> Great Genius Insights into Everything (61)

Aug
31
2013

The 6 Most Ridiculous Things People Claimed to Legally Own

The 6 Most Ridiculous Things People Claimed to Legally Own

We don’t want to get into some big debate about intellectual property rights — it’s full of legal gray areas, and we’re no lawyers. But we are confident in saying that some trademark and copyright claims are downright fucking ridiculous. For example

 
#6. Haagen-Dazs Insists It Owns All Fake Scandinavian Words

It’s a well-known fact that imported stuff is always better than domestic. With that in mind, is it any surprise that Haagen-Dazs ice cream remains one of the most successful brands in your grocer’s frozen department? With its Danish sophistication, European subtlety, and totally-badass-metal umlaut, it runs caramel swirls around domestic swill like Ben & Jerry’s. Wait, no, never mind. Not only has Haagen-Dazs always been an American brand, but it turns out that “Haagen” and “Dazs” aren’t even real Danish words (or real words in any language).

In fact, it’s so not-Scandinavian that the company was founded in the Bronx in 1959 by Polish immigrants Reuben and Rose Mattus when they put some random letters together to make a name that sounded vaguely Scandinavian to their ears. That no one lodged any complaints about their deliberate deception is amazing; that they tried to sue someone else for doing the exact same thing is mind-blowing.

It happened in 1980, when Richard Smith had the same idea they did and began selling his own domestic ice cream under the name “Frusen Gladje” — which, shockingly enough, are real words (“frusen gladje” means “frozen joy” in Swedish). Haagen-Dazs, no doubt filled with rage that someone had had the presence of mind to pick up an English-Swedish dictionary, took them to court over the right to pretend to be Scandinavian.

No, really. The lawsuit alleged that Frusen Gladje had stolen several of their ideas, including (a) pretending to be European, (b) using a map of Scandinavia in their advertising, and (c) including serving directions on the package (seriously).

The Fallout:

The court ruled against Haagen-Dazs on the grounds of “unclean hands” — a bit of legalese that essentially means “Seriously? You’re asking the government to protect your right to lie to consumers? You’re not a bank.” Frusen Gladje was later sold to Kraft, and then Unilever, before it disappeared. Fortunately, everyone learned a valuable lesson, and no American business has ever deceived the public ever again.

 
#5. Only Spike Lee Is Allowed to Call Things “Spike”

The Nashville Network started out as a country-music cable channel you probably don’t remember. Eventually, they gave up on country music, changed their name to TNN, and switched to more profitable programming about boobs and explosions. In a move to further distance themselves from the past, they eventually settled on the cartoonishly masculine name “Spike TV.”

Now, you may have recognized the name “Spike” as the name of sometimes-acclaimed film director Spike Lee. You may have also recognized it as the name of director Spike Jonze, or that vampire from Buffy, or millions of dogs, or those things they put railroads together with. Really, there are a lot of things called “Spike.” But it was Spike Lee who, in a moment of vanity that would have impressed even Carly Simon, said to himself, “No, this has to be about me,” and filed suit.

His reasoning was that he didn’t want his name associated with lowbrow programming, because when you see “Spike TV” in your cable guide, what else would you assume but that it’s 24 consecutive hours of Spike Lee movies?

The Fallout:

It’s not terribly hard to understand why Spike Lee — director of classy films like She Hate Me, in which a guy knocks up lesbians for money — wanted to avoid sullying his name with the round-the-clock Baywatch reruns on Spike TV. And Lee did win a temporary injunction against the network shortly before everyone realized that it was frivolous — it turns out you can’t claim a trademark on a nickname as generic as “Spike.” Lee and Spike TV settled out of court — Spike TV got to keep their name, and Lee was not forced to change his back to “Shelton.”

 
#4. Games Workshop Claims to Own the Concept of Space Marines

Science fiction is a genre based almost entirely on the theme of people doing the things that people usually do, except in space. Given that people love space and love explosions, it took about 40 seconds after the invention of sci-fi for someone to type the words “space marines” on their steampunk typewriter. The term goes back at least to 1932, and the trope was made iconic by books like Starship Troopers and films like Aliens. We also have it on good authority that there’s something called an “Xbox” that does nothing but play games starring space marines.

