Anti-Piracy Copyright Lawyer Decides To Abuse Trademarks To Shut Down Pirates

from the ip-is-ip-is-ip dept

Update: This article was updated to remove a paragraph regarding events of a few years ago that was not central to the story here, and for which we have since learned there were additional details that have only now been shared with us.

One of the most consistent aspects of lawyers who crusade against copyright infringement is just how inconsistent their views on "the law" are. Copyright trolls regularly skirt the law while claiming to fight for justice for copyright holders. Hell, some trolls, that would have you believe they are bullwarks against piracy, have been found out to have essentially committed and encouraged the very piracy they sued over themselves.

The point is that it's all a panoply of monied interests and shifting levels of ethics perfectly calibrated to let the copyright lawyer do as he or she pleases on any given day. You can see this in practice yet again, with Kerry Culpepper, Hawaiian IP attorney, deciding to register a bunch of trademarks for piracy related terms and then going around and shutting down accounts for "pirate" services on social media sites.

Through the recently incorporate Hawaiian company 42 Ventures, he helped to register several piracy-related trademarks. The current trademark portfolio of the company includes the popular brands “YTS,” “Popcorn Time,” and “Terrarium.” In addition, 42 Ventures also claimed the trademark for the Showbox arrow logo. All trademarks are registered under the same description, “downloadable computer software for downloading and streaming multimedia content images, videos and audio.” The same description also applies to the pirate sites and apps.

The trademarks were only recently registered which brings up the issue of prior use. Popcorn Time, Terrarium, and YTS have been using their brands for years, and could technically object to any enforcement efforts. 42 Ventures, however, stresses that it has its own legal “Popcorn Time” website at Popcorntime4u.com, which links to content from the YouTube channel Popcorned Planet.

And from there, we find that 42 Ventures has partnered with Andy Signore, who is behind Honest Trailers, among other things. The idea I suppose is to try to claim that 42 Ventures is suddenly and recently using these marks in commerce, the only way it would have a valid trademark. That, however, is bullshit. The terms and actual content creators were already long using those marks, as were the holders of the social media accounts 42 Ventures is busy taking down. In other words, Culpepper appears to be perfectly willing to abuse trademark law in his efforts to enforce copyright law. That isn't exactly a consistent respect for intellectual property now, is it?

Because consistent and ethical application of the law is entirely besides the point. There's no respect for intellectual property in any of this. Only a way to milk dollars in the name of the law.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, kerry culpepper, popcorn time, showbox, terrarium, trademark, trademark abuse, use in commerce, yts

It's That Time Of Year: No, The NFL Can't Stop Every Business From Using 'Super Bowl' In Every Instance

from the the-big-game dept

It's an annual tradition here at Techdirt, something like our deranged version of Christmas. Whenever the start of February rolls around, we gleefully point out to all that will listen that the NFL's stance on how strictly it can control its trademarked term, "Super Bowl", is largely fantasy. Through a combination of overly aggressive enforcement against smaller entities, constantly repeating it has rights it actually doesn't, and a largely unhelpful mass media that simply takes these claims as gospel, far too many people and companies think they can simply not state the factual claim that the Super Bowl exists and occurs around this time of year.

And so we find ourselves with everything from commercials, product sales, and local events that reference "The Big Game", when the reality is that the only game being played here is with the public. That game is make believe, where companies use euphemisms that the public clearly understands to reference the Super Bowl, and the NFL pretends this is somehow different than using the factual term itself. And, again, major media outlets play along for some unknown reason.

As the Super Bowl approaches, many brands have been mentioning “the big game,” describing things as “super” and emphasizing their connection to the general sport of football in their advertising, but they can’t mention the Super Bowl without paying the NFL, which owns the trademark on “Super Bowl.”

“It’s something that they’ve built up equity in,” said Tony Ponturo, CEO of sports business consulting firm Ponturo Management Group and a former sports and entertainment marketing vice president for Anheuser-Busch. “They’ve invested millions and millions and, at this point, probably close to a billion dollars in the game, the event.”

None of which changes the fact that you cannot trademark factual information. Were a company to claim endorsement by the NFL, or claim some official sponsorship of the game, or perhaps even use the term in an extremely vague way, then the NFL probably has a trademark claim to make. But the league also happily goes after bars that advertise Super Bowl parties. They've gone after churches for doing likewise. And they go after any commercial interest that even mentions the existence of the Super Bowl.

That is not trademark infringement.

And, again, this is all ultimately stupid, given how easy it is to skirt trademark law anyway.

Of course, there are ways to get around the trademark. There are all those “big game” deals. When Ponturo was at Anheuser-Busch, the company hadn’t yet paid to make Bud Light the NFL’s official beer. So in the late 1980s, they came up with the “Bud Bowl,” a series of commercials featuring bottles of Budweiser facing bottles of Bud Light on the gridiron.

