Internet Marketer Tries To Trademark 'SEO'

from the *sigh* dept

Similar to the guy who tried to register a trademark on the term cyberlaw, it turns out that some internet marketing guy is trying to get a trademark on the term "SEO" (thanks to Eric Goldman for pointing this out). SEO, of course, is a very generic acronym for "search engine optimization" and has been used for ages (not, as the guy claims, since early 2007). The link goes through, in rather great detail, how the Trademark folks turned this guy down multiple times, and he kept adjusting the trademark application, occasionally in totally nonsensical ways -- but eventually it seems as though people in the USPTO simply threw up their hands and said "whatever, let it through...." It's now at the stage where the USPTO is waiting to see if anyone objects to the filing, so hopefully with enough folks in the SEO filing objections this one will get completely rejected.

Filed Under: seo, trademarks

Engadget Mobile Threatened For Using T-Mobile's Trademarked Magenta

from the morons-in-a-hurry dept

We've certainly seen some dumb trademark lawsuit threats lately, but T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom's supposed threats to Engadget may take the cake. It's not that extraordinary for a company to trademark a distinct color that it uses in its logo, and that's exactly what T-Mobile did last year with a trademark (in Germany only) on the color magenta. Now, it's important to realize that this doesn't mean T-Mobile "owns" that color or can forbid anyone else from using it. It really just means that competing providers offering similar goods and services might run into trouble for using the same color, potentially leading to consumer confusion. When this news broke, plenty of people got up in arms, suggesting that T-Mobile "owned" magenta, which just isn't true. However, it does look like its lawyers think it gives them rights far beyond what it actually does.

According to Engadget, Deutsche Telekom lawyers have sent a nastygram to Engadget, because the blog uses magenta in the logo for its sister site, Engadget Mobile. Of course, it's hard to believe that anyone would go to Engadget Mobile and believe it was somehow affiliated with T-Mobile. The logos are quite different, and the services they offer (obviously) are totally unrelated. In fact, this whole thing seemed so ridiculous that I assumed it was an April Fool's joke -- though the folks at Engadget insist it's not. And, if you want icing on the cake, last year Engadget was one of a few sites that defended T-Mobile for its magenta trademark when it became news last year.

Filed Under: engadget, engadget mobile, magenta, mobile service, trademarks
Companies: deutsche telekom, t-mobile

Unnecessary Anti-Phishing Law Potentially Even Worse Than First Thought

from the totally-unnecessary-and-totally-damaging dept

Last month, we wrote about a bill proposed in the Senate that would outlaw phishing even though phishing is already illegal. If it merely restated that phishing was illegal, that would be one thing (a basic waste), but it also added some other points that were problematic, including taking away the right to anonymity in registering domain names. It turns out the bill may actually be much worse than that -- but it may depend on how it's read. The EFF has gone through the bill and claims that the bill would also outlaw the use of a trademark in a domain name. Thus, things like "sucks sites," which are currently legal, could now be considered illegal. The EFF also claims that it would not allow you the use of someone else's domain name in an email, web ad or on a website. As the EFF notes, if the domain name is used in a confusing manner, that's already a trademark violation. To completely ban it seems not just over the top, but dangerous. If you look through the text of the bill, it does seem to grant some leeway in determining what actually constitutes phishing, but it's certainly broad enough that the law can be abused. Considering that it isn't at all necessary since existing laws cover phishing, is there any reason to allow this bill to go forward, other than to have some Senators get a headline in their local newspapers about how they're tough on phishing?

Filed Under: anti-phishing, eff, free speech, senate, trademarks
Companies: eff

UK Court Recognizes That Keyword Advertising Isn't A Trademark Violation

from the mr-spicy-mr-spicy-mr-spicy dept

While US courts have gotten much better lately at realizing that keyword advertising is not, by itself a violation of trademark law, judges in some other countries have had trouble recognizing the same thing. France, in particular, seems to have judges who consistently are confused over the matter. Remember, the purpose of trademark law is not to give total control over the mark to the holder, but to prevent consumer confusion. It's so they're not tricked into buying Bob's Cola thinking that it's Coca Cola. If someone does a search on a trademarked term, and it shows a variety of ads, including from competitors to the holder of the trademark, that's not a violation of trademark -- it's just competition. It certainly isn't trademark infringement on the part of the search engine, who is merely hosting the ad. If anything, it might be trademark infringement on the part of the advertiser, but only if the ad itself is somehow designed to confuse the consumer.

