Lawyer Attempts To Trademark Bitcoin 209
An anonymous reader writes "A NY based lawyer has submitted an application to the US Patent and Trademark Office claiming first use of the term bitcoin on June 22nd, 2011. The evidence of first use in the form of a letter detailing his wife's offer to sell "bitcoin" for $17.50 on June 23rd. A pdf extolling the virtues of bitcoin has also been uploaded to his law firms webpage."
Punish Trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess he thought the wikipedia stub for Bitcoin created 8th March 2009 doesn't count as prior art or something.
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:5, Informative)
While the term 'prior art' is a patent term, there is something directly similar called prior use. So the argument is still valid, even if the terminology is not legally exact.
Generacization (Score:4, Informative)
The chief enemy of trademarks isn't "Prior Art" but becoming "Generic".
It doesn't absolutely matter who used what first (unlike prior art & patents).
What matters is :
- In the market where a the trademarked product is sold, does this name clearly identifies the product as a separate marketed entity ?
- Does the company owning the trademark actively work in order to avoid the term becoming generic.
The first is why, sometime, plain normal dictionary words are acceptable as a trademark. Because in that market the word clearly is the specific product. As an example : an apple is a fruit. But Apple, in the IT world, is clearly the maker of Mac and iProducts, that's why its trademarkable. Then, when it moved into the music sector, things started to get problematic, because the Apple name was also widely known for a music publishing company. On the other hand you can't name a media player "Player" and attempt to trademark it this way, because the word "Player" is already used to describe the whole category of this product. It's not specific.
(Also that explains why some words can be trademarked for lots of separate products by separate companies. There is a brand of diapers called "Unix". But the chance of making a confusion between an operating system and an accessory for babies).
In today situation, bitcoins can't be used for a product name, because in the specific domain where lawyer attempts to trademark the word (in the realm of virtual currency) the word "bitcoin" has been already in use to designate a virtual currency. He can't claim the name for his own product. (Or at least not alone. He can still try to market his shop "Mama Jess' all honest Bitcoin trade" - or something along this idea)
The second is why we very often see completely stupid suits happening now or then about trademarks. The owner has to be active preventing the word becoming generic. That's why Google is publishing explanation about how to correctly use this name. Otherwise there's a risk that people will start using as verb, and then use the verb to describe "searching on any search engine".
Now, if the lawyer start pretending that in fact, he's also been working on his very own virtual currency-based product, that he back then decided to call "bitcoin" and is only filing the trademark now :
Well, theorically, he could try filing the trademark so late (as said above, timeline isn't relevant), but the problem is that until now that he's filing it, he hasn't done anything to try to protect the trademark. Even if he genuinely wanted to call his product "bitcoin", it's too late because that word is now widely use to describe the virtual currency we all know about, not specifically the product that this lawyer has been trying to sell.
Unix diapers (Score:3, Informative)
Are those for boy or girls? Or just universal?
Apparently : they are unisex [bell-labs.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice rant, but unfortunately your knowledge of intellectual property laws is about on par with the rest of slashdot. First, you can't trademark troll, since trademarks are only valid if in active use. Second, there's no such thing as prior art in trademark law. If Coca Cola went out of business tomorrow, and nobody bothered to buy up their trademark, it would be perfectly legal for me to start my own soda company called Coca Cola. Third, most of the fault here is Bitcoin's, as they should have registere
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I had mod points yesterday, but they're gone today, or I'd mod you up. Too bad too that you posted as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but registering trademarks is not necessary.
As far as I understand a registration was needed in the US in the past, but to harmonize with international laws that was changed.
Still, registering a trademark helps to determine who has priority, but with a term like bitcoin it would be quite easy to prove that one has been using that term commercially way before this lawyer tried to trademark it.
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
Registering a trademark isn't necessary. It's never been necessary. International laws have not changed trademarks like they have changed copyright.
Even a registered trademark can be restricted geographically. An example is Waffle House. Waffle House is a chain of diner-like restaurants in the Southeast US. It has a federal mark for 'Waffle House.' However, a chain of Waffle House restaurants geographically located in Indiana (or Illinois, can't remember exactly) had used the mark in that geographic location prior to Waffle House seeking the federal registration.
The result is that Waffle House cannot use the Waffle House name for its restaurants in Indiana because of the already-existing Waffle House restaurants. Instead, it goes by Waffle Steak.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I rarely read /. these days. Far too much waffle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> Third, most of the fault here is Bitcoin's, as they should have registered the trademark themselves, or failing that, protected their trademark
> without registration.
