Romance Novelist Secures Trademark For Word 'Cocky,' Begins Beating Other Novelists Over The Head With It

from the internet-throws-bone-to-commenters dept

Tue, May 8th 2018 6:30am — Tim Cushing

Over the weekend, the unlikeliest of hashtags began to draw attention on Twitter: #cockygate. There are a million places one's mind could go without further information, but most would only be partially correct. It appears a romance novel writer, Faleena Hopkins, decided her recently-registered trademark should be wielded as a weapon against any other author using the word "cocky" in the the title of their books.

Writer Jamila Jasper apparently was apparently one of the first to receive a cease-and-desist from Hopkins. Here's the legal threat in all of its misinformed glory.

My name is Faleena Hopkins, author of the Cocker Brothers, The Cocky® Series.

The Federal Trademark Commission has granted me the official registered trademark of the word/mark "Cocky" in relation to romance books, no matter the font.

Trademark Registration number: 5447836

I am writing to you out of professional respect so that you may rename your book "Cocky Cowboy" which shares the same title as my book, and republish all the versions (ebook, paperback and audible) on Amazon to keep your ratings and money earned.

My attorney at Morris Yorn Entertainment Law has advised me that if I sue you I will win all the monies you have earned on this title, plus lawyer fees will be paid by you as well.

I will do that -- but I'd rather give you the option.

I have had this series established since June 16, 2016 and I take all of the hard work I put into establishing it, very seriously.

Your hard work I also take seriously.

You have the opportunity to adjust, rename, and republish before taking further action. You can do so on Amazon without losing reviews.

So… there's a lot to unpack here, starting with the nonexistent "Federal Trademark Commission." (Grants come from the US Patent & Trademark Office -- a fact you'd think someone with a registered trademark would know.)

Also: making a blanket statement about how total and complete your victory will be in court isn't the sort of statement good lawyers make or encourage their clients to make. It appears Morris Yorn handled the filing of the trademark registrations for Hopkins, but its involvement with this legal threat has yet to be verified. This certainly doesn't sound like the sort of advice entertainment lawyers would give someone who doesn't even appear to know the USPTO's proper name.

While it's true Hopkins does have a registered trademark for the word "cocky," it only covers "series of books in the field of romance." Hopkins cannot sue people for merely using the word "cocky" in a book title. It only restricts others from publishing a "cocky" series of books in one particular genre. For a very nuanced breakdown of how trademark registrations work in cases like these, IP lawyer Marc Whipple's blog post on the subject is well worth reading. But it all boils down to this:

Final issue: The way a producer of goods accrues trademark rights, as I said above (go look, I’ll wait) is to use the mark in commerce in association with the particular goods at issue. You (usually) cannot try to claim something as a trademark when someone else was already using it for similar goods, because assuming an association could be formed between those goods and that mark, it has likely already formed in relation to the goods already on the market. And if it hasn’t formed, that is an indication that is is unlikely to form in the first place. In any event, prior use of a trademark almost always preempts attempts by a later user to claim exclusive rights in a mark.

It took me about seventeen seconds to locate several romance books on Amazon with the word “Cocky” in their titles which were published before the alleged first use in commerce of the mark by HHP. (In fact, I found what is arguably a series of books using the mark to identify a series, which makes the registration itself sort of iffy, but that’s a separate issue.) So for this reason as well, if in fact the publishing company and/or its attorneys are representing that using the word “Cocky” in the title of a book infringes the trademark, they are likely in error. Or, at least, any attempt to enforce the trademark against such goods would likely open the trademark registration up to attack and potential invalidation on the grounds of prior use and/or lack of distinctiveness.

The longer this "gate" has gone on, the more it's produced discoveries and developments that push Faleena Hopkins further and further away from the legal victories she appears to believe are only a legal filing away. The font (produced by Set Sail Studios) used by Hopkins in her registered trademark apparently cannot be used that way. The designer of the font says he's not given anyone permission to trademark a design using the font and no fonts licensed by the company contain these permissions.

Her "cocky" trademarks are now being formally challenged. Another writer, Kevin Kneupper, is petitioning the USPTO to cancel the trademarks it handed to Hopkins. It's a long shot, but his filing [PDF] alleges Hopkins defrauded the USPTO during the application process.