Thankfully, it looks like the High Court in the UK has recognized the issues at play and has come out with a ruling more like the American courts than the French courts, noting that there is no trademark violation for search engines in these cases. This specific case involved Yahoo, who was getting sued by someone who owned a trademark on "Mr Spicy." He claimed that competitor's ads were showing up when someone searched on "Mr Spicy." That was true, but it wasn't even because anyone had set up keywords on "Mr. Spicy." They had merely set up keywords on "spicy," which still showed up on a search for "Mr Spicy." Of course, even if it had been on "Mr. Spicy" it wouldn't have mattered much, since it still wasn't Yahoo's issue. Also, the court seems to recognize that since the ads themselves don't even refer to Mr Spicy, it's hard to see how there's any loss or confusion that would violate the trademark. Hopefully other courts around the world will start employing similar logic as well.

Filed Under: keyword advertising, trademarks, uk
Companies: yahoo

Trademarking Pwnage

from the pwned! dept

The folks over at Against Monopoly alert us to the fact that a Finnish software/gaming development company has applied for a US trademark on the term "pwnage" in the video game space. You'd think that the nearly 2 million Google results that show up on the term would suggest that it's already generic and not deserving of a trademark, but I guess we'll find out what the USPTO has to say about the matter soon enough.

Filed Under: pwnage, trademarks

The Naked Cowboy Has A Trademark And A Lawyer... And He's Not Afraid To Use Either

from the our-wonderful-society dept

Eric writes in to let us know of a rather odd trademark infringement lawsuit going down in New York. It appears that "The Naked Cowboy," a Times Square institution (he's basically a guy who plays a guitar in Times Square in a cowboy hat and underwear) not only has a trademark on the concept, but he's suing the Mars Company for a video billboard it put up in Times Square (of course) showing animated M&Ms prancing around in cowboy hats and underwear in a virtual Times Square. As the article above reports, the guy may actually have a case of trademark infringement under current laws, though $6 million seems a bit excessive no matter how sure the cowboy (real name: Robert Burck) is of his chances. The real question, though, is whether or not this makes any real sense. The purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion. It's to prevent Bob's Cola from labeling its bottles as Coca Cola and getting people to buy something other than what they think they're buying. Is that the case here? Will M&Ms buyers be confused? I doubt it, even when we apply the famous "moron in a hurry" test. It's certainly difficult to see how the ad takes anything away from Burck himself -- though, I imagine the lawsuit should only serve to draw more attention to him, which is likely the point, whether or not he scores $6 million out of Mars.

Filed Under: naked cowboy, trademarks
Companies: mars

Yoko Ono Clarifies Lennon Trademark Dispute

from the thanks dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about a dispute over the trademark on "Lennon" between Yoko Ono and the singer Lennon Murphy. As we said, while it did seem odd that Ono waited until the very last minute to protest the trademark, the really problematic part was Murphy applying for the trademark in the first place. Yoko Ono (or, more likely, a representative of Ono) contacted us today by email to clarify her position:

"A musician named Lennon Murphy is claiming that Yoko Ono has sued her and that Yoko is seeking to stop Lennon Murphy from performing under her name, Lennon Murphy. Both of these claims are untrue.

Several years ago, Lennon Murphy sought Yoko's permission to do her performances under her name, Lennon Murphy. Yoko, of course, did not object to her request. Subsequently, without Yoko's knowledge, Lennon Murphy filed an application in the United States trademark Office requesting the exclusive right to utilize the name "Lennon" for musical performances. Yoko's attorneys asked Lennon Murphy's attorneys and manager to withdraw her registration of exclusivity to the name LENNON for the trademark. Yoko also offered to cover all costs Lennon Murphy had incurred in filing for the trademark. But Lennon Murphy went ahead to register.

Yoko did not sue Lennon Murphy, but sought to stop her from getting the exclusive right to the name Lennon for performance purposes. For that, Yoko's attorneys, simply notified the Trademark office that Yoko did not believe it was fair that Ms. Murphy be granted the exclusive right to the "Lennon" trademark in relation to musical and entertainment services. As you can see, this is a very important issue for Yoko and the Lennon family.