I was unaware that an abstract unit of measurement could trademark itself. The whole point o fbitcoin was to design a currency system with no central issuing authority. There is no single, cohesive organization that backs bitcoin. The closest thing to that would be the person generally recognized as the lead developer but, it is really
Re: (Score:2)
It's either the one, the zero or the coin.
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
no idea about the US but here(tm) in the EU trademarks are not registered exclusively for every usage but for one (or many...) classes according to the Nice Classification [wipo.int] (stupid javascripty page, no idea how to deeplink to "Class Headings").
So it would probably impossible to register the generic term "Internet" as trademark for class 38 (telecommunication) or 9 (data processing equipment and computers), but until 2009 (the holder deleted the trademark) "Internet" was in Germany registered for class 39 (travel arrangement).
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
"Prior art" is about patents. Trademarks have more to do with "common use" and in this case, I believe that can be easily demonstrated. Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.
Re: (Score:2)
A McDonalds Big Mac is a thing too, and I'd wager McDonalds has a registered trademark for it.
The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.
If they lose it they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.
Stupid /. still doesn't do Unicode or even ordinary Latin-1. C'mon /., this is the 21st century. Get with the program. Honestly---
There was supposed to be a little superscript TM between i.e. and ,. That's what I get for not looking at the Preview before Submitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm they were busy being productive...
...mining Bitcoins (TM)!
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... I think you misunderstand. McDonald's Big Mac is a branded thing. The "thing" type is hamburger sandwich which is not eligible for trademark. For more examples, "Kleenex" is a brand of thing type "tissue paper" and "Coke" or "Coca-Cola" is a brand of thing type "soda" or "soft drink."
Whatever the case, the term was in use by Bitcoin.org prior to this lawyer's filing. Whatever he is up to, I am sure a judge presiding over a case surrounding this issue will see through it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK - "Hoover" became very concerned in the 70's that their vacuum cleaning products and those of other manufacturers were being called by their trademark - i.e. the term "hoover" had entered the english language - because, as soon as it does that - it cannot be trademarked anymore.
"To google" has done the same thing to the Google trademark in the UK.
(this could be a nuance of the UK trademark system)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. Common usage will cause you to lose a trademark.
see: Aspirin, Butterscotch, Zipper, Thermos, etc . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is bad news. The term "hamburger" predates the existence of McDonald's. That is most interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
"McDonald's Hamburgers" is a trademark (#1179646) but that's the two words together. An attempt was made on "cheeseburger" but it's not clear what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for spreading some FUD. Not that I'm a fan of McDonalds, but they actually have a trademark on the phrase "McDonalds Hamburgers" [uspto.gov]. Note the disclaimer: Applicant disclaims the right to the exclusive use of the word "Hamburgers" apart from the mark as shown..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Kleenex has not becomes genericized.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually back in the 80's there was a local chain of retail stores called "Software City" that considered themselves the "Software Super Store".
We call these descriptive names "brands".
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because your selective memory is indicative of reality as a whole.
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they lose it they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.
They can't lose it unless they simply don't respond to this fraudster's action. Use establishes trademarks, and prior use is always senior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who has worked at several companies making products that include it, Velcro is a particular brand of hook and loop fastener. And their lawyers will let you know it.
I wish they'd spend half that effort letting everyone know what the generic name is.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point they've lost that battle and really should have lost their trademark a long time ago. Especially considering that I'm 30 and this is the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest that there's a name for the generic version of the hook and loop fastener. It's not like Kleenexes, where most folks call them that but people are aware that they are also called tissues.
Re: (Score:2)
Burdock [wikipedia.org] fastener?
Re: (Score:2)
NO that haven't. Since you renders an opinion I will assume you should be familiar with the Federal Lanham act? 1065?no?
I went to USPTO.gov to find the relevant link but apparently they are using BING and it's returns seem to be nonsense.
I looked for "Prior USE" AND trademark and it returned a bunch of stuff that doesn't even have those term. It would highlight U.S. in the returned results.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks are not about common use but, rather, about how consumers will identify the mark. If the mark makes consumers think of the company claiming the mark then it can be registered.
Your argument that Bitcoin is a 'thing' is an argument that it is a generic term. This isn't really a good argument for Bitcoin because it's not generic. It is not really descriptive, either. It's more suggestive. This is neither the weakest nor the strongest type of mark. (There is a spectrum, in order of weakness to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you make a good point and I accept it. I think I was wrong in my initial assertion. After reading the lawyer's description of bitcoin, he identifies it as thing type "digital currency" and also as thing type "encrypted currency" as well as thing type "peer to peer currency." These things make sense.