But in 1987 — more than half a century after the sci-fi world had combined the chocolate of “space” with the peanut butter of “marines” — Games Workshop published a science fiction strategy game called Warhammer 40,000. One of the character classes in it was called “space marine,” which Games Workshop quickly trademarked. From that moment forward, anyone else publishing a sci-fi tabletop game had to fill it with space seamen instead. Or something.

Twenty years later, Games Workshop decided to enter the fiction market and were shocked to find that fiction about space marines already existed. The only reasonable thing to do was sue these bastards who stole their idea of marines in space. The biggest dick move on the thieves’ part was that they apparently used time travel to do it.

The Fallout:

Unfortunately for Games Workshop, they apparently knew nothing at all about sci-fi literature. They could have sued any one of the hundreds of authors who used the words “space marine” in their books. They could have sued freaking Microsoft for publishing a line of Halo books. People love it when Microsoft gets sued.

Instead, they went after M.C.A. Hogarth, a stay-at-home mom making ends meet by self-publishing sci-fi novels. They contacted Amazon, demanding that they take down her hilariously titled novel Spots the Space Marine: Defense of the Fiddler.

As you might imagine, this sort of corporate bullying didn’t sit well with the general public. The Interwebs lit up with nerdrage, several noted sci-fi authors jumped to Hogarth’s defense, and Games Workshop quietly dropped the complaint. Meanwhile, Hogarth got all sorts of free publicity for her book. Admit it, the title alone has you curious.

 
#3. NBC Tries to Stop Letterman from Numbering Things

The battle to secure the coveted role of the host of NBC’s The Tonight Show didn’t start with the recent war between Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien — in the ’90s, the show was rocked by an arguably stupider scandal. When Johnny Carson (ask your parents) retired in 1992, his heir apparent was David Letterman, who had been hosting Late Night on NBC for years, but he was passed over in favor of Jay Leno.

The rest, as they say, is history: Leno took the reins of The Tonight Show, and Letterman found a home at CBS, where he created The Late Show With David Letterman. Then the two men settled into their now-familiar routines: Letterman spent the next two decades making jokes in the form of lists (which we at Cracked can’t fault him for), and Leno spent the next two decades making tired jokes about … having a really big chin. Or something. Look, we’ve never actually watched Leno.

But things almost got nasty, and we mean on a legal level. Upon his move to CBS, NBC immediately claimed copyright ownership of Letterman show cornerstones like “Top Ten Lists” and “Stupid Pet Tricks.” This meant, in effect, that Letterman wasn’t able to take his most popular bits with him and wasn’t allowed to do anything that involved … reading lists? Or having animals on the show, we guess?

The Fallout:

As the controversy wore on, it became clear that NBC didn’t even know what they would sue for, exactly. NBC exec Robert C. Wright told the press, “There are certain intellectual property issues that do not travel with Dave. They can certainly do things like that. But they can’t do those things.” Well, that clears it up.

Meanwhile, NBC got mauled by the court of public opinion before they even managed to take legal action. Letterman joked that The Late Show was going to be called The Stolen Intellectual Property Show. Leno claimed that Dave wasn’t allowed to use the letters N, B, or C or the name “Letterman” on the air. Even CBS exec Jeff Sagansky managed to be funny when Major League Baseball moved from his network to NBC. “We feel,” he said, “we have a proprietary right to the nine-inning baseball game.”

In any case, Letterman changed the title of the “Top Ten List” bit to “Late Show Top Ten,” and kept doing the exact same thing he had been, and NBC didn’t attempt any further action. It’s almost like, we don’t know, it was all just about them being petty dicks about the whole thing.

 
#2. Only Klondike Bars Are Allowed to Use Blue Ink

The Klondike Bar is a little gift from the Asgardian gods produced by Unilever, who, unlike Haagen-Dazs, are a real Dutch company. Rather than take advantage of their European origins to sell the concept of cold, they use the name “Klondike,” the color blue, and an image of a polar bear to indicate “Hey, consumers! This product is cold!” Y’know, in case the fact that it’s sitting in a freezer isn’t enough of a hint. After going to all that effort, they dusted their hands and decided that nobody should ever be able to use these concepts again.