Yoko says: "I am really hurt if people thought that I told a young artist to not use her own name in her performances and had sought to sue her. I did no such thing. I hope this allegation will be cleared."

Thank you for your kind attention,
Yoko"

So there we have it. In retrospect, this actually looks like a rather lame publicity stunt by Lennon Murphy, first registering for a trademark on the name, and then complaining about Ono's request to the USPTO not to grant it.

Filed Under: lennon, trademarks, yoko ono

There Can Be Only One... Lennon?

from the oh-please dept

ehrichweiss writes "Yoko Ono filed what is essentially a lawsuit with the Trademark and Trial Board of the US Patent & Trademark Office this week over a musician's ownership of the trademark of "Lennon", attempting to force the musician to give up her trademark. The musician, Lennon Murphy, has owned the trademark since 2003 and had sought permission from Arista records and Yoko to release under the name "Lennon" back in 2000. Yoko apparently waited until 2 days before the statute of limitations ran out to file the lawsuit."

The details on this are a bit murky, but the reality is that neither party looks good here. It seems rather silly that the musician tried to trademark "Lennon" in the first place. While it does seem odd that Yoko Ono waited until two days before the statute of limitations expired to file her complaints about the trademark, just the fact that people are arguing over whether or not a given name can be covered by trademark suggests how far lost our intellectual property laws have become. It's easy to make Yoko Ono look bad over this, but the fact that Murphy singer tried to trademark Lennon in the first place does seem problematic.

Filed Under: john lennon, lennon, lennon murphy, trademarks, yoko ono

Super Bowl Intellectual Property Insanity: No Big Screen Super Bowl Parties, Trademarking 19-0

from the the-big,-big-game dept

Well here are a couple stories to leave you with as we head into Super Bowl weekend. Every year it seems there's some insanity concerning the NFL somehow trying to abuse intellectual property rights above and beyond what they're designed for. Remember, the NFL thinks that it can tell reporters how to report on a game, while also forcing them to advertise for NFL sponsors. It also has been known to issue bogus DMCA notices. And, of course, don't forget that not only has the NFL bullied people into believing that you can't use the phrase "The Super Bowl" in an advertisement, after many advertisers switched to the euphemism "The Big Game" to appease the NFL, it tried to trademark "The Big Game" as well.

This year, the big news (as submitted by a lot of you), but first by Ryan, is that the New England Patriots have applied for a trademark on "19-0" to represent the undefeated season the team will have if it wins this season. The NY Post, snarky as ever, filed for a trademark on 18-1 in response, supporting the home town NY Giants. This, of course, seems rather ridiculous. What would happen in future seasons if some other team was able to go 19-0? There's also the question of hubris in declaring yourself 19-0 before that final game. On that note, you can already pre-order a book about the 19-0 season, even though it hasn't been completed yet.

That's not all, though. Last year, we had a story that got tremendous attention about the NFL stopping churches from having Super Bowl parties, if they had a TV that was bigger than 55". There was a lot of fuss about it, and you would think that, perhaps, the NFL would let it slide this year. Not so. Ethan Bauley writes in to let us know that, once again, the NFL has been going around stopping churches from holding Super Bowl... er... The Big Game... er... "Best Commercials Of The Year, Interrupted By Some Game" parties, for having TVs that are too big.

So, remember, as you watch the... event... this weekend, to do so on a TV smaller than 55", do not refer to it as "The Super Bowl" or "The Big Game," make sure to notice the photojournalists wearing sponsors' clothing, and certainly do not put a fair use clip on YouTube. And, perhaps, cheer on the Giants in their effort to make the 19-0 trademark question a hypothetical, rather than practical, question.

Filed Under: 19-0, copyright, nfl, super bowl, the big game, the patriots, trademarks
Companies: nfl

There Can Be Only One... Cyberlawyer?

from the seriously? dept

In our culture where some companies (and their lawyers) have convinced people that intellectual property gives you total control over things, we start to see some bizarre and ridiculous trademark claims. The latest comes to us via the EFF, who point to a lawyer who has received a trademark on the term "cyberlaw" and is going after other lawyers who use the term which has been in fairly common usage for ages. As the EFF notes, it's especially upsetting that an intellectual property lawyer would abuse trademark law this way in a manner well beyond what trademark law is supposed to do -- while also warning that courts as well as tech companies don't tend to look kindly on people who abuse trademark law.

Filed Under: cyberlaw, trademarks