However, if someone did come up with a rival to bitcoin and called it "something bitcoin" I think it would be acceptable to me. And I agree that bitcoin does identify a very particular type of thing
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is a "thing" not a brand and so it should not be eligible for trademark any more than "web browser" would be.
Well, i doubt anyone has trademaked the term Dollar.... I'll be right back....
Re: (Score:2)
Being allowed to apply and having it accepted is very different from the results of a challenge. It will be challenged eventually, and I believe the results will be found in favor or those who originally coined the term.
And yes, I agree that my initial argument is flawed.
That said, I do recall the "podcast" thing and but I don't think any court decision has been rendered on the matter -- Apple has only sent out C&Ds to my knowledge and I believe "podcast" is still a term in use by other parties not aff
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has no trademark on 'Podcast'
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. In addition to there not already being a company using that mark in the same market, you also can't use a unique mark. This includes the name, not just the logo. You can't make Coca Cola cleaner, you can't make Kodak coffee, you can't make Microsoft paper towel (whatever they do in an entirely dif
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me why "App Store" shouldn't be a trade mark?
Can you show prior use from before March 7, 2008?
And note: IT's 'App Store' , not 'appstore'.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me why "App Store" shouldn't be a trade mark?
Because the term "app store" was in use as a generic at least as far back as 2000. I posted a link here a while back to a usenet thread bemoaning the fact that Electronics Boutique had just become an "app store" at the mall.
The "Apple App Store" would be fine.
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine him? he's a lawyer. disbar him. He's obviously unfit to be legal council.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem....council [wikipedia.org] versus counsel [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You kidding? In the world of lawyers this type of action probably makes him a hero.
Re:Punish Trolls (Score:4)
Media Hog or Brilliant Unmasking of Creator? (Score:3)
It's obviously a publicity stunt, as there is no real money to be gained from this. He has (successfully) made himself famous, now placed on Wikipedia and on news outlets eating up bitcoin news *cough*slashdot*cough*. Fame CAN be bought.
The other thing to consider is whether or not this is a ploy to unmask the original creator of Bitcoin, who disappeared and remains completely anonymous. The lawyer might argue in a court case that only the original creator can defend or fight his claim. In that case...
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to forget that laws are written by lawyers and special interest groups for the sole benefit of lawyers and special interest groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news to you, Bitcoin is a strictly deflational currency and its inherent nature prevents it from ever reaching such number.
You seem confused. (Score:2)
Patent or trademark: which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
He's trying to trademark a term that's already in common use and claiming that his wife coined the term for somebody elses product. This isn't a case of somebody that's unaware that a term is already in use and trademarks it anyways. This is somebody that's deliberately trying to trademark a term which refers to a product that he doesn't own, control or create.
Given the use that he's citing only the most ignorant of examiners isn't going to wonder how the first use can possibly be in a sales transaction wit
I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (Score:5, Funny)
my first documented use of the word dollar being today when I said enthusiastically, "oh a dollar sign... how cool would that be if every one paid me a dollar every time they used the word dollar" ;)
Re:I hereby move to trademark the word "dollar" (Score:5, Funny)
my first documented use of the word dollar being today when I said enthusiastically, "oh a dollar sign... how cool would that be if every one paid me a dollar every time they used the word dollar" ;)
Even better, every time they pay you, ask them "How much was that again?..." and they would reply "Oh, just a dollar..dammit!". You would be raking it in, so much so that you would have to construct some sort of special multi-rake machine to get it all.
I'll trademark the term 'lawyer' then. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Law Society or similar organisation in your country / state already has prior exclusive rights to the name.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Will lose in court (Score:2)
Why he will succeed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Will the USPTO accept payment in BTC instead? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. But they definitely don't accept railroad bonds.
How did he even get through law school?? (Score:2)
"Bitcoin transactions are virtually anonymous, and untraceable."
4 lines later:
"a public list of all previous transactions is collectively maintained by the members (peers) on the network."
i guess it should be expected from someone trying to do something like this.
Re:How did he even get through law school?? (Score:4, Funny)
Link to the entry in the USPTO database (Score:2)
I just checked, it's actually in the US Patent & Trademark Office's trademark database:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491 [uspto.gov]
By the looks of it, it will be three months before it is assigned to an attourney for review.
I wonder if there is a fine for fraudulently claiming a trademark?
Re: (Score:2)
Report the applicant to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for illegally issuing their own money. They are applying for the trademark, so it must be them that's doing it.
I have already applied for copyrights (Score:3, Funny)
first
post
copyright
patent
plus
+
apple
troll
euro
.
I could apply for some more but I figure these will generate enough money for my needs. I am not greedy and selfish.