Unfortunately for the makers of Klondike, Kraft Foods sat up in the early 1980s and said, “Hmm, consumers seem to enjoy ice cream wrapped in chocolate. I wonder if we could get in on that.” After coming up with the name “Polar B’ar” (marketing guys are geniuses), Kraft chose to put a polar bear on the package and color it blue. Because, y’know, cold. Naturally, this didn’t sit well with Klondike, who were under the impression that they owned the color blue.

The Fallout:

No, Klondike didn’t succeed in trademarking one-sixth of the rainbow. Blue was ruled to be a “functional color” for frozen food, in that it implied “cold” to consumers. In other words, Klondike simply made the connection that millions before it have made between blue and cold. As it turns out, there are certain things people won’t do for a Klondike Bar, including letting them stake a claim on a large chunk of the visible light spectrum. Nevertheless, Klondike came out on top, because nobody has ever heard of Polar B’ars to this day.

 
#1. Monster Cable Claims to Have Invented Monsters

Monster Cable is a company notorious for charging hundreds of dollars for HDMI cables that are, by definition, no better than a $2 piece of copper scraped off the floor of Newegg’s warehouse. So the question is, how do they keep people shelling out for their products? The answer, of course, is the same way certain wineries get consumers to spend $300 on a bottle of wine that tastes exactly the same as a $3 bottle of Thunderbird: with mountains upon mountains of marketing bullshit, making sure you know and remember their brand name.

Unfortunately for Monster, they managed to pick one of the most obvious, overused brand names ever. They were far from the first (or last) business to recognize that the word “Monster” sounded totally badass, at least to people with tiny imaginations — which made things hard for them when they moved to permanently sear their name into the public’s consciousness. And by that we mean Monster moved to sue every other business that ever used the name “Monster.” Among them:

- Monster Energy Drinks
- Monster Mini Golf
- Monster.com
- Monster Transmission, an auto garage in Florida
- The Discovery Channel (for airing a show called Monster Garage )
- The Chicago Bears (for going by the nickname “Monsters of the Midway”)
- Fenway Park (for having “Monster Seats”)
- Bally Gaming (for selling “Monster Slots” machines)

And the icing on the cake was their attempt to go after the Walt Disney Company. Why? For making the movie Monsters, Inc. All together, there have been almost 200 legal battles.

The Fallout:

The funny thing about trademarks is that they’re market-specific. If you sell cables and trademark your brand name, that only means no other cable companies can use it. It doesn’t mean nobody else can ever use it to describe anything. That’s the good news.

The bad news, for the people being sued, anyway, is that when you can sell $2 worth of copper for $100, you have a lot of money to afford an army of lawyers. While Monster has rarely won the lawsuits it’s filed, it’s cost its opponents enormous amounts in legal fees and wasted countless hours of court time.

Not surprisingly, though, after meeting with Disney’s even bigger army of lawyers, Monster sheepishly declared that there had been “no trademark infringement.” Go figure.

- Article by Luke T. Harrington, August 06, 2013

Source: http://www.cracked.com/article_20559_the-6-most-ridiculous-things-people-claimed-to-legally-own.html

Aug
30
2013

The 15 Most Ridiculous Trademark Attempts Ever

The 15 Most Ridiculous Trademark Attempts Ever

It turns out the trademark side of the US Patent and Trademark Office is just as fun. The New England Patriots tried to trademark “19-0″, a reference to a spotless season. Too bad they lost the Super Bowl two weeks later. And even though it’s not uncommon for public figures to own their names, Sarah Palin was denied because she forgot to sign her application.

 
Snooki lost the rights to her nickname to a cartoon cat.

Who: Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi

What she wanted to trademark: Her name, “Snooki”

Status: Denied

You’d think the Jersey Shore Star would have no trouble getting her infamous nickname trademarked. But when she tried last year, the USPTO rejected her claim.

They were worried consumers might get her confused with Snooky, the cat star of a children’s book, which already owns the trademark.

 
The Patriots are denied the trademark rights to “19-0″ just in time for a crushing Super Bowl defeat.

Who: The New England Patriots

What they wanted to trademark: “19-0″

Status: Denied

The team’s owner applied to trademark “19-0″, a reference to the perfect season, in January 2008—weeks before they lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants.