Petitioner seeks to cancel the Registration on the ground that, on information and belief, it was obtained as a result of knowingly false statements about the ownership and use of the Mark, which were made with the intent to deceive the USPTO and constitute fraud on the USPTO.

[...]

[W]ebsites such as Goodreads refer to the book series as being titled “The Cocker Brothers of Atlanta.” The e-book specimens in Registrant’s application use both this title and the title “Cocker Brothers, The Cocky Series.” The print specimens in Registrant’s application, by contrast, use only the title “Cocker Brothers” for the series. Registrant’s application does not explain these discrepancies and various titles or provide dates for when the “Cocky Series” title was first applied to the series.

On information and belief, at some point in time Registrant has changed the title of the series (and appears to have done so multiple times). On information and belief, Registrant intentionally withheld information from the Patent and Trademark Office regarding these changes to the series title with intent to deceive the USPTO.

A change to the series title would be material to the question of whether and how the term “cocky” was used by Registrant in commerce, as well as to the priority date of Registrant’s trademark, which is currently claimed to the date of first publication of the first book.

This is all the result of someone drastically, and perhaps purposely, misunderstanding the protections granted to her by the USPTO. But rather than reconsider her actions, Faleena Hopkins still believes she's in the right. Not only that, she's now the "victim," thanks to backlash she caused by sending out bogus legal threats to writers she hoped knew even less about trademark law than she does. Apparently, a few writers have already complied with her ridiculous (and legally-incorrect) demands.

Jamile Jasper -- the one targeted in the C&D at the beginning of the post -- has also changed her book title as a result of Hopkins' legal threats. But it probably won't make Hopkins feel any better. "Cocky Cowboy" -- the alleged trademark violator -- is now "The Cockiest Cowboy to Have Ever Cocked."

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: cocky, cockygate, faleena hopkins, jamila jasper, trademark

95 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 4:58am

Can I say she got cocky without being threatened with lawsuits? /derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- justok (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 6:37am
  
  Re:
  No.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  Yes, unless you say it in a romance novel...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nate, 8 May 2018 @ 6:41am

"It appears Morris Yorn handled the filing of the trademark registrations for Hopkins, but its involvement with this legal threat has yet to be verified."

I seriously doubt it. A different attorney was listed on the two trademark applications. And I'm pretty sure Morris Korn would have caught the detail that the scripted trademark used a font with a license which forbid trademarks.

I think she was name-dropping a lawfirm that sounded scary but she hadn't hired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 9 May 2018 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  I think she was name-dropping a lawfirm that sounded scary but she hadn't hired.
  
  Name-dropping a group of lawyers to try to seem important, lawyers that you aren't actually paying and who might take offense at being used like that to threaten people?
  
  Normally I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and say she couldn't be that stupid, but her actions so far would seem to suggest that yeah, she absolutely could be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marc Whipple, 9 May 2018 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  The attorney who filed the trademark registrations has an email address from the Morris Yorn domain and his license lists his business address at the same address the Morris Yorn website gives as their office address.
  
  I agree with the article's observation that we have no evidence that that attorney or any other Morris Yorn attorney is involved in any of the C&D, etc, but they were almost certainly the firm that helped her file the registrations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 6:55am

I'm curious .... Did the Hardy Boys get a trademark on Hardy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 7:01am

Don't get cocky, kid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 10 May 2018 @ 2:28am
  
  Re:
  Something something something... dark side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NeghVar (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:01am

Fire the USPTO who approved
Cocky has been around longer than that guy has been alive. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cocky
The employees in the USPTO who allowed this to become trademarked need to be fired and suffer some of the legal and financial fallout that will occur because of their idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ldd (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: Fire the USPTO who approved
  I initially also thought "fire the examiner!" but I don't think firing the examiner is going to accomplish anything substantial. At best, some of us may feel some satisfaction that will surely be crushed as soon as, inevitably, another stupid grant from the USPTO makes the rounds in the news.
  
