Do Morons In A Hurry Buy Real Estate?

from the how-confusing-is-this? dept

Thu, Mar 12th 2009 4:06pm — Mike Masnick

I was going to pass on this particular story, but so many people have been submitting it that it seemed worth at least a quick post. Real estate giant Re/max apparently has some lawyers with free time on their hands now that the housing market has collapsed. It seems like they must, because they felt it was necessary to oppose the trademark application of a small real estate agency in North Carolina that goes by the name Rehava. Remax and Rehava aren't particularly similar, and neither are their logos: remax_t180

But, that hasn't stopped Re/max from complaining. It goes beyond just the "Re" at the beginning. Apparently Re/max lawyers think that the line somewhere near the "e" will confuse people. And then, it just gets ridiculous:

"If you chop the top off of the 'h,' you (almost) have the 'm' in Re/Max. The next letter is an 'a,' and if you take the 'v' then you have half of an 'x.' "

This certainly seems like a situation where the moron in a hurry test should apply. Tragically, however, our legal system never seems to be in much of a hurry, and so its costing Rehava plenty of time and money to respond to the opposition by Re/max.

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: confusion, real estate, trademark
Companies: rehava, remax

36 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ac, 12 Mar 2009 @ 4:32pm

sigh...
The list I keep of companies to never patronize is getting longer and longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Mar 2009 @ 4:40pm

Not The First
Somewhere around 1993 or so, I remember a product for building GUIs on top of Apple’s AppleScript language. It was called “Frontmost”. Then later I found the name had been changed to “FaceSpan”, because the previous name was considered too similar to Userland’s “Frontier” scripting product. I was incredulous at the time.

I used to subscribe to Wired magazine. I stopped when they cheerfully admitted in one issue to shutting down the domain for a women’s group called WIRE, because the name was too similar to their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jmzrbnsn (profile), 12 Mar 2009 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re: Not The First
  Shouldn't the band Wire sue Wired in retrospect as they were there first?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 5:01pm

Techdirt should be careful.

If you remove the vertical line from the 'd', remove the 'i', remove the horizontal line in the 't' and extend the curl, finally adding an "nch". It is infringing on techcrunch.

Better watch out for a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 7:44pm
  
  Re:
  But are Masnick and Arrington the same Mike? They never seem to be at the same place together...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
counter, 12 Mar 2009 @ 5:15pm

The counter lawsuit should be nice for Rehava. This is a waste of court time and honestly if a judge does anything other than laugh, they should be disbarred from any type of legal work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DontAsk, 12 Mar 2009 @ 5:29pm

LA/WYERS
Give the lawyers a loaded gun(then run). They may experiment with the trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MoronInAHurry, 12 Mar 2009 @ 5:38pm

Can't pass it up
Seems like there a drug problem at some law office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crispybacon, 12 Mar 2009 @ 6:17pm

Trying to justify their employment
At least the moron-in-a-hurry seems to be smarter than the morons-with-law-degrees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D Crockett, 12 Mar 2009 @ 6:20pm

Ban Guns or Lawyers?
The moonbat President wants to erase the second amendment - that's the right to bear arms. For you in California that means own guns.

The ownership of guns is protected by the Constitution, but lawyes are not and they cause far more damage. Let's ban them.

Are you listening Barry Hussein Obama?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?
  Paranoid Much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick, 12 Mar 2009 @ 7:45pm
  
  Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?
  Actually, the "right to bear arms" does not refer to private citizens owning guns. It has to do with the right of the states to have a standing militia.
  
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 10:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?
    Actually, the "right to bear arms" does not refer to private citizens owning guns. It has to do with the right of the states to have a standing militia.
    
    Actually it does. Militias were typically composed of private citizens who banded together using their own private arms. The term "standing militia" is an oxymoron. A militia is NOT a standing military and is many times not even government sanctioned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy, 13 Mar 2009 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re: Ban Guns or Lawyers?
    Not according to a recent Supreme Court decision
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 8:03pm

Hi...

I'm from Portugal and a few years back Philip Morris sued a Portuguese tobacco company because of the similarities between Marlboro and Marbelo (picture links included), both in name and design and that people would get confused. Thankfully a judge through the lawsuit out the window.

A lot of people where not very happy with the decision, mostly the press and large companies going on a "crusade" arguing that copyright would get abused, and other companies would start commercializing "Relax" watches, etc. etc.

Bottom line, nobody got confused and no "other copyright issues"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slackr, 12 Mar 2009 @ 8:11pm

Honestly, how do lawyers live with themselves trying to make this type of case actually work? I think someone was right when they said there was a drug problem at that law office! Either that or they've got seriously bad eyesight.