Then, in a hilarious turn of events, the always-snarky New York Post responded by filing an application for “18-1.”

Better luck next time, guys.

 
Walmart tried to claim the happy face—what would Forrest Gump say?

Who: Walmart

What it wanted to trademark: The yellow smiley face design

Status: Denied

The smiley face has been around since the 70s, but that didn’t stop Walmart from trying to trademark it in 2006.

The chain even tried to sue artist Charles Smith for parodying the symbol. The courts, however, ruled that the smiley face is public domain.

 
Paris Hilton won a huge lawsuit over Hallmark for infringing on her trademarked catchphrase: “That’s Hot!”

Who: Paris Hilton

What she wanted to trademark: “That’s hot”

Status: Approved

Say what you will about the hotel heiress, just don’t try to slap her catchphrase on your product.

In 2007, she sued Hallmark for using the expression, and her likeness, on one of its cards — and she won.

 
The USPTO denied Sarah Palin’s request to trademark her name because she forgot to sign her name.

Who: Sarah Palin

What she wanted to trademark: Her name, “Sarah Palin”

Status: Denied

The former VP candidate has made headlines for taking liberties with the English language. But perhaps her biggest flop of all occurred when she tried to trademark her name.

Palin had an attorney draw up the application, but it required her signature for approval. She must have been too busy being the Shakespeare of Twitter to remember to sign, because the USPTO turned down her request.

 
Syracuse is trying to trademark “orange” and offending every other orange-colored school.

Who: Syracuse University

What it wants to trademark: “Orange”

Status: Pending

Orange is crucial to the ‘Cuse spirit—it’s both a school color and the nickname for its sports teams. So, in 2004 and 2006, they applied to trademark the word.

The request is still being considered, much to the dismay of schools like Tennessee and Florida. According to the USPTO, many have even filed formal oppositions. No word on whether or not House Speaker John Boehner will follow suit.

 
Twitter lost the word “tweet” to a third-party developer.

Who: Twitter

What it wanted to trademark: “Tweet”

Status: Denied

The micro-blogging service may be worth billions, but it still can’t claim ownership over the word “tweet”.

The trademarks office rejected Twitter’s application because of an earlier claim by a third-party developer. Twittad, a Twitter-based advertising service, trademarked the phrase “Let Your Ad Meet Tweets” in 2008.

 
Boise State trademarked its blue football field. Other schools responded by dyeing their turfs equally ridiculous colors.

Who: Boise State University

What it wanted to trademark: Its blue turf

Status: Approved

The university’s Bronco Stadium is known for its signature blue artificial turf.

So, in 2009, Boise State secured the trademark rights to its unusual field, affectionately known as the Smurf Turf.

However, the claim doesn’t prevent other non-green grounds. In 2010, Eastern Washington installed bright red turf and Central Arkansas recently announced plans for a purple and gray field.

 
Subway sent cease-and-desist letters to vendors before it actually owned the rights to “footlong”.

Who: Subway

What it’s trying to trademark: “Footlong”

Status: Pending

The sandwich chain has been trying to slap a trademark on its “footlong” sandwiches for years. Not only is Subway battling opposition from other big chains like Pizza Hut and KFC, it faces smaller restaurants too.

Subway’s lawyer reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Coney Island hot dog shop and an Iowa-based general store. The latter responded with a major lawsuit. Too bad Subway doesn’t actually own any rights to the term.

 
Harley tried to trademark the sound of its engine.

Who: Harley Davidson

What it wanted to trademark: The sound of a revving engine

Status: Denied

The motorcycle makers are hardly the first company to try and own a sound. NBC trademarked its three-tone jingle and the lion’s roar belongs to MGM. Harley wasn’t quite as lucky as its predecessors, though.

Though they applied to trademark the sound of a revving engine, it fell through when other manufactures complained that their engines sounded exactly the same.

Harley officially dropped the request in 2000.

 
Apple and Amazon are at war over the former’s ownership of the term “App Store”.

Who: Apple

What it wanted to trademark: “App Store”

Status: Approved—for now.

Even though the “App” in “App Store” is short for application, not Apple, the computer giant owns the rights to the phrase. That didn’t stop Amazon.com from launching its own version for Android phones last month.