  The USPTO is organized so that it benefits from granting bad trademarks. There's no practical downside for them. The incentives for granting bad trademarks and bad patents are structural. The examiner was most likely doing exactly what his bosses wanted him to do. Fire him and he'll be replaced with someone doing exactly the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re: Fire the USPTO who approved
  How long a word has been around isn't really relevant. The word "apple" has been around for a long time, and of course it's a famous trademark as well. What matters is whether "cocky" was properly registered with respect to the specific goods and services identified in the application, and whether the applicant was entitled to the rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stefanie Pratt, 9 May 2018 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Fire the USPTO who approved
    It is irrelevant what the trademarked word was and/or is... the problem is her misuse of said trademark. She has behaved as a recalcitrant, bratty child who doesn't want to share the blocks in that she approached the situation saying "Its mine and you can't have it". Had she used the trademark in the manner prescribed by the laws, it would have been as a LOGO only. Had she been truly intelligent, she'd have trademarked the phrase "Cocky Brothers Series" or some such. However, she was neither intelligent nor ethical in her handling of the situation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Deb, 10 May 2018 @ 11:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Fire the USPTO who approved
      1. It seems she has 3 TMs: a. for the word "cocky", b. The stylized version of the word, and c. For "Cocky Brothers".
      
      2. According to the petition, she deceived and committed fraud upon the USPTO. NOT cool. Probably against the law
      
      3. What is the most disgusting of all is that she uses the naivete of her readers as a shield, claiming they mistakenly purchased the wrong books believing they were purchasing her books. So she says she wanted to protect them. Instead of insinuating your readers are too dumb to either read the cover or inform them of Amazon's return policy which allows you to return books purchased by mistake, she trademarks the word "cocky"? There must be some nefarious reason to trademark that word and she won't tell.
      
      I tweeted to her and asked her if Stephen King, JK Rowling, Diana Gabaldon or George RR Martin have trademarked a word from any of their novels. After all, they've all sold billions of books, had at least some of them turned into movies or TV series, and are all wildly popular.
      
      I've yet to receive a response.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 12 May 2018 @ 6:06pm
        
        I can see it
        3. What is the most disgusting of all is that she uses the naivete of her readers as a shield, claiming they mistakenly purchased the wrong books believing they were purchasing her books. So she says she wanted to protect them.
        
        Hey, I can totally see it. I mean, I wasn't aware of the trademark before this article, but as I and everyone else in the world know not a single other author has ever used the word 'cocky' in their book titles before she started to do so, so it would make perfect sense that someone could see the word 'cocky' and instantly assume that it simply must be from her, with absolutely no time to waste checking the author's name on the page before hitting 'Buy now with 1-click'.
        
        The feeling of betrayal that would result from them loading up the book to find it was not one of her literary masterpieces would be absolutely devastating to her loyal fans, and as such it makes perfect sense that she would do her utmost to spare them from such a cruel fate, and for such a selfless act she should be praised, of that there is no doubt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 8 May 2018 @ 7:22am

"I applied for the trademark to protect the future of my series because it helps people."

Has it helped you Faleena?

Helped you become an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oblate (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:23am

It took me about seventeen seconds to locate several romance books on Amazon with the word “Cocky” in their titles which were published before the alleged first use in commerce of the mark by HHP.

I am so glad that someone else already did that search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  Well, then the USPTO apparently did NOT spend those seventeen seconds when approving the trademark. They must be on a really tight budget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    The USPTO does not, as a matter of course, search external sites like Amazon.com. Initial ex party trademark registration applications are examined only in relation to the USPTO's database of registered marks and applications for registered marks.
    
    See TMEP §1203: "This provision is not applied in ex parte examination because of the practical difficulties with which an examining attorney is faced in locating "previously used" marks, and determining whether anyone has rights in them and whether they are "not abandoned.""
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cyndi, 9 May 2018 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      TMEP §1203 makes sense when we think about the world before the day when everyone has a super computer in their pocket.
      The reviewers need to be required to do simple internet searches.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:24am

Is it communicable?
What is the name of the infliction acquired by recipients of trademarks? It happens to companies as well as individuals. There must be some diagnosis that is common to singular persons as well as groups of people that explains the insane, inappropriate expression of power. Greed just doesn't seem to cover it fully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Retsibsi (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Is it communicable?
  Avariciousness? Covetousness? Or just plain old hubris?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wshuff (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:26am

“If you don’t want the backlash, don’t get penisy.” — Peter Griffin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WildWeiler (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:30am

Thank you
Thank you for writing this, Tim. Several members of my writing group were worried that they would need to start taking out trademarks for every word in their titles.

