EFF Sues NSA Again Over Failure To Release Procedures For Dealing With Zero Days

Author To Chobani: I Own The Word 'How'

from the how-do-you-figure? dept

Wed, Jul 2nd 2014 4:05pm — Timothy Geigner

It's amazing what fun we can have when we really get a culture of permission going. Trademark law, ostensibly built around the idea of consumer protection when it comes to branding, has since devolved into a platform where certain entities think they can essentially own certain common words and phrases, such as "emergency essentials", or "footlong", or "monster." However, once you've opened the door to that kind of relatively minor insanity, it lets the really crazy monsters through.

Let's take, for instance, the word "how." You can't own "how", right? Well, according to the lawsuit of Dov Seidman, who portends to be something called a "corporate virtue advisor", you damn well can.

In papers filed in Manhattan federal court, Dov Seidman, author of "HOW: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything," says how Chobani is using "how" in its current marketing campaign is a blatant rip-off. Seidman and his company, LRN, "whose business is based on promoting ethical corporate behavior, own federal trademark registrations for word and mark HOW," the suit says.

Let's just drive this point home, shall we? A purveyor of business ethics is suing Chobani, a company that makes Greek yogurt, because they used the word "how" in a marketing campaign. Just let that sink in for a moment. The fight is over a single word, not some multi-word phrase. Hell, it's over a single syllable. And customer confusion is difficult to imagine, given that one side of the fight is a guy that talks to companies about who-knows-what and the other, you know, makes yogurt. So, how is this suit even possible? Well, it apparently falls upon a time when Chobani tweeted at Seidman to flatter and admire him.

The company has since claimed the campaign is purely coincidental, but Seidman noted that he got a Twitter message from Chobani on January 29 saying, "Thanks for inspiring the world to care about 'how.' Can you help inspire the food industry, too?" The "very next day," the suit says, the company "launched Chobani's new branding platform - which employs 'HOW' in precisely the same manner as plaintiffs employ their HOW marks: as a noun connoting responsible and ethical corporate behaviors."

Here's the tweet:

@DovSeidman Thanks for inspiring the world to care about "how." Can you help inspire the food industry, too? http://t.co/erVULG89Hp
— Chobani (@Chobani) January 29, 2014

And? So the hell what? Inspiration in the form of a single word does not a trademark violation make, because that would essentially lock up the courts for years as everyone fought roughly everyone. There's a reason trademarks, especially those on short phrases or common words, aren't all-encompassing throughout all of commercial use. That would break language completely.

Chobani is on record stating that this whole thing is exceptionally silly. One would hope a court will throw this out the moment it hits a bench. And how!

Seidman v Chobani (PDF)Seidman v Chobani (Text)

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: dov seidman, how, likelihood of confusion, trademark, yogurt
Companies: chobani

44 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S. T. Stone, 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:14pm

How did this situation get this far?

How did we become a society that allows such actions to happen?

How did we completely fuck up IP law?

How did things come to this?

HOW?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  I'M GON' SUE YA
  
  I'M GON' SUE YA SO GOOOOD
  
  Govern yourself accordingly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:35pm
  
  Re:
  The 1970s, that's how. If you look at the history, that's when intellectual property rights started their long trek towards complete insanity that culminated in the 1998 passage of the DMCA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nemo227 (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:34pm
    
    Re: Re: the 1970s
    Is that when too many people seriously started smoking dope and taking LSD?
    And then they became lawyers (because lawyers like to argue) and those lawyers became judges and the ones who were left without a lawyer job or judge job decided they should sue somebody because there were too few dope heads left to argue with?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 3 Jul 2014 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: the 1970s
      @ nemo: urine idjit proving you know NOTHING about either MJ or LSD...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nemo227 (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re: I know HOW and WHY
  He's trying to pump up his book sales. When you can get enough people arguing and talking about something you've done there will be a percentage who will take the bait and buy the book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rance Mohanitz, 3 Jul 2014 @ 6:04am
  
  Re:
  I'm suing you for your use of "fuck" in this sentence. It is the exact same way I would use it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John85851 (profile), 3 Jul 2014 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re:
  How?
  Because our legal system lets anyone sue anyone else for anything, with no recourse if their case has no merit.
  Instead of throwing this case out, a judge should say it's absurd, suspend or disbar the lawyer, and fine the company and the lawyer. Since the yogurt company didn't do anything to deserve money, the fine should go to a legal defense fund.
  
  Then the judge should make sure to set a precedent so anyone who tries to sue over a common word will get a smackdown.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:15pm

The lawsuit is ridiculous but on the other hand I'd fire whoever wrote that tweet in a heartbeat.

On the third hand (I was born near a leaky nuclear power plant) who follows a freaking yogurt company on Twitter in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:40pm

This makes me want to ask, "Why?"
...
but I'd better check first. It might be trademarked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nemo227 (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: "Why"???
  You can use it. I trademarked it and then put it in the public domain.
  