“The fan understood what it was,” he said. “We tied it ultimately into TV creative as well, which is how Anheuser-Busch first started to be the only beer in the telecast.”

Then what are we all doing here? If the NFL's interpretation of its trademark rights is overly broad, and if companies use other names to get around those same claims so often that the public knows exactly what is going on, then what is the point of any of this? Yes, the NFL has a valid Super Bowl trademark and, yes, it can certainly enforce the rights such a trademark affords it. But pretending there is no nuance to those rights doesn't change the fact that the nuance exists and far too many companies are happy to bow at the altar of the NFL, or simply play word-games to keep it at bay.

One of these years I won't have to write this annual post. 2020, it seems, is not that year.

Filed Under: big game, super bowl, trademark, trademark abuse
Companies: nfl

Python Trademark At Risk In Europe: Python Software Foundation Appeals For Help

from the whoops,-that-was-careless dept

The open source programming language Python -- named after the British comedy series "Monty Python" -- became popular in the 1990s, along with two other languages beginning with "P": Perl and PHP. Later, they formed a crucial part of the famous "LAMP" stack -- the GNU/Linux operating system + Apache Web server + MySQL database + Python/Perl/PHP as scripting languages -- that underpinned many of the most successful startups from this time.

Today, Python is used by some of the biggest names in computing, including Google, so you might assume things like trademarks were sorted out years ago. But this posting by Van Lindberg, Chairman of the Python Software Foundation, reveals that's not the case everywhere:

There is a company in the UK that is trying to trademark the use of the term "Python" for all software, services, servers... pretty much anything having to do with a computer. Specifically, it is the company that got a hold on the python.co.uk domain 13 years ago. At that time we weren't looking a lot at trademark issues, and so we didn't get that domain.

Given the rather unplanned way that free software projects have arisen and grown, it's perhaps not such a surprise that crucial domains and trademarks weren't always applied for in every jurisdiction -- after all, coders just want to code, and open source projects generally don't have any resources to pay someone to handle all the boring legal stuff. And so it often gets neglected, as here. Lindberg explains why that wasn't a problem until now:

This hasn't been an issue since then because the python.co.uk domain has, for most of its life, just forwarded its traffic on to the parent companies, veber.co.uk and pobox.co.uk. Unfortunately, Veber has decided that they want to start using the name "Python" for their server products.

We contacted the owners of python.co.uk repeatedly and tried to discuss the matter with them. They blew us off and responded by filing the community trademark application claiming the exclusive right to use "Python" for software, servers, and web services -- everywhere in Europe.

That would obviously represent a real problem for the Python language there. The Python Software Foundation is therefore opposing the community trademark application, and submitting its own. But to succeed, it needs evidence that it has been using the name for many years, and should therefore be granted the trademark. Here's what it would like:

According to our London counsel, some of the best pieces of evidence we can submit to the European trademark office are official letters from well-known companies "using PYTHON branded software in various member states of the EU" so that we can "obtain independent witness statements from them attesting to the trade origin significance of the PYTHON mark in connection with the software and related goods/services." We also need evidence of use throughout the EU.

The post goes on to list a variety of ways in which Python users, particularly those in Europe, can help bolster the Python Software Foundation's case and obtain the trademark in question. The good news is that communities based around free software like Python are likely to have a huge pool of people willing and able to help in these circumstances by providing evidence that throughout Europe, and for over two decades, "Python" has always meant the free software language. However, to avoid similar incidents, and similar mad rushes to gather the required evidence, it would probably be a good idea if other open source projects checked that they had registered all the obvious Web sites and trademarks.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: europe, python, software, trademark, trademark abuse

Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters

from the this-would-appear-to-be-a-mistake dept

A year ago, we pointed out how hypocritical it was for Ron Paul (at the time still a Congressional Representative and a candidate for President) to file a ridiculous lawsuit, clearly abusing trademark law, in an effort to unmask some anonymous internet users who had made a video that attacked another candidate, John Huntsman, and closed with a claim that the video was from Ron Paul supporters. Many of Pauls' supporters actually believed the video was a fake, from Huntsman supporters, seeking to discredit Ron Paul. Even if that was true, there was simply no excuse to then abuse trademark law to try to take away someone's anonymity. And, yes, it was an abuse of trademark law -- as he both claimed trademark on his name and claimed that the video was a "use in commerce" (it was not). Even if you believe the videomakers should have been exposed, I would hope you'd agree that abusing a totally unrelated law to do so would be a mistake, and (to us) seemed to go 100% against the things Ron Paul claimed to stand for. Thankfully, a judge quickly agreed and killed the lawsuit.