That's the last thing we need, more single word trademarks used incorrectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:39am

I was curious, when did the "Cocky" Series come out and when did Cocky Cowboy come out?

First book of the "Cocky Series" came out in June 2016 (there is about 17 novels in this series which leads me to believe there is high quality literature there /sarc)

Cocky Cowboy was September of 2016.

Then you have
"A Noah's Ark Geography A true account of the travels and adventures of Kit, Jum-Jum and the Cockyolly Bird" published in 1900.
Cocky's Joy, 2015
I mean seriously, there is an issue with the whole trade mark thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 8 May 2018 @ 7:42am

Star Wars has grounds to countersue.

My attorney at Morris Yorn Entertainment Law has advised me [hilarious rubbish elided]

Clearly "Entertainment Law" is a Yodaism of "Law Entertainment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:42am

Got to say it's making for an entertaining read on Twitter, no doubt a LOT more entertaining than her books :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:46am

OMG! https://www.facebook.com/authorfaleenahopkins/videos/2188784131349944/
She's mental, seriously MENTAL!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  That is bloody priceless. Just as watching an interview with members of your favorite band can make you dislike the band from that point forward, this "author" has managed to out herself as deranged and delusional, likely alienating some portion of her fan base. There's a reason most authors are reclusive, she should have learned from their example.
  
  I sincerely hope this ruins her career.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- REM(RND) (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 9:03am
  
  Re:
  A 1 hour and 40 minute live rant. I watched 5 minutes and decided that sovereign citizens make more sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    I couldn't manage more than about 5 minutes either. It was long enough to decide that she's mental AND a piss poor actor. After that I decided that I have an unlimited list of better things to do with my time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    I made it nearly to ten minutes. She is crazy. She needs mental help not more drama. The Lawfirm she claims is working with her had better make clear that she is not represented by them. She is about to bring a spotlight right on her mental problems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A nice lady on Twitter is watching it (and live tweeting) so we don't have to https://twitter.com/Jenny_Trout
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 1:53pm
        
        video up on YouTube
        Some people say the title is mean, but the only bit I could find fault with is 'middle aged' otherwise it's spot on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96CjvfJTTHM
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 7:49am

who the fuck gave the copyright on this word to her? surely to all that is common sense, everyone would know this word and many other similar ones have been in circulation for centuries! the person responsible needs to me removed from office after removing the copyright and putting it back into the hands of everyone! what a fucking moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  It's not a copyright, it's a trademark. Very different things with very different rights and enforcement options.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 8:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mind you, IP propagandists have indicated that they are all too willing to fudge the lines between the two if it helps push their message.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Other Guy (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 7:58am

I'm going to trademark the work cock-up and sue whoever is responsible for nonsense like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 8 May 2018 @ 11:26am
  
  Re:
  Make a suitable "cock-up" logo and sue every person having an erection. Starting with the lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dont give Malibu Media any ideas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
REM(RND) (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 8:54am

The ride never ends
The changed title of "The Cockiest Cowboy to Have Ever Cocked." reminds me of the old History of the Word: F@*K where it is stated that it can be used as almost every word in the sentence.

F@*k the f@*king f@*kers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 8 May 2018 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re: The ride never ends
  I read someone relating that one of his company's sergeant's unfavorable analysis of the state of some technical component was "Fucking fucker's fucking fucked. Fuck!" Almost as versatile a word as "buffalo".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Hero, 8 May 2018 @ 9:11am

Possibly Donald Trump
I have a feeling Faleena Hopkins might actually just be Donald Trump. Check out the writing style on her Facebook post.

"THIS IS A WITCH HUNT.
...
I would NEVER in a million years ask my readers to one-star, and in fact have done THE OPPOSITE many times
...
LIKE THEY WERE CHILDREN AND NOT GROWN WOMEN."

All she's missing is ending the post with, "Remember sailor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RomWriter, 8 May 2018 @ 9:42am

She's also been reporting books with "cocky" in the title to Amazon and Amazon has been ripping them down from their site. There are screenshots of in on Twitter.

Also misused TMed material in her books without permission.

And she believes she automatically owns character names from her books and there are screenshots of her one-staring other authors' books on Goodreads because the first name of the character is the same.

