Trademark Troll Claims Ownership Of Google; Google Claims Troll Is Racketeering

from the nice-try dept

Wed, Jan 24th 2007 11:31am — Mike Masnick

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

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Sanguine Dream, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:14pm

Bar none...
this is the oddest post I've ever seen on this site. Mind I've only been reading/posting here about a year but still...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:16pm

Antibodies need germs
I've made the argument before that people like Stoller are good for justice in the long run. As Spike Milligan used to say "It takes a crank to start the engine". He's a comedian and a troublemaker. I might even have a kind of weird respect for him if he wasn't so blatently in it for personal financial gain.

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 thread ]
thinlizzy151, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:16pm

trademark troll
This guy has a ton of chutzpah, I'll give him that. Too bad he doesn't have the brains to go with it. Then he might actually be dangerous rather than pathetic. At least he keeps the corporate legal trolls busy, they have to do something to earn their inordinate salaries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:19pm

Re: Bar none...
Yeah... I think I'm mentally dizzy now...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:19pm

jinx
thinlizzy. I guess you're just a more eloquent quantum coupled evil twin from a parallel universe. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:22pm

Re: trademark troll
This guy has a ton of chutzpah, I'll give him that.

He claims that trademark on chutzpah as well, apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Bar none...
Isn't all dizzines mental?

Anyway, I hope he posts again!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:37pm

Re: Antibodies need germs
I would agree if I thought his nipping at the heels of the system would do any good. Unlike those big businesses Mr. Stoller can't give the judge presiding over the case an island vacation as a "token of appreciation".

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 thread ]
TriZz, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:48pm

Racketeering...
How is his threats to Google any different than the RIAA threats to everyone that they sue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:49pm

LOL
Can't we all just get along? Google should just offer him a job. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason Bateman, 24 Jan 2007 @ 12:56pm

Google Gear
Does anyone remember "Google Gear"? They made plenty of "Made in China" types of products that you could buy for fairly cheap or for only the cost of delivery. Clocks, pens, note books, paper weights, bags..etc. Basically, business-type novelty items with the "google gear" logo plastered on each.

"Google Gear" is now known as "Zip Zoom Fly".
http://www.google.com/googlegear.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 1:10pm

Re: Racketeering...
How is his threats to Google any different than the RIAA threats to everyone that they sue?

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 thread ]
VT, 24 Jan 2007 @ 1:34pm

Re: Antibodies need germs
The difference between this troll and Amazon is that 'One Click' is a valid innovation (I have seen no evidence that they did not implement it first), even if it's the obvious (and therefor should not be patentable) end result of making purchasing as quick as possible, in theory that is a benefit to Amazon and/or Amazon's customers. The troll on the other hand is just committing fraud on the USPTO, and then extorting his targets, that provides not benefit to any one that Trademark law is meant to benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben(Damnit), 24 Jan 2007 @ 2:11pm

he's got a google to 1 chance.

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 thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 24 Jan 2007 @ 2:19pm

Re: Re: Antibodies need germs
Here's the list of candidates for prior art on the Amazon "one click" VT.

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 thread ]
Hyrulio, 24 Jan 2007 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Bar none...
Dizzyness is caused my the fluid in your ear (which act's like an organic spirit level) becoming unlevel, and sending the message to your brain that you are spinning/moving in some way, and your other senses telling your brain that you arn't doing that, the mixed messages confuse your brain into the state of "dizzyness"

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 thread ]
theMouse, 24 Jan 2007 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Antibodies need germs
"one click" as a valid innovation is just plain stupid.

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 thread ]
Bryan, 24 Jan 2007 @ 3:30pm

Re: 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!!

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 thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 24 Jan 2007 @ 4:08pm

Is this guy related Jack Thompson? Man there are some crazy people out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fazookus, 24 Jan 2007 @ 7:16pm

The new SCO!
I was going to say maybe this guy will provide some continued entertainment on the legal front once SCO finally evaporates but actually he's just pathetic whereas the SCO people are pretty much evil.

Oh well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 25 Jan 2007 @ 3:21am

Go Stoller, Go Stoller, Go....
Me like funny man - he make me laugh ;0)

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 thread ]
Sohrab, 25 Jan 2007 @ 3:23am

cant we like take this guys rights away or something to sue after this long record of him trolling companies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike, 25 Jan 2007 @ 12:35pm

It's generic, no wait.. license it from me
I fail to see the logic. On one hand, he attempts to get others to license it. On the other, he threatens to shut it down for being a generic term.

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 thread ]
Chili Palmer, 7 Apr 2009 @ 7:33am

Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog
The Leo Stoller Truth Serum Blog is dedicated to providing full disclosure about Leo Stoller, who is not an attorney and whose lack of credibility has been called "a matter of public record."

http://stollerexposed.blog.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]