Law Firm Southtown Moxie Responds Hilariously To Stupid Cease And Desist Letter
from the noob-associates dept
There are many ways to respond to a cease and desist notice over trademark rights. The most common response is probably fear-based capitulation. After all, trademark bullying works for a reason, and that reason is that large companies have access to large legal war chests while smaller companies usually just run away from their own rights. Another response is the aggressive defenses against the bullying. And, finally, every once in a while you get a response so snarky in tone that it probably registers on the richter scale, somehow.
The story of how a law firm called Southtown Moxie responded to a C&D from a (maybe?) financial services firm called Financial Moxie is of the snark variety. But first, some background.
Financial Moxie is a financial advisory catering to working moms. Or at least I think it is… the website also lists multiple fitness instructors on staff so I don’t know what that’s all about. The “moxie” term aligns with the phenomenon of “Moxie Tribes” which seem to be groups for working moms to talk about how awesome they are. It’s basically Goop with fewer vagina candles. Meanwhile “Southtown Moxie” is a law firm in Tennessee and North Carolina.
After receiving a cease and desist letter demanding that Southtown Moxie withdraw its trademark application, Kevin Christoper of Rockridge Venture Law (Southtown Moxie’s sibling firm) sat down with a beer to pen a response.
Which is how we get to the response. The full letter is embedded below, but you damn well know you're in for a treat when the response to a C&D notice begins with:
Dear Ms. Harper,
THANK YOU SO MUCH for your C&D letter and notice of opposition to our trademark application! This case presents a wonderful training opportunity for our noob associates. (And, lawyer-to-lawyer I must add it’s an honor to correspond with you. You are obviously a sensational salesperson-attorney to convince your client to pay you for challenging another law firm’s trademark application—I’m truly in awe and look forward to learning a thing or two from you. When I think of it, your client is paying you, and also giving us good trademark cannon fodder for our noobs, so it’s a win-win all around.)
And we're off! The letter then goes into noting all of the things Ms. Harper's client could buy instead of wasting everyone's time on a losing potential lawsuit. Examples include: a speedboat, glamorous clothing and jewelry, or hiring a social media influencer. The most important part of all of this, I have to stress, is that each example comes with an embedded photo of a barbie doll pantomiming these suggestions.
With that throat-clearing complete, the response goes on to note in creative terms that financial and legal services are not the same thing, nor in the same markets, and therefore any trademark concern evaporates.
But I wouldn’t be drinking a Purple Haze in my skivvies if I didn’t point out the irony that your client has hired you to represent her BECAUSE SHE IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. Based on your letter, she claims that our mark, limited to the provision of legal services, infringes upon her financial advisory, personal coaching, and tribal businesses and causes her great harm. Basically she thinks someone looking for “Moxie Tribe” fellowship is going to get sucked up into our vortex of intellectual property services.
The notice then goes on to note that Financial Moxie has a disclaimer listed on its site that all communication is intended for select states in America, none of which include North Carolina or Tennessee, where Southtown Moxie is located. So, different industries and different geographic locations. None of this adds up to a valid trademark dispute and it seems likely that Southtown Moxie is going to win in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
But, hey, we should at least thank Financial Moxie and its legal team for setting things up for this gem of a C&D response.
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: law firms, likelihood of confusion, moxie, trademark
Companies: financial moxie, southtown moxie
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Thanks for the easy targets, really helps the new people.'
This is an article where you definitely want to read the whole filing rather than just the excerpts in the article. The actual response is only a few pages but they are practically dripping in snark, making for an absolutely glorious read.
I'm rather split on which I want to see happen, while it would be nice if the idiots at Financial Moxie realize their super-serious threat only resulted in the other side laughing in their faces, leading to them to drop it while they are only down whatever their lawyers conned them out of, if they pushed the matter there's always the opportunity for even more epic smackdowns, sure to provide some well needed entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'Thanks for the easy targets, really helps the new people.'
Not true -- it resulted in many other people laughing in their faces, too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
having the barbie pictures seems... Uh.... Not OK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's hope Tribal Moxie really does have moxie and doubles down!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did they send a C&D to the soda too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you kink shaming? Kink shaming isn't ok.
Also maybe the guy just plays with Barbie dolls, shaming that is also not ok.
As long he doesn't hurt anyone let him do what he wants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks for clearing that up! I was thinking your threat was a joke before reading that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... who, presumably, would not seem out of place meeting Maxwell Smart at the Today Club tonight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because... why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tamara is a human being, its not possible for a human to be a corporation,
They might register a company in their name maybe for legal or tax purposes,
Eg Joe bloggs Ltd is a limited company in UK law,
If Joe goes bankrupt there's a limit to how much credits can get to his personal assets.