The girl is a total train wreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streetlight (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 9:47am

Maybe I'll trademark lots of words
How about I trademark all the letters of the English language and any combination of them into words, including their various upper case forms. Sounds like it would be a goldmine or a money pit depending on lawyer's fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Maybe I'll trademark lots of words
  Just trademark 0 and 1.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: Maybe I'll trademark lots of words
  Money pit. Remember that you need to defend your trademark or lose it. If you have to sue everyone at once, that's going to be a problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 8 May 2018 @ 9:48am

We should write a book.
Title: The cocky writer
Author: all of us.

I'll begin.

One early sunny morning, when the temperature was just the way she liked it, Farina Hophead woke up with a wonderful idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 10:21pm
  
  Re: We should write a book.
  After several minutes petting her dozens of cats, taking a drag from last night's cigarrete amidst the rainbow of unlabeled pills laying on the table, she realized that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 10 May 2018 @ 5:37am
    
    Re: Re: We should write a book.
    ...the opportunity of a lifetime was within the grasp of her pudgy little fingers. A fountain of money flowing deep and wide for her alone. All she needed was but one word, and by the magic of trademark (and possibly the power of Greyskull) she could milk the users thereof like cows. A range of possibilities paraded behind her eyelids...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 9:56am

Font trademarks

The font (produced by Set Sail Studios) used by Hopkins in her registered trademark apparently cannot be used that way. The designer of the font says he's not given anyone permission to trademark a design using the font and no fonts licensed by the company contain these permissions.

On what basis would we expect such permission to be required? Fonts can't be copyrighted and I've never heard of this implied "derived trademark" right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: Font trademarks
  I was wondering this too. Granted, some fonts include code, and that code can be copyrighted, but then the copyright is on the code, not the font itself.
  
  Plus if her claim is accurate that she has the trademark regardless of font, then the font used in the application seems irrelevant. (And if it's not, then authors of "cocky" romance novels can just use one of the other zillions of fonts in their title, and there's no issue with her locking down the word.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DB (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Font trademarks
    Typically a trademark has multiple elements, all of which need to be present.
    
    This is especially true when the trademark involve a common word, where the font and color are essential elements to be specific/descriptive enough to qualify for trademark protection.
    
    I can register a trademark on 'The' if I have a silly enough font. But my trademark doesn't let me sue the New York Times for using the word thousands of times a day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 1:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
      So, sure, maybe the font is an essential element to this trademark. But then, what does the font developer's opinion have to do with anything?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Font trademarks
    A font is considered an artistic work, and the appearance of the characters can be covered by copyright. That is you cannot copyright the letters themselves, but a style, shape etc. of lettering can be copyrighted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
      United States Copyright Office: Circular 33: Works Not Protected by Copyright
      
      Typeface, Fonts, and Lettering
      
      Copyright law does not protect typeface or mere variations of typographical ornamentation or lettering. A typeface is a set of letters, numbers, or other characters with repeating design elements that is intended to be used in composing text or other combinations of characters, including calligraphy. Generally, typeface, fonts, and lettering are building blocks of expression that are used to create works of authorship. The Office cannot register a claim to copyright in typeface or mere variations of typographic ornamentation or lettering, regardless of whether the typeface is commonly used or unique. . . .
      
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Steerpike (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        A font can be protected by copyright; a typeface cannot. However, you can agree to restrictive provisions in a license agreement, and that's how they can try to enforce this prohibition against using the typeface in a trademark.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        A font can be protected by copyright; a typeface cannot.
        
        Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Chapter 900
        
        906.4 Typeface, Typefont, Lettering, Calligraphy, and Typographic Ornamentation
        
        As a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), (e). . . .
        
        The Office may register a computer program that creates or uses certain typeface or typefont designs, but the registration covers only the source code that generates these designs, not the typeface, typefont, lettering, or calligraphy itself. For a general discussion of computer programs that generate typeface designs, see Chapter 700, Section 723.
        
        (Emphasis added; several hyperlinks omitted.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        …restrictive provisions in a license agreement…
        
        Misuse of Copyright
        
        [S]ometimes copyright owners may try to use their exclusive rights to gain even more protection than is granted under the copyright laws. This is considered copyright misuse.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Steerpike (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        A “font” is the software that tells the computer how to produce the letters. Thus, it can be protected by copyright (though whether it should be is another issue). The letters themselves are a typeface and not protectable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        A “font” is the software that tells the computer how to produce the letters.
        
        Perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia entry for ”Font” to reflect your exact usage of the word.
        
        In metal typesetting, a font was a particular size, weight and style of a typeface. Each font was a matched set of type, one piece (called a "sort") for each glyph, and a typeface consisting of a range of fonts that shared an overall design.
        
        In modern usage, with the advent of digital typography, "font" is frequently synonymous with "typeface". . . .
        
        The Merriam-Webster definition of “ ² Font ”, is, alas!, not quite as malleable.
        
        Definition of font : an assortment or set of type or characters all of one style and sometimes one size
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        Anyway, it's hardly relevant. I'll hazard a guess and say that the "infringing" trademark, which used this font without permission, did not include the source code of the font.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        …did not include the source code of the font.
        
        “To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”
        
        ——Feist (1991) (citinging Harper & Row (1985))
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        A Font has a source?
        Is this compiled?
        
        Interesting .....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        Generally compiled to OpenType. Look up that and FontForge on Wikipedia. Letters are normally drawn, not written as source code. Source code would be things like hinting, advanced layout features (ligatures, kerning, small caps etc.), script identification.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        Source code would be…
        
        In the specific context of the earlier comment citing the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, the term “source code” should be interpreted in accord with Chapter 700, and specifically—
        
        721.3 What Is Source Code?
        
        721.4 What Is Object Code?
        
        721.5 Relationship Between Source Code and Object Code
        
        Note specifically in the context of 906.4's statement, “[T]he registration covers only the source code that generates these designs”, the statment from 721.5, “The U.S. Copyright Office views source code and object code as two representations of the same work.”
        
        The word “work” itself, although not given a standalone definition in 17 USC § 101, should nevertheless be interpreted in light of 17 USC § 102(a)
        
        Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . .
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Tipper, 9 May 2018 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        Just so that everyone knows, the issue with the font being used in the registering of the Mark when it obviously does not have the permissions to do so is also a matter of UK law.
        
        The artist of the font is a citizen of the UK and thus may put the rights issue into the realm of UK law and handling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        … is also a matter of UK law.
        
        The legitimate scope of the limited statutory monopoly that is recognized within the United States is strictly and solely a matter of United States law.
        
        Iow, it's within the realm of possibility that a UK court might grant a judgment which would be unenforceable in the US as contrary to public policy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        The font designer is in the UK. Would UK regulations apply if he balks (as he is balking)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        Would UK regulations apply …
        
        Would UK regulations apply to demonstrate that it is the established public policy of the United States not to grant or recognize any monopoly in the letters of the alphabet…
        
        Would UK regulations apply to demonstrate that the UK has lost its collective mind —gone completely insane— and its courts ought not be to listened to? It depends.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 9 May 2018 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        US law doesn't apply to the font, UK law does. The creator is in England.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Font trademarks
        
        US law doesn't apply to the font
        
        To proceed entirely without US law, enforcement must take place entirely outside the US.
        
        Look, I think I'm seeing the picture here: This crazy woman creates a huge disturbance laying claim to a word. She goes way outside any reaonable bounds. In the predictable backlash that follows —mob uproar— —hubbub— —reaction— someone else comes in and attempts to gain a monopoly on the letters of the alphabet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 10:14am

The usual formula...
The usual formula is...

Plan A:
1) Get a flimsy copyright.
2) Threaten to sue people who don't know copyright law or who don't want to spend the money to defend themselves.
3) Profit... and make more money than actually writing books.

Plan B:
1) Get a flimsy copyright.
2) Threaten to sue people.
3) Receive tons of media attention from actual copyright experts who say this is a bogus copyright and a stupid law suit.
4) Profit from all the media attention. After all, any attention is more attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: The usual formula...
  Unless you are actually crazy. As her live video showed, she is unhinged from reality and any professionals need to distance themselves from her ASAP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 10:52am

All I can say is Jamile Jasper deserves funniest comment of the week with:

"But it probably won't make Hopkins feel any better. "Cocky Cowboy" -- the alleged trademark violator -- is now "The Cockiest Cowboy to Have Ever Cocked." "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 11:21am
Her "cocky" trademarks are now being formally challenged.

If only our trademarks were made of glass how much more careful we would be when we threaten.
- some other cock, paraphrased
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zonker, 9 May 2018 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re:
  If only our cocks were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we...
  