  Yes, there seem to be a excess of jackasses out there and some are on the bench. Any judge that doesn't immediately dismiss the suit is not competent to be a judge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 Jul 2014 @ 4:19am
  
  Re:
  English is trademarked. Speak in Esperanto or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 3 Jul 2014 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Esperanto" is dangerously close to "Exasperation", and I am pretty sure that Microsoft own the rights to the latter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:02pm

Find them in contempt, unless the court believes the time it has given is warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:13pm

I'm mildly impressed
If you look at the brief closely, they managed to file the entire suit without using the word "how" except in the context of their trademark. I suspect this was rather difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:17pm

I wonder if this guy has a section on how to be a total jerk in his book about corporate responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nemo227 (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:39pm
  
  Re: the total jerk
  All the people who have met him already know him as "that jerk".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 2:47am
    
    Re: Re: the total jerk
    Careful. You're this close to getting sued by Steve Martin.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zem, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:18pm

The crazy part is HOW this lawsuit can readily be argued as unethical, the very thing the HOW trademark covers.

I suspect the good dr has someHOW managed to sully his professional reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yankinwaoz (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:26pm

Holy frijoles! The USTPO gave this guy a trademark on the word "HOW". I thought he was making it up. Nope. Here they are!

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4210276&caseType=US_REGISTRATION_NO&searchType=statusS earch

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4388331&caseType=US_REGISTRATION_NO&searchType=status Search

However. I did notice that the trademark is all uppercase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re:
  I did notice that the trademark is all uppercase.
  
  I didn't. From the links you kindly provided:
  Mark Information
  
  Mark Literal Elements: HOW
  Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
  Mark Drawing Type: 4 - STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
  
  I'm reading "without claim to any particular font style, size, or color."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 8:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Font, style, and color do not include case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:47pm

Question:
So if I trademark the word 'THE' for use in the name of a yoghurt, that means no one else can use it in a book title ever again? And there's me thinking trademark law didn't work like that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:48pm

So how long till the entire English language is wrapped up in trademarks making it necessary to have another language just to communicate?

Take about BS trademarks and this is one that should never have been given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:15pm

How did anyone get a patent for a common word in the first place? I thought the Patent and Trademark Office denies applications for common words such as "how".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 9:32pm
  
  Re:
  The Patent and Trademark Office doesn't offer patents for words at all, common or otherwise. Trademarks, on the other hand...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re:
  That sounds like it would involve thinking, and work, much easier to just get that 'APPROVED' stamp out and use it on every application in sight, let the lawyers fight over it later. /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 5:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    'much easier to just get that 'APPROVED' stamp out'
    
    Then I am going to trademark APPROVED and DENIED
    
    I may consider licensing if asked nicely but I may not.
    
    That should take care of all this patent and trademark nonsense that's been flying around recently.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sheogorath (profile), 3 Jul 2014 @ 2:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Good idea. I'mma do this in the UK and Europe and charge a high licence fee for the wordmark 'APPROVED' and none at all for the wordmark 'DENIED'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:18pm

Trolling... we hope
Of course this guy is just trolling, and isn't actually serious (well lets hope anyway). In fact, the whole thing sounds a little fishy. Nonetheless it could make for an interesting case on trademark abuse.

I also wonder what kind of drugs the people at USPTO were smoking when they approved a trademark on "HOW"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re: Trolling... we hope
  Whatever they were smoking, were probably rolled in $100 bills.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jernau, 2 Jul 2014 @ 8:35pm

What an asshowle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2014 @ 2:20am
  
  Re:
  asshowle... is that a condition brought on by pork n beans?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 3 Jul 2014 @ 1:15am

'Culture of permission' strikes me as a misnomer, because it implies an a predisposition towards giving permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 1:36am

So this is HOW civilization ends....
Not with a bang or a whimper but with armies of lawyers, legislators and greedy asshole rentseekers claiming ownership of everything until it all collapses. I'd say they're like goddamn toddlers but that would be a grave insult to toddlers constantly saying "Mine!" everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 5:04am

I guess the only cure is to trademark 'trademark.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 5:19am

Portends?
What did you have to make up a new word since someone already claimed "pretends"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Jul 2014 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: Portends?
  Portends is a word, chief....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re: Portends?
    So it is. My bad. However the context of the sentence seemed to me that you intended to use "pretends" instead and mistyped it. If fact from the look of this story, "pretends" seems to be a more accurate fit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TAKUMI (profile), 5 Jul 2014 @ 2:58pm
      
      I thought the intended word was "purport". I knew portend usually meant "predict"/"warn of" and I looked it up but couldn't really find any other meaning except "imply in a 'smoke = fire'-type way".
      
      I dunno, it may have been used in the sense of "implying that corporate virtue advisors are an actual thing, which does not seem like a good sign".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crusty-the-Ex-clown, 3 Jul 2014 @ 12:11pm

This might be explained by...
...either Mr. Seidman or his legal advisors having yogurt for brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2014 @ 8:16pm

Can we get some Natives to declare "HOW" as offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andre Leonard, 3 Jul 2014 @ 10:32pm

Just when you thought you heard it all.
This lawsuit really puts the 'F' in foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 8 Jul 2014 @ 7:10am

The Trademark Should Have Been Denied?
Don't native merican tribes have a historical claim to exclusive use of the word "How!" going back centuries? Anyone using "how" frivolously is guilty of hostile cultural appropriation.

I know, because Hollywood told me so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]