Apple slammed Amazon with a lawsuit. Further complicating this linguistic mess is the suit Microsoft filed against Apple in January.

According to Microsoft, the phrase “App Store” has become a generic expression.

 
McDonald’s has had mixed legal luck when it comes ownership of the “Mc” prefix.

Who: McDonald’s

What it wanted to trademark: “Mc” prefix

Status: Denied

In the past, the fast food chain has emerged victorious from courtroom battles against smaller stores like McCoffee, a San Francisco cafe, and MacJoy, a Philippine fast food restaurant.

But their luck seems have to reversed. In 2009, McDonald’s lost an eight-year battle with a Malaysian restaurant called McCurry. Federal courts ruled that no person would confuse the two.

 
Trump’s catchphrase application got “fired” from the USPTO

Who: Donald Trump

What he wanted to trademark: “You’re fired”

Status: Denied

The real-estate-mogul-turned-reality-star-turned-presidential-hopeful sought to make even more money by trademarking “You’re fired!”

Reports say he planned to stick his signature catchphrase on clothing, games and casino services.

Unfortunately, officials thought “You’re Fired” sounded too much like “You’re Hired,” an educational board game.

Don’t feel too bad for Trump though—he just landed yet another TV deal.

 
In addition to your pictures and personal information, Facebook owns the word “face”.

Who: Facebook

What it wanted to trademark: “Face”

Status: Approved

As if the social networking site needed any more ammo against competitors, it recently trademarked the word “face”.

But don’t worry, it only applies to telecommunication services, so companies like Northface are safe.

So far, Apple’s video chat app FaceTime is also safe, but we think it’d be fun to see Jobs and Zuckerberg duke it out in court.

 
Jason Gambert repeatedly tried to trademark SEO, but the internet fought back.

Who: Jason Gambert

What he tried to trademark: “SEO”

Status: Denied

If you haven’t heard of Gambert, don’t worry. When he filed several applications to claim ownership of SEO as a marketing tool, beginning in 2007, no one else had either.

But when blogger Sarah Bird discovered the applications, she posted Gambert’s saga and invited readers to file notices of opposition. And it worked.

In March of 2010, the UPSTO threw out his requests.

 
- Article by Alana Horowitz, April 8, 2011

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ridiculous-trademarking-attempts-2011-4?op=1

Aug
29
2013

How People Ridiculously Claim Exclusive Use of Things

How People Ridiculously Claim Exclusive Use of Things

People have been claiming to own exclusive use of things in ways that suppress creativity and evolution. Can you believe Apple sue companies that use the word “pod”? Warhammer went after others for using the term “space marine” and Monster Cable filed lawsuits against almost 200 companies including Disney for using the word “Monster”. The worst part is, most of these cases are actually allowed to go to court. They waste people’s time and money. The most ridiculous case of all is when Apple Corps (Music Company) sued Apple Computer in the beginning for the word “Apple”. Anything that inhibits creativity is against natural law.

 
Trademark Abuse

“Most people get the use of the term “Trademark Abuse” wrong. They refer to trademark abuse when they really mean trademark infringement or trademark misuse. Trademark abuse is where the trademark owner improperly uses their position to threaten or file suit against someone who is not infringing. Usually it is a corporation attempting to extert control over a mark beyond that legally offered by trademark law. These corporations and their bottom-feeders, also known as corporate lawyers, use cease and desist letters as one tool to stifle the use of terms over which they have no legitimate rights. Another tool is the threat of litigation. However, often they succeed because the cost and time of litigation works against the non-infringing party especially when they are a small company. Like copyright abuse and patent abuse, trademark abuse is an equitable defense against trademark infringement but hardly anyone uses it.”

Source: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/TrademarkAbuse/TrademarkAbuse.shtml

 
Apple Battles Entrepreneur over ‘Pod’ Trademark

“We assure ourselves that words will never hurt us, but they can cost a lot of time and money when it comes to trademark battles. Take the story of Daniel Kokin, who is continuing to fight Apple over a three-letter word: Pod.

Not iPod, mind you — just “Pod.” For nine years, Kokin has been developing a video projector, whose body design he feels is best described as a pod. His “Video Pod” projector would display video from a DVD player and other multimedia equipment, but not an iPod.”

Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/video-pod/

“My team started working on the Video Pod in 2000, and it took us years to go from prototype to funded,” Kokin said. “At that time, Apple didn’t even enter our minds as a competitor. Now it’s 2010, and I still don’t think Apple is interested in video projection, but I’m supposed to rename our product because Apple also uses pod?”
- Kokin

This trademark fight is nothing personal: Apple has historically filed oppositions against small tech-related businesses attempting to use Pod in their product names. Names that have come under fire include MyPodder, TightPod, PodShow and even Podium. Sector Labs is the only company to go to trial with Apple over using the Pod branding.

“Ana Christian, Kokin’s lawyer, says the fight is about more than allowing small businesses to use Pod in their product names. She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words. For example, Facebook recently filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Teachbook over use of the word book. Other companies have also aggressively defended trademarks on common words, such as Microsoft with the word windows.

“I’m trying to look at it on the big picture,” Christian said. “What I’m hoping to do with this case is to really reach a lot broader of an audience and make it so entrepreneurs and small businesses can use the English language as they see fit in branding their products.”

Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/apple-goes-to-trial-with-startup-over-pod-trademark/

 
We have discovered what we believe to be a nefarious plot by Apple to take over the world, one trademark at a time. Unable to accomplish what they seek to accomplish through copyright law, Apple is attempting to control the wonderful world of modern electronics by obtaining registered trademarks of commonly used images for cell phones and other hand-held electronics devices.”

“Pictures of some more trademarks for which Apple has filed. Look at them. The first one is the standard play button symbol that has been used for years. Then a camera lens? And a drawing of a cell phone. Next is the standard stop button that has been used for years. Then a drawing of what – an iPad? Then basic math calculators symbols and a music cleft. Apple wants to claim sole ownership for all of these marks. Then Apple can claim that anything “similar” is infringing.”

Source: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/Electronics/Apple/Apple.shtml

 
Trademarking “Law of Attraction”

“In 2006, Esther and Jerry Hicks tried to trademark the phrase “Law of Attraction,” which dates back at least to 1904 with Judge Thomas Troward.”

Is this how we talk about information we allegedly receive from “infinite intelligence”?

“It was refused by the US Patent & Trade Office, who included various articles to show that Law of Attraction was clearly a term that had existed prior to their usage of it.”

“The examining attorney has provided ample proof that the term “law of attraction” was not coined by applicant, but is used in the self-help community to describe a particular form of self-help, and that the term has been in constant use since at least 1906.”

Source: http://abrahamhicksfraud.blogspot.sg/p/trademarking-law-of-attraction.html

 
Games Workshop Claims to Own the Concept of Space Marines

“Games Workshop decided to enter the fiction market and were shocked to find that fiction about space marines already existed. The only reasonable thing to do was sue these bastards who stole their idea of marines in space. The biggest dick move on the thieves’ part was that they apparently used time travel to do it.

Unfortunately for Games Workshop, they apparently knew nothing at all about sci-fi literature. They could have sued any one of the hundreds of authors who used the words “space marine” in their books. They could have sued freaking Microsoft for publishing a line of Halo books. People love it when Microsoft gets sued.

Instead, they went after M.C.A. Hogarth, a stay-at-home mom making ends meet by self-publishing sci-fi novels. They contacted Amazon, demanding that they take down her hilariously titled novel Spots the Space Marine: Defense of the Fiddler.

As you might imagine, this sort of corporate bullying didn’t sit well with the general public. The Interwebs lit up with nerdrage, several noted sci-fi authors jumped to Hogarth’s defense, and Games Workshop quietly dropped the complaint. Meanwhile, Hogarth got all sorts of free publicity for her book.”

Source: http://www.cracked.com/article_20559_the-6-most-ridiculous-things-people-claimed-to-legally-own.html

 
Monster Cable Claims to Have Invented Monsters

“Monster moved to sue every other business that ever used the name “Monster.” Among them:

- Monster Energy Drinks
- Monster Mini Golf
- Monster.com
- Monster Transmission, an auto garage in Florida
- The Discovery Channel (for airing a show called Monster Garage )
- The Chicago Bears (for going by the nickname “Monsters of the Midway”)
- Fenway Park (for having “Monster Seats”)
- Bally Gaming (for selling “Monster Slots” machines)

And the icing on the cake was their attempt to go after the Walt Disney Company. Why? For making the movie Monsters, Inc. All together, there have been almost 200 legal battles.