  Uh, nevermind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 11:25am

Ask not for whom the crow cocks
“Ask not for whom the crow cocks,

It cocks for thee”

——Don Juan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: Ask not for whom the crow cocks
  « ¡ Tan largo me lo fiáis ! »
  
  ——Don Juan (still, eternally)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 12:20pm

Possibly getting competent legal advice at last?
Her FaceBook page has just vanished. Of course that means those of you who didn't see the link to her video on there are out of luck, or maybe not, it was seriously disturbing, she's not a well woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Possibly getting competent legal advice at last?
  Oh Noes...does that mean FaceBook is reading Techdirt and taking leads from the comments? Hmm...what would I like to say to them...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - firebird2110 (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Possibly getting competent legal advice at last?
    Nah, I think she couldn't cope with the flood of negative feedback and finally, finally realised that it was time to stop digging, or she talked to a lawyer who TOLD her to stop digging. Maybe she hopes that dropping off of social media for a while, until it all blows over, will be enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ampersandsrise, 9 May 2018 @ 2:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Possibly getting competent legal advice at last?
      She's definitely dropping off of most social media in the hopes it blows over - she's apparently said as much in her private facebook fangroup. And for those looking for the video - there's several copies floating around
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 9 May 2018 @ 9:30pm
        
        Actions have consequences
        Which might have worked had she simply made a few stupid claims, but when she went around sending threats and reporting books by other authors, and now rather than own it and admit that she really screwed up, she tries to just wait it out... the phrase 'too little, too late' comes to mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 1:15pm

What is the possible blow-back from fictionally writing "My attorney at Morris Yorn Entertainment Law has advised me.." in private correspondence?

Presumably they wouldn't sue at the first use, just send a warning letter. Leaving abusers such as her free to go sequentially through a directory of law firms.

But supposing a firm decided to make an example of her and spend a filing fee -- what tort would they allege?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 1:45pm

Cocky Email
She should get together with the guy that has the copyright on email. Think of all the money they could make going after the spam emails, instead of wasting everyone's time on this BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 1:50pm

You SEE the value of the word "cocky" above! Baited the fanboys!
LOL. Certain words have effect here predictable as sunrise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2018 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re:
  There's no IP law abuse you won't defend, is there? No surprise coming from the closet Prenda fanboy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAC not logged in, 8 May 2018 @ 7:25pm

Wow, just wow....
All of this talk of cocks, and I could care less.
What is the world coming to?

I guess he has found her true calling....
Cockyblocking

TAC on the tablet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 May 2018 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re:
  Someday I might even remember to type the password into the tablet... but I doubt it. I hate that keyboard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narcissus (profile), 9 May 2018 @ 12:41am

Not advertizing
The writing in the C&D is so bad, it hurts my eyes. It certainly doesn't convince me to read anything of hers in book form.

I'm surprised there are so many titles with cocky in it. I didn't know that word was still in general use. It sounds quite old fashioned and childish to me but I'm not a native speaker so there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2018 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: Not advertizing
  It's in use in erotic romance because, well, you know...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
boomslang, 10 May 2018 @ 6:40am

Article is missing something
I hope this comment isn't too late for the Tim Cushing to read it, but the article is missing something.

At some point in this train wreck, the author (or perhaps her lawyers, I don't know) sent notices to Amazon about these "infringing" books (even though they were published before the trademark was granted) and Amazon removed those books from their online store. Amazon did not investigate or contact the supposedly-infringing authors before removing them.

Some authors protested and Amazon put the books back in their store, however, those authors still potentially lost money from lost sales when their books were removed by Amazon. Other authors whose books were removed by Amazon went through the process of changing their title and cover art, which costs money (including costs to re-market the book, changes to the authors' webpages, etc) on top of the sales lost due to Amazon's removal of the book.

I won't reveal my source, but it looks like The Guardian has an article that states "Other writers claimed that Hopkins had reported them to Amazon, resulting in their books being taken down from the site."

The claims are the true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2018 @ 8:44pm

That's such a cocky attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louisem, 12 May 2018 @ 2:30pm

And in Australia...
We are screwed... cocky is an abbreviation for the cockatoo bird, you talk to the bird "Hello Cocky"...and if has learnt to talk it says hello back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]