Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
from the no-monkeys-this-time dept
I guess if you're already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark "Bitcoin," despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi's reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn't happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his "copyrighted works" that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he's claiming copyright over isn't actually hosted on our, or our web host's, servers -- a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:
I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings...And what are these "offending works?" Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm's legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don't recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi's "client," in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi's "evidence" for Magellan's use of "Bitcoin" in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying "the works" here:
Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi's somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I'm wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law -- and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.
Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the "works" in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there's a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi's attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don't suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what's going on.
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: copyright, dmca, fair use, michael pascazi, trademark
Companies: magellan capital advisors, pascazi law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Come on, Pascazi.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If even half of this is true, and I don't doubt that it all is, he sounds like the kinda guy you couldn't convince the sky was blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
proof again that people expect others to just magically buckle with the slightest of legal threads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
I had this image there for a moment, of a 300 lbs judge in a speedo. shiver ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
so ignorance of the law is no excuse, but delusion is a valid defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
gets him off for the fraud ... and into a nuthouse, if i remember rightly.
not sure if it applies to this sort of thing, but it's an amusing thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
IANAL, but I dont think sect B really apply here since the content was never "removed or disabled". If mike wants a bigger payout he'd need to turn those posts off.
It actually sounds like if the content provider disabled the wrong article/video/content then the content provider is liable for damages against that copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
"My bad" isn't a valid excuse for this kind of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
> obliged to point out to the judge that this
> person passed the same bar examine he did -
> which would be considered an institutional
> requirement of knowledge.
The ABA Canon of Ethics requires attorneys to verify all legal claims by researching the relevant law before sending demand letters, filing claims, arguing cases, etc.
It's per se malpractice not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
I'm by no means commenting on the merits of Pascazi's claims or whether the logos themselves are actually copyrightable, but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Meaning it's unlikely that he holds the copyright interest here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:
There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.
Not trying to be snarky...just pointing out something that is somewhat of a popular misconception.
My favorite part about this guy is the fact that his law firm's website has page devoted to "World Time Clocks" lol -- http://www.pascazilaw.com/World_Time_Clocks.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
http://www.seravia.com/trademarks/world?r=1&q=o%3A%22magellan+capital+advisors+llc%22+ magellan+capital+advisors+llc
Here's more on the abandoned trademark (which has no ship in it):
http://www.trademarkia.com/magellan-capital-77155490.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
But there are more reasons why Trademark is not an issue. See my comment on the difference between trademarks and copyright below (or above, if viewing non-threaded comments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
I see the law firm has managed to submit 6 articles for publication in the last 5 years, so bravo on that.=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
'There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.' "
The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say that things can't be covered by both trademark and copyright. It simply says that this particular thing might be covered by trademark, but probably not copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
I mean, "My niece has an artistic flair" terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
http://www.pascazilaw.com/sitebuilder/images/Courtroom_Photo-150x110.jpg
on the main page suspiciously close to the watermark on the original, stock, image?
http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78431481#Header
just thought I'd point out a little hypocrisy...
lets see how long it stays like that now:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
I thought that looked like a SiteBuilder site design!
See: http://www.parallels.com/products/plesk/sitebuilder/
Demo here: http://sitebuilder.websitewelcome.com/Wizard
Or possibly: http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/index.php
He was too cheap to pay for site design & did it himself!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Although the price for a website today starts at $15 bucks.
I'm sure there are free ready made templates that would be better than what he got now LoL
http://community.joomla.org/showcase/sites/society/legal.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
If I start trying to sell something using Disney to identify my business or product, then I run into problems. This is because trademark protects source identification, it doesn't protect expression.
I've written about the unique nature of trademark law as the consumer's IP law here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/07/the-consumers-ip-law-a-review-of-trademarks/
I've also written in-depth on the trademarking process in a TLDR post on the Bitcoin trademark issue here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/07/15/bitcoins-trademarks-and-a-roadmap-for-the-bitcoin-communit y/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Generally speaking things that are snappy enough to be covered by trademark are regarded as too small for copyright - so, although technically things could be covered by both , in practice they are usually mutually exclusive - see for example this UK FAQ
Logos couldbe covered by both - but the logo here is a stock image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait....What?
Is this a precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is as convincing as AC's weak attempts at trolling, LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your wishful musings are somewhat revealing about you.
Thoughtful logic and common sense are the enemies of spin doctors everywhere. Is that why Mike and the popularity of this site scare you so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"System and Apparatus for the Transmission of Cell to Cell
Communications Utilizing the Internet"
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/n etahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=pascazi&OS=p ascazi&RS=pascazi
Is he looking to break in to patent trolling as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This filing actually reminds me of the same type of shenanigans that's going on with the Bitcoin trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the patent process for several years now. His attempt to get his patent through is laughable and most likely futile. hmmm, just like his bitcoin gambit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Though, good luck trying to collect. Consider it a donation of education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, one is often wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, I find it difficult to see how there's a copyright interest there, especially as at least one logo is from a stock photo site (and is still available for licensing), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover the other one is as well.
The point stands. I doubt there's any copyright here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyway, he may or may not own a copyright in any of the material for one reason or another, but "trademark rather than copyright" certainly isn't that reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyberbullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm's alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.
Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit
So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6222.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright?
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pascazi%2C%20Michael%20S alvatore%2C%201960-&PID=JAoeuKW3J7MNolEfDWxmIpAjnI5p&BROWSE=1&HC=1&SID=6
It's a market analyzer written in BASIC. From 1982.
I can't find anything else under Pascazi Law or Magellan Capital Advisors. Magellan brings up the phone book and Pascazi Law draws a qualified blank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think thats a good reason for him not to go back to his hole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.pascazilaw.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
C'mon...my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn't used their web builder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's at the top of the source code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110719/00513815159/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-t hreatens-techdirt-with-bogus-dmca-takedown.shtml#c1173
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad you had your lawyer "explain" the potential implications of issuing a false notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammar nazi
'-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
the stationary stationmaster keeps my stationery stationary at his station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
They are also the people who we have to "thank" for copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammar nazi
Oops. Not so sure that's grammar, rather than spelling, but fair 'nuff. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should sue him....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gets Popcorn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would be funny if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel sorry for Michael Pascazi.
He must be blind or mentally impaired.
Poor Michael.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scroll all the way to the bottom ...
"Past performance is no guaranty of future success."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post official complaints
Bar Association, and The Dutchess County Bar Association."
If you want to do something, try complaining to each of these organizations about his behavior:
http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Contact_Us
http://www.dutchesscountybar.o rg/contact
http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/contact.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post official complaints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iStockPhoto
My guess is, sorry, my opinion (before I get accused of libel!) is they were borrowed from istockphoto without their permission.
We'll have to wait and see!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iStockPhoto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: iStockPhoto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a Scammer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request
[ link to this | view in chronology ]