auntie Beeb says, translating some vague wording, that the trademark
examiner questioned applicant about some (unspecified) aspect of the
application, got no response, and predictably rubber-stamped it as some
sort of "denied" wording.  End of story.

The Beeb says the usual totally wrong things, e.g.:

  The trademark would have given her the legal right to stop others from
  using the title on music and merchandise.

Well, no.  Not exactly.  So, the reporter doesn't exactly understand
what trademark does, but then reporters almost always don't.  Which 
gets back to my point:  To know what actually was attempted and what
happened, you would want to see the application file at USPTO.gov -- 
and, here, the problem is that BBC (as usual in these stories) couldn't
be bothered to provide the trademark serial number or an HTTP link to
the USPTO.gov record.

Also, as long as the reporter was trying to be dreadfully bad, he gets
extra points for being hopeless by lumping trademark together with
copyright in his closing paragraph.

So, to make a long story short, the news is replete, 24x7, with poor
coverage of trademark news, and you will be maddened if you _understand_
trademark law and try to rely on it.  _But_, here's the even shorter
version:  These stories are framed as human interest, so basically
accuracy and substantive content gets tossed.

Not a complaint, but I could save time by saying "Paul, I can predict
that the next 100 articles you refer me to about celebrities being
denied dumb trademark applications will all be airheaded fluff."