<div dir="auto">My ex husband is a patent, copyright, and trademark lawyer. But I never talk with him anymore. Too painful. </div><div dir="auto">My dad was a nice lawyer. That is why he never made much money.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Elise Scher</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM <a href="mailto:paulz@ieee.org">paulz@ieee.org</a> <<a href="mailto:paulz@ieee.org">paulz@ieee.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">I expect you know a lot more about trademark law than any of the main characters in the story.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">And a couple older stories:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">"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.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div>
</div></div><div><div id="m_4863603603846284930ydpc1100990yahoo_quoted_9283695043">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 03:22:30 PM PST, Rick Moen <<a href="mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com" target="_blank">rick@linuxmafia.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Quoting Paul Zander (<a href="mailto:paulz@ieee.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">paulz@ieee.org</a>):<br><br>> Regarding discriminatory speech. <br>> A rather (in)famous celebrity decided he would promote white t-shirts<br>> with the slogan in black letters, "White Lives Matter". Turns out<br>> that the phrase "White Lives Matter" has been trade-marked. The<br>> current owners are a couple of DJ's in Arizona. They are discussing<br>> transferring the legal rights to the NAACP. <br><br>Yep.<br><br>As people who followed the _Linux Gazette_ magazine legal dispute may<br>remember, trademark is a limited monopoly over the _brand impression_ <br>of particular goods or services against confusing use in commerce by <br>competitors, where that limited monopoly exists only within the specific<br>trade or industry in question.<br><br>Thus, one cannot simply and categorically trademark a phrase. One can <br>own trademark rights over a phrase (which must be distinctive enough,<br>and not _just_ a phrase, but a brand signifier) _within_ some specific <br>area of commerce. Like t-shirts, for example.<br><br>Too generic a phrase, and you run the risk that a judge will invalidate<br>your claimed mark. <br><br>On a brief search, all the news story about Ramses Ja, Q. Ward, and<br>Maggie B. Knowin d/b/a "Civic Cipher" owning some Federal trademark or<br>other and offering to sell it to Kanye West d/b/a Ye for $1B or<br>something like that _completely_ omit any specifics about the alleged<br>USPTO registration. Why? Because this is being treated as a<br>human-interest man-bites-dog slow news day story. And, actually, <br>every news org phones in even that much, either reprinting or<br>paraphrasing TMZ's interview with Ramses and Quinton, and related<br>briefs.<br><br>One of TMZ's is less pathetic than most, and says "The trademark covers<br>the right to sell clothing with those words displayed." As I said, it's<br>protection of _brand impression_ within a specifc area of commerce.<br><br>But no trademark number or <a href="http://USPTO.GOV" target="_blank">USPTO.GOV</a> link.<br><br><br>Update: As usual with man-bites-dog stories, the reporting's sloppy <br>and inaccurate. Bloomberg Law did _actual_ reporting.<br><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ye-the-claimed-white-lives-matter-shirt-trademark-explained" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ye-the-claimed-white-lives-matter-shirt-trademark-explained</a><br><br>1. There isn't registration. There's a _pending application_.<br>2. Application S/N is 97617868 .<br>3. Covered field is "IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Jogging suits; Shirts;<br> Sweatpants; Sweatshirts; Tee-shirts. FIRST USE: 20221016. FIRST USE <br> IN COMMERCE: 20221016"<br>4. Bloomberg Law notes that the USPTO examiner will need to ensure<br> (a) the claimed mark isn't "confusingly similar" to blah-blah, and<br> (b) the claimed existing uses ("speciments" demonstrate valid use <br> of a brand identity in commerce, as per description.<br><br>5. Bloomberg Law _also_ points out that alleged trademarks consisting<br> just of slapping a phrase on a t-shirt are pretty much bushwah, <br> because, in USPTO's wording, such a subject matter, and specifically<br> "a slogan", is "merely a decorative feature does not identify and<br> distinguish the applicant’s goods" and therefore "does not function<br> as a trademark."<br><br>So, total humbuggery. But Ramses Ja, Q. Ward, and Maggie B. Knowin got<br>some fun publicity for the $330 (last I checked) filing fee mandated for <br>a ten-year Federal registration. I hope so, as that doesn't get<br>refunded just because you screwed up and tried to "trademark" a slogan.<br><br><br><br>FYI, I slightly misstated the ND matter, as the current escalation <br>isn't to NextDoor corporate, but rather to a "community review" panel.<br>This being social media, the corporation offloads as much as possible<br>to users willing to do work for free. (I do respect community<br>reviewers.)<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>conspire mailing list<br><a href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br><a href="http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire</a><br></div>
</div>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
conspire mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com" target="_blank">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br>
<a href="http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">KI6PUO</div></div>