Re/Max if your branding is so crappy that you are threatened by this company (that looks nothing like you) - one pointless lawsuit isn't going to help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 8:18pm

why do read these things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 12 Mar 2009 @ 8:18pm

Since remax can't sell a house to save their lives (I know first-hand), they have to make money somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2009 @ 9:38pm

Realtors are scam artists as it is, so this doesn't surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 13 Mar 2009 @ 3:25am

ReMax vs. Rehava
Yesterday, after tons of negative PR, ReMax officially withdrew their complaint against rehava.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first time caller, 13 Mar 2009 @ 4:46am

From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first time caller, 13 Mar 2009 @ 4:46am

From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first time caller, 13 Mar 2009 @ 4:46am

From a John Wesley Harding song: "And if the 90's are the 60's turned upside down. Then the 80's were the 60's the right way up. Only with half the top cut off? If you think about it! "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2009 @ 5:23am

Please read people, and do a little investigating...
To all those people writing about trials and suing and countersuits, please re-read the post. Remax has filed an opposition in the USPTO to a trademark application for Rehava. An opposition is merely a letter to the USPTO explaining why the applicant should not be entitled to a trademark. Such opposition is beneficial to limit potential confusion. For example, if someone wanted to trademark "techdirty," which would be used for a web site promoting the numerous benefits of intellectual property, Mike Masnick could file an opposition because of potential confusion over his site.

As for Mike's comment regarding "plenty of time and money" to fight the opposition, that depends on your definition of "plenty." Yes, it might cost several thousand dollars. On the other hand, it might cost several hundred dollars. Unless Mike is prepared to give a definition to "plenty" or a source that indicates that "plenty" was significantly more than the cost of applying for the trademark, "plenty" seems like exaggeration and possibly hyperbole.

From the "time" viewpoint, responding to an opposition may take several hours, or it may take very little time and may be a relatively simple response.

In any case, the definition of "plenty" in this case is not defined at all, and thus is a relative term. Plenty of time as compared to baking chocolate chip cookies? Probably. Plenty of time as compared to overhauling your car engine? Probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gimme a break, 13 Mar 2009 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
  How is
  (techdirty - techdirt)
  even remotely similar to
  (Rehava - ReMax)
  
  For your argument to work, wouldn't it have to be
  (ReMaxy - ReMax)
  
  or is hava == max in some foriegn language?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2009 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
    No. My example was related to the opposition process, not with respect to the similarity of the names Remax and Rehava.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gimme a break, 13 Mar 2009 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
      opposition process?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2009 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
        The process in the USPTO that Remax engaged in with respect to the Rehava application. It is what we have been discussing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gimme a break, 13 Mar 2009 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
        "For example, if someone wanted to trademark "techdirty," which would be used for a web site promoting the numerous benefits of intellectual property, Mike Masnick could file an opposition because of potential confusion over his site."
        
        - Again, your selection of an an analogous situation is in error.
        
        "example was related to the opposition process, not with respect to the similarity of the names Remax and Rehava"
        
        - So, it is the process that is important and not the analogy. Gee, it all makes much more sense now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2009 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please read people, and do a little investigating...
        Do you have a point?
        
        The opposition process in the USPTO is for stakeholders to set forth an argument as to why an applicant for a trademark should not receive that trademark.
        
        For example, if someone applied for a trademark on "techdirty," which might be used as a web site to promote intellectual property, then Mike Masnick could oppose the filing of that trademark on the grounds that the proposed trademark would cause confusion in the minds of users of techdirt.
        
        At what point in this chain of thought did you become confused?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 13 Mar 2009 @ 6:42am

Funny
I thought it said "morMons in a hurry"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- long time listener, 13 Mar 2009 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: Funny
  Is there a difference?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2009 @ 8:58am

OMG when did my 8 year old nephew get a job as a lawyer and Remax.. I need to call my brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIami Beach condos, 18 Mar 2009 @ 7:30am

Interesting
This article is hilarious. I can't believe Remax would be so fickle with this company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 31 Mar 2009 @ 12:05pm

Rehava
Steve DeGuzman is a two time felon. How is it that he can be a broker in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kristy, 21 Jul 2009 @ 11:19am

I don’t know Mr. Deguzman’s history, nor do I know yours, “Bill”, but there are many, many “felons” amongst us, who are in fact great, moral, honest people. One can be convicted of a felony for MANY different reasons….some reasons are strictly technical within the law, even, arguably, trivial; and, of course, some convictions are for unimaginable crimes…and repetitive criminal activity. You would be surprised. I, for one, happened to be with the wrong person at the wrong time when I was 21 years old, and I, who had never been arrested, not even a traffic ticket, am now considered a “felon”. Be careful who you, WITH sin, decide to judge…”Bill”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]