The funny thing about trademarks is that they’re market-specific. If you sell cables and trademark your brand name, that only means no other cable companies can use it. It doesn’t mean nobody else can ever use it to describe anything. That’s the good news.

The bad news, for the people being sued, anyway, is that when you can sell $2 worth of copper for $100, you have a lot of money to afford an army of lawyers. While Monster has rarely won the lawsuits it’s filed, it’s cost its opponents enormous amounts in legal fees and wasted countless hours of court time.

Not surprisingly, though, after meeting with Disney’s even bigger army of lawyers, Monster sheepishly declared that there had been “no trademark infringement.” Go figure.”

Source: http://www.cracked.com/article_20559_the-6-most-ridiculous-things-people-claimed-to-legally-own_p2.html

 
Leo Stoller Says He Owns the Word ‘Stealth’

“Can a man own a word? And can he sue to keep other people from using it?

Over the last few years, Leo Stoller has written dozens of letters to companies and organizations and individuals stating that he owns the trademark to “stealth.” He has threatened to sue people who have used the word without his permission. In some cases, he has offered to drop objections in exchange for thousands of dollars. And in a few of those instances, people or companies have paid up.”

“Mr. Stoller said he first registered “stealth” as a trademark in 1985 to cover an array of sporting goods.”

“The best-known stealth brand may be the military’s B2 stealth bomber, whose main contractor, Northrop Grumman, has fought Mr. Stoller to something of standoff. In 2001, the company paid Mr. Stoller $10 and agreed to abandon its trademark applications to use “stealth bomber” in spinoff products like model airplanes and video games. In return, Mr. Stoller agreed not to oppose Northrop’s use of “stealth” in aircraft or defense equipment.

“We resolved it in a way that achieved our business purposes without in any way agreeing that Mr. Stoller’s assertions were correct,” said Tom Henson, a Northrop Grumman spokesman.”

“A search of United States Patent and Trademark Office records found that Mr. Stoller and companies that share a Chicago post office box with him – Central Mfg., Stealth Industries, and S. Industries – hold at least two dozen registered trademarks for “stealth,” covering such diverse products and services as crossbows, pool cues and insurance consultations.

Mr. Stoller said that he also held and administered as many as two dozen other “stealth” trademarks, and insisted that his close association with the word gave him special rights.”

“We’re entitled to own it with all goods and services,” he said. “We were there first.”

“For all his time in federal courtrooms – Mr. Stoller says his companies have been in court 60 times – there is no record within the Lexis database of a federal court decision on “stealth” in his favor. But in 2003, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused to allow an air conditioner company called York International to use “stealth” because Mr. Stoller had previously sold air conditioners with that name.”

“Eric Goldhagen, a member of the InterActivist Network, said that members of his group planned to talk to lawyers and others who have received letters from Mr. Stoller to discuss ways to deal with his “stealth” claims. “The fact that somebody, just by claiming to own a word, can intimidate large companies and powerful law firms shows the damage, to an extent, is already done,” he said. “If people like Stoller are allowed to get away with this unchallenged, there could be ripple effects to every form of public mass media.”

In the movie realm, Mr. Stoller says that he sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sony in March, objecting to Columbia Pictures’ plan to open its Navy film under the title “Stealth.” The next month Columbia asked the federal court in Chicago to rule that using the word as a movie title did not violate copyright law.

Mr. Stoller, who has filed a counterclaim, says he will not back down. “I will police and protect the stealth mark against all,” he said.”

- Colin Moynihan (New York Times, Published: July 4, 2005)

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/business/04stealth.html

 
Jason Gambert repeatedly tried to trademark SEO, but the internet fought back.

“If you haven’t heard of Gambert, don’t worry. When he filed several applications to claim ownership of SEO as a marketing tool, beginning in 2007, no one else had either.

But when blogger Sarah Bird discovered the applications, she posted Gambert’s saga and invited readers to file notices of opposition. And it worked.

In March of 2010, the UPSTO threw out his requests.”

