Trademark Troll Claims Ownership Of Google; Google Claims Troll Is Racketeering
from the nice-try dept
Just last week, we had a short update on Leo Stoller, the trademark troll that the NY Times profiled in 2005. He claimed ownership of trademarks on a huge list of generic words and went about threatening lots of companies. He most famously claimed ownership of the word "stealth" and in a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of trademark law proceeded to go after anyone who used it, including Northrop Grumman, makers of the stealth bomber (who eventually paid him $10 -- yes, that's TEN dollars -- and abandoned their own trademark attempt). In the post last week, it noted that Stoller had declared bankruptcy and was to have his personal and corporate assets liquidated. He was also prevented from filing any more extension requests to the USPTO for a period of two years after flooding them with a bunch of bogus extension requests. If you thought any of that would slow Stoller down, you would have been wrong.Someone purporting to be Stoller (and we have no reason to believe it wasn't him) stopped by our comments to note that we shouldn't count him out yet, and that: "Every adverse case is up on appeal and it will not be over until the "fat" lady sings!" However, it appears that he now has another "adverse case" to deal with. This time, it's from Google and they're charging him with racketeering for trying to extort money out of them while claiming to own the trademark "Google" himself when he clearly did not.
Reading through the lawsuit filing (warning: pdf) is tremendously amusing. Google lists out the long, long history of Mr. Stoller, and details many of the lawsuits he's lost and bogus trademarks he's claimed to own. In 2005, similar to what he's done in the past, apparently, Stoller tried to claim the trademark on Google, sending a letter to the USPTO on letterhead supposedly from an organization called "Google Brand Licensing and Products," claiming the use of "Google" in commerce since 1981. Apparently this is similar to the way he obtained (or tried to obtain) certain other trademarks as well. At other times, Stoller also simply claimed on his website that you could license "Google" from him, though that was clearly untrue. He then demanded money from Google to make this go away, threatening to destroy the Google trademark by having it taken away as generic. In a letter to the company, he notes that it will cost them at least $150,000 to defend themselves, and they'd be better off just paying him $100,000. The threats get increasingly amusing, as he promises that Google's stock "won't be worth $5 a share" after he's done with them and, later, that he wouldn't be surprised if "Google goes out of business" by the end of his lawsuit.
Following this, it appears that Stoller did, indeed, file with the court to have Google's trademark taken away, claiming that it was a generic term, a fact which he then highlighted on his blog -- which apparently failed to have the expected impact of knocking Google's stock down to $5. In the last few weeks, Stoller has taken to posting a variety of posts about that filing on his blog that seem to focus on the salary of Google's lawyer. However, following these RICO filings against him, Stoller yesterday posted to his blog what appears to be an entire blog post mocking Google's lawyer, claiming that he filed the RICO charges because his nickname is RICO and saying he has always wanted to visit Porto [sic] Rico. I'm not a betting man, but I would imagine that Stoller's odds against Google in this case are not particularly good.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bar none...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bar none...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bar none...
Anyway, I hope he posts again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bar none...
Also, that guy's a moron! $150,000 to google is like one of us telling a guy at a shop to keep the penny change from a £99.99 purchase!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bar none...
Ummm, I think that is just what he was hoping, that they would give him the $100k and think nothing of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antibodies need germs
Face it, the legal system is broken. If people like Stoller have the time, audacity and persistence to nip at its heels then maybe it will begin to correct itself.
How are his absurd assertions any more ridiculous than Amazons "one click" patent? The difference is that Amazon are a massive corporation and Mr Stoller is a lone fruitcake, their claims are equally barking mad. I just wish he would direct his efforts at the patent system by, say, taking out patents on the increment operator or do-while loops. Hell, if this troll was truly intelligent he could be a formidable force for good changes.
Unfortunately, none of his claims seem to have any basis in reality whatsoever. He doesn't even seem to comprehend the laws he could take advantage of. So I guess he's just a crazy wingnut rather than an "activist troll".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antibodies need germs
Now if an activist troll that had some money and, more importantly, brains then yes he could do a lot of good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antibodies need germs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Antibodies need germs
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051130/1243250.shtml
http://igdmlgd.blogspot.com/2005/11/ amazon-one-click-reexamination-request.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060519-6872.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/713681
If Amazon had "invented" anything I would agree with your logic. However they didn't, and I don't. My comparison of the troll and Amazon stands. They are equally repugnant and damaging to commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Antibodies need germs
I have been programming for years. I don't know how many clients have asked me cant we just do that in "one click"
Isn't the little x on the top right of your application window.
"one click" to shutting the application down?
doesn't "one click" on your dvd player turn it off and on?
I mean you can kinda make an argument for "one click" as a slogan. But really you should loose.
this stuff is just out of hand, and so are the companies that sue everything/and everybody.
I mean the fact that you have to defend your right to keep something is stupid, just floods the courts with lawsuits. Which is already stuffed to overflowing.
now me? im just waiting for my patient on the term "start" meaing launching an application or a process...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trademark troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark troll
He claims that trademark on chutzpah as well, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jinx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Racketeering...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Racketeering...
If you mean morally, then they're not Trizz, that's the point. If a little troll goes up against a giant and loses (which is what we want) then it establishes a precedent that civil law must observe, and so stay logically consistent.
Many of the bad laws that exist today are only there because nobody has the balls to challenge them. One way to challenge a law is to advocate for the position with which you disagree and lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Gear
"Google Gear" is now known as "Zip Zoom Fly".
http://www.google.com/googlegear.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry. couldn't resist.
but seriously, isn't there some law that would effectively lock this guy up forever? I for one wouldn't miss him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new SCO!
Oh well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Stoller, Go Stoller, Go....
Please don't lock him up, I'm sure if he joined forces with all the posters around here we could send him off on a million and one equally excellent bizarre legal missions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's generic, no wait.. license it from me
If it's a generic term (which it isn't), then nobody would need to license it from him, because he also would have no protectable rights in the term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog
http://stollerexposed.blog.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]