His business model makes sense to Slashdot crowd (Score:2)
2. Collect a royalty everytime someone uses them
3. Profit! He'll soon be a Bitcoin [tm] millionaire*
* which will buy him a BigMac [tm] in the real world once that phony currency collapses.
Maybe he should have googled it (Score:2)
Maybe he should have googled it before trying to trademark it. A google of "bitcoin" returns 8.7M hits. Seems like it is in pretty wide use. Maybe he can do like Band-Aids (Band-Aid brand bandages) and use "Bitcoin brand absurdity."
Aww... (Score:2)
More seriously, though, while it isn't clear that this guy is entitled to the trademark, it also isn't obviously deleterious for 'Bitcoin' to be a trademark(rather conveniently, the definition of a bitcoin is a quite specific bit of math, rather than some natural language handwaving, so it would arguably be a better defined trademark than man
Re: (Score:2)
Rather conveniently, the definition of a bitcoin is a quite specific bit of math, rather than some natural language handwaving, so it would arguably be a better defined trademark than many — unlike patents and copyrights, which are enforceable against all comers with only a few 'fair use' and such exceptions, so long as they aren't being used deceptively.
FTFY, by removing those unsightly parentheses. It's almost understandable now!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically correct. Someone could take the existing software even and tweak a couple of things and start their very own block chain. There is one such block chain already in use for the test network. But that block chain wouldn't be compatible with the current bitcoin block chain. It would be like another country's currency.
Re: (Score:2)
As in, the US Gov seizes trademark because they don't like it, then they use the trademark to try to take it down.
Please help this guy (Score:2)
1 - Trademark bitcoin
2 - ???
3 - ???
4 - Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
No, no... step #1 is missing too. He's not going to get that trademark.
1 - ???
2 - ???
3 - ???
4 - Money!!!!
"The love of money is the root of all evil" - Jesus Christ
There has to be more to this (Score:2)
It's clear that this guy has no claim to the trademark, and as a lawyer he would likely know this. So where's the rest of the story?
Use bitcoin to pay fee (Score:2)
I hope that rather than $US, he is going to try to pay the registration fee in bitcoin.
Vigilante justice (Score:3)
Now, normally, I am not a fan of vigilante justice, I should make that clear.
The problem I see however is that it is clear that our system no longer has justice for the common man. Justice can be bought in America, this is clear. Judges routinely tear up the constitution in order to protect corporate interests.
Lets say that a group of guys beat this guy down. I'm talking hardcore. Would the next guy think twice? What about beating 10 of these trolls down? How many beat downs would it take for the message to get out that the people are not going let you fuck them any more?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A witch wasn't a witch because there is no such thing (don't mention that silly religion like they actually have real witches.) A crooked bastard is something that exists and does so openly today with trite rationalizations as a defense -- not that they didn't do the stuff but that it is not a big deal go back and watch your TV...
The post wasn't talking of burning then (something that involved murder) but beating the snot out of them.
Those people are easy to spot and even if beaten in error; they will live
Publicity stunt? (Score:2)
The trademark claim is so easy to dispute, I'm guessing the lawyer is just trying to get attention.
Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of defending the trademark, the lawyer is promoting the virtues of Bitcoin. He is probably just trying to generate publicity to pump up the price of Bitcoins that his wife is selling. I doubt the lawyer is stupid enough to think he can be successful trademark Bitcoin.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. (Score:2)
Oh ... wait ... somebody already said that. Well, no matter. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Copyright (C) 2011 Squire Toad, all rights reserved.
Notice of Opposition (Score:2)
All these arguments are great, except that they mean nothing if the mark gets published in the Official Gazette and no one files a notice of opposition within 30 days. Then the mark will be presumed valid and harder to overturn. After a certain point, the mark can no longer be challenged, so it's best to get in opposition as early as possible.
If it gets past the first examiner, it will be published in the Official Gazette in the coming weeks (it's a weekly publication). That's when the notice of opposition
Where is anonymous when you need them? (Score:2)
The problem with our legal system it does what most of us know instincitvly not to. It feeds trolls.
They grow up with huge pudgy bellys and have little trolls. Before you know it there are more trolls than lawn gnomes and crack whores combined.
i would be interested to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let me fix that for you (Score:2)
Stunts like this should get lawyers disbarred on the spot.
Stunts like this should get lawyers dismembered on the spot.
Re: (Score:3)
So... (Score:2)
You conjure out of thin air what this guy is thinking and then declare him an idiot as a result.
As you were the one that actually came up with the thought you ascribed then logically that would make you....?
Re: (Score:2)
And lots of people need to learn that it isn't the same thing as a trademark.