There Can Be Only One... Cyberlawyer?
from the seriously? dept
In our culture where some companies (and their lawyers) have convinced people that intellectual property gives you total control over things, we start to see some bizarre and ridiculous trademark claims. The latest comes to us via the EFF, who point to a lawyer who has received a trademark on the term "cyberlaw" and is going after other lawyers who use the term which has been in fairly common usage for ages. As the EFF notes, it's especially upsetting that an intellectual property lawyer would abuse trademark law this way in a manner well beyond what trademark law is supposed to do -- while also warning that courts as well as tech companies don't tend to look kindly on people who abuse trademark law.
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
Filed Under: cyberlaw, trademarks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
tradesmackdown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tradesmackdown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going after...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Going after...
As long as this lawyer doesnt win a case, i think he can try all he wants. If he loses, it will set a nice precedent anyways.
You must be a lawyer. For the rest of us, as long as this is entertained, it's a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Going after...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes.. and that's normal
Just like there is only one Citybank
There is only one Detroit motor show
And there is only one World Trade Center (omg ! the horror)
Seriously, stop being emo everytime when perfectly reasonable IP law applies to things remotely related to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes.. and that's normal
I don't think a trademark on Ambulance Chaser would hold water either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes.. and that's normal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the answer is..
Besides, he's likely not going to get to keep it long since it has been used by everyone else to talk about something that was clearly not his practice, and IIRC that's one of the ways they determine if the trademark is defendable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe WG should sue this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cyberstupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly...
Sorry, no. It's annoying that one lawyer in this day and age could claim exclusive rights in a widely used term like "cyberlaw", but let's not get carried away.
1 - The lawyer has not "received a trademark". Under US law, trademarks are indications of sources of goods or services, which are created by use in commerce. They are not "received".
2 - Trademarks can be registered, once they have been created by use in commerce, but a (valid) registration will only be issued if the use was, in fact, trademark use and the mark does, in fact, indicate a source of goods or services.
3 - If lots of people are using a mark over many years, so that when the consuming public sees the mark they don't associate it with any one of them, then it doesn't indicate a source. In that case, it's not a mark at all, it's a generic term for the good or service.
4 - The lawyer has just filed an application to register the mark, and that only a month ago. You can apply to register anything - it just takes a credit card and a computer. Just filing an application to register "ham sandwich" doesn't make it a trademark for ham sandwiches - although it could be a very good trademark for tire chains or computer modems or financial advice publications (it's actually registered for that).
5 - The application will almost certainly be rejected because of the extensive prior use of the term by others. There were two prior attempts by others to register the term, and both were rejected.
6 - If the application should happen to be approved, it must then be published for opposition by anyone who thinks they will be hurt by the registration. I would not be surprised to see oppositions galore, in the unlikely event that some examiner misses the extensive generic use of the term.
Bottom line - yes, he should know better, and if he really tries to enforce the "mark" in court he'll find that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]