Tamara may have a company registered in her name
Perhaps for the purposes paying tax on company earnings vs paying tax as a person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It takes a bunch of moxie to destroy your finances by launching a pointless lawsuit, over an area you aren't working in, in a state your "help" is illegal to give.
BuT iF I dOn'T DeFeNd It I lOsE iT!!
There are all of these things people just "know" that are fscking stupid, but they refuse to verify.
But hey you're investing in a boutique lawyer who should know the law better but still wanted your retainer and billables. Perhaps your financial advice isn't worth very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because using Barbie images without clearance from Mattel - obviously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Kink shaming?
No...I think the concern is that Mattel might decide to get involved. It isn't a real trademark dispute until a big corporation brings in their own lawyers. /jk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Kink shaming?
The images are clearly transformative fair use, describing the trademark claimant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shaming
Yes, if a person likes to play with toys, that's his own business. Purple Haze as a beer, though? Well, I guess that's his personal taste, too ;)
Years ago, I was in Louisiana and ordered 'the darkest beer that you've got.' By color, yes, Purple Haze is dark. With the first sip or two, yes, the raspberry taste is different. However, it's not my thing.
On a serious note, this article is a nice smile for starting the day.
Regards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One wonders if Ms. Harper's attitude toward damages will be governed by the nature of the reply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ms. Harper - Next Target!
Hmm... both fitness and finance, whichever Financial Moxie addresses, can really make a person work up a powerful thirst. So imagine searching for the solace (or services) that FM can offer, and instead winding up here:
https://www.drinkmoxie.com/
They've been selling that cola for centuries... bet they've got some deep pockets. Ka-ching! And it's unlikely they'll reply with an email full of Barbies(TM).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They don't need "clearance" to use the pictures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kink shaming?
I’d say that the use in photography in a legal letter would also be outside the markets the trademark is reserved for and isn’t technically “use in commerce” to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What do you mean? It’s clearly used for parody/commentary in a legal filing (not commerce per se) regarding a trademark dispute between a law firm and a financial/social media advisor. Nothing questionable there. Is it that it’s sexist or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think it’s technically possible to have a corporation of sorts involving one person (a sole proprietorship or something) and with essentially the same name as the person in charge and registered in their name, meaning there could technically be a corporation named Tamara Harper with the only owner/employee being Tamara Harper registered under the name Tamara Harper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ms. Harper - Next Target!
What's even more amusing is that Moxie (the soft drink company) created an advertising campaign that used their name in a way to describe it as a "force of character, determination, or nerve". Without that ad campaign Moxie would just be the name of a soft drink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What amazes me is that, in the C&D letter itself, it specifically notes what markets their trademarks are for and the market the applied-for trademark by the law firm is for, and there is clearly no overlap as anyone can see. It’s almost as though Harper didn’t actually check what she wrote to see if it made sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I love Moxie
Moxie was the forerunner to Jolt. It is (or was, I haven't had it since 1983) a high caffiene carbonated beverage made in Maine. I'll have to search online and see if you can still buy that stuff...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See - this is why I make the "do I really need a arc tag?" comment from time to time.
Now try saying out loud what I put, but in a "Valley Girl" (H/T Zappa) or maybe even a Barbie voice, and observe the sarcasm dripping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moxie is still available
The soft drink Moxie is still available regionally, esp. in New England, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The lawyer just wanted the $$$, doesn't matter if the filing defeats itself, she still gets paid...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because this is how my brain works
After reading This Smells Like My Vagina Candle I started wondering if vagina candles are something like ear candles. Considering the latter are, like goop products, also alternative medicine, I just presumed that of course they exist and have a loyal following.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Most people can freely form corporations with themselves as sole owner. That keeps their business activity and personal finances separate: a debt on one cannot be collected from the other.
Historically, this has NOT been true for people whose main corporate asset has been their professional activities--lawyers, doctors, or certifiable public accountants could not use a corporate organization to shield their personal assets from malpractice suits. However, MULTIPLE L/D/CPAs could form a partnership, which did hide personal assets from professional/personal malpractice suits. But ONE person, regardless of profession, could not form a partnership!
Professional corporations are a fairly recent innovation in business law. The act sort of like one-person partnerships for malpractice-liable professionals.
Caveat: I am a programmer, with no kind of L/D/CPA training, experience, or certification: but I have done programming and tech support for tax products and have seen tax returns for these beasts (and helped the allegedly-expert CPAs get them filled out.)
Personal advice based on experience: certifiability doesn't mean you have a clue, or that you could carry one in a bucket--if you had a bucket. But there do exist experts, and some of them, at least, are certified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]