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ridiculous-trademarking-attempts-2011-4?op=1

 
Reforming Trademark Law to Reflect the Internet Economy

The protections granted under intellectual property law were originated first and foremost to advance the cause of science and thereby society. This goal was explicitly codified in Article I of the United States Constitution, stating that to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts,” Congress may grant “authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Only as a secondary and indirect result were intellectual property rights protected to reward businesses and inventors. However, the soaring value of intellectual property has resulted in businesses becoming increasingly zealous and litigious in guarding their intellectual property. This has ironically resulted in intellectual property law, and the rights it grants, becoming more of a hindrance than a spur to societal and scientific advancement.

While true in all areas of intellectual property, this is particularly the case in trademark law. Yet trademark law has deviated from its origins of societal advancement and consumer protection and has now become an impediment to the formation of new businesses and ideas. Trademark law should be reformed to coincide with new marketplace realities and changed consumer perceptions caused by the advent of the Internet.

“Several revolutionary transformations ushered in by the Internet have changed the way consumers view trademarks and how trademarks function. New guidelines that reflect these changes desperately need to be implemented, again making trademark law an impetus and not an obstacle for societal growth.

“This exponential growth in the number of trademarks and domain names has made consumers increasingly aware of subtle distinctions between trademarks. This lessens the likelihood that consumers will find two similar trademarks or domain names to be confusingly similar. Instead, consumers now view trademarks, and particularly domain names, as analogous to phone numbers. For like a phone number where one wrong digit will result in a different person being contacted, small differences in domain names will lead to a different domain name and company. As an example, consumers now realize that typing in www.homes.com will take them to a different company than typing in www.ehomes.com.

The courts, using precedents established before the explosive growth in the number of trademarks and domain names, have not mirrored consumers’ increasing sophistication and ability to distinguish subtle differences in trademarks. As a result, courts are granting current trademark owners too much protection and thereby impeding the formation of other trademarks that can coexist in the marketplace without consumer confusion occurring. Except for very strong trademarks or obvious attempts at trademark infringement, courts should only find a likelihood of consumer confusion when the marks are identical or very nearly so. This would again root trademark law in its origins of protecting consumers and not businesses.”

“The worldwide nature of the Internet coupled with courts’ holding that marketing on the Internet is only one channel of trade, has increased the likelihood of a court finding trademark infringement more so than in the past. This greater protection for trademarks has paradoxically come at a time when savvy consumers require less protection than ever.

Trademark law should be reformed to better reflect new marketplace realities and changed consumer perceptions as discussed throughout this article. Until then, trademark law will ironically continue to run counter to its origins of societal advancement and consumer protection.

Source: http://www.registeringatrademark.com/reforming-trademark-law.shtml

 
How Trademark Laws Can Be Improved

In the past, it might be harder to check for how words and names are used in business. But that is not the case now with the evolution of the internet. People can simply do a search to see how long something has been used, and how widely it has reached. Trademark laws should be based on three things: First to use, Strength of use, and Nature of use. For example: If one person is the first to use a particular mark with significant effect, then another person or company that uses that mark later has no right to sue the first person who used it. And if the second person uses the mark in such a way that it creates a strong enough effect on the marketplace, then the first person has no right to sue the second person who uses it and created significant effect with it. And if a trademark consists of words or a combination of words that appropriately describes a certain subject or an action (For e.g. “Law of Attraction”, “Photoshopped”, etc) then people have no right to stop others from using such words in communication of thoughts and ideas. In other words, rights should be based on capability, action and reason, and not mere claiming of it. In other words, rights of use should be based on “I used it first” and/or “I used it well” and/or “I used it appropriately”.

 
The Real Solution to All of These

In Truth, all man made laws and external authority should be removed, and only Natural Law and Self Sovereignty should exist. Trademark laws, patent laws and copyright laws have created more problems than they solve. A society that is truly free does not have man made laws but it follows only Natural Law.

 
You can help by educating others about this as well. Help stop creativity and education from being destroyed by abuse of corporate law. This affects everyone.

The rules of reality are defined by collective consciousness. Help spread the word to get as many people as possible to re-think what’s being allowed to be done.

Freedom has to be fought for. People will keep doing what they can get away with until others start standing up for their rights or what is right.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
- Edmund Burke

Older posts «

» Newer posts