In writing about this, many of Paul's more ardent supporters trashed us both in our comments, and on various Ron Paul websites. I'm a little curious how they feel now, in a similar situation, where Ron Paul has turned his legal sights on them. As a whole bunch of folks have sent in, Ron Paul has filed a UDRP complaint against the site RonPaul.com, seeking to have WIPO turn over the domain to him. RonPaul.com has basically been the central source for the massive grassroots effort that supported Ron Paul in his last two Presidential campaigns -- leading many other candidates to envy Paul's ability to connect with the internet generation. The reality, of course, was much of that actually had to do with a few of his most dedicated fans, and their ability to spread his message via a series of grassroots websites, including RonPaul.com. To have Paul turn around and seek to have WIPO turn over the domain is incredible on so many different levels, once again suggesting that many of the things Ron Paul claims to have believed in go completely out the window at times -- even when it involves turning on the very people who built up his reputation.

Even more bizarre is that not only is he turning on his most ardent supporters and effectively taking them to court, but he's using WIPO, a part of the United Nations, to do so. Ron Paul hates the UN and would like the US to leave the UN. As he once said:

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

And yet, here he is, running to the UN, and trying to forcefully take away a super successful site from his biggest fans supporting him, using the force of that same United Nations? Incredible.

Reading through the background and history, and then digging into the claims Paul's lawyer makes, suggests that Paul has made a huge mistake here. The backstory is that in a recent interview Paul expressed some minor regret that he did not hold the domain:

Alex Jones: Well, God bless you, sir, I hope we can get you back again in a month. What are any other websites that are important, just www.CampaignForLiberty.org?

Ron Paul: There’s that, and we’ll be listing some new things there because we’re making some other WebPages. I’m going to have a home page. Unfortunately, I didn’t have RonPaul.com, so I’m going to have to have RonPaulsHomepage.com. That will be coming up, but it’s not ready yet.

In response, some of his fans told the site's operators they should look to hand over the site. The operators noted that over the past 4.5 years, and through two high profile Presidential campaigns, they were at the center of building up massive grassroots support for Paul, and they had not had any request for the domain, but they were happy to talk it over:

On May 1st, 2008 we launched a grassroots website at RonPaul.com that became one of the most popular resources dedicated exclusively to Ron Paul and his ideas. We put our lives on hold and invested 4.5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012. Looking back, we are very happy with what we were able to achieve with unlimited enthusiasm and limited financial resources.

As we haven’t heard from Ron Paul or his staff for several years we do not know if there is any tangible interest in utilizing RonPaul.com for Ron Paul’s new projects. We have prepared a cordial message for Ron Paul that we will gladly forward to him or to any person who credibly identifies himself as part of his current staff.

Eventually, they did get in touch with the campaign, and realizing that taking down everything that had already been on RonPaul.com would represent the dismantling of a very vital community, they hoped that he would accept RonPaul.org as an alternative for free. However, if he really wanted RonPaul.com, they were willing to give that up as well, including their massive mailing list of Paul fans, for $250,000 -- not an unreasonable sum for all the content and community they had built up over the years. You can see their full letter here or embedded below. It's very cordial, makes a strong argument for why disrupting the existing RonPaul.com would be a mistake that harms Paul's supporters and message, and makes those two offers. Perfectly reasonable.

In response, Paul and his lawyers didn't just reject the request, they actually use it against them, misrepresenting the offer, the site and the entire history, in a ridiculously misleading attempt to show malicious intent on behalf of the folks who run the site -- who most people would consider some of Ron Paul's most important supporters. The WIPO filing is really a guffaw-inducing piece of work. It doesn't just present one side of the story, it goes out of its way to imply things that are clearly untrue about those who run RonPaul.com -- suggesting that the whole effort was some sort of scam to extort money from Paul. A few quotes:

Respondents can demonstrate no legitimate purpose for registering domain names identical to Complainant's RON PAUL mark.

Other than, you know, building up a massive and widely envied internet grassroots support campaign for two high profile Presidential campaigns, as well as many of the key issues that Ron Paul (supposedly) believes in. Somehow, Paul's lawyers forget to mention that part.

There is no evidence that Respondents have used or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Apparently trying to get Ron Paul elected is not something that Ron Paul considers a "bona fide" service.

They even imply that these guys only registered the domains to try to get Ron Paul to give them money for the domains. Apparently those 4.5 years of building up a massive and vocal grassroots online community supporting Ron Paul campaigns was just a ruse or something:

Under the UDRP, bad faith can be shown where the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the trademark owner or to a competitor of that complainant, for consideration in excess of respondent's out-of-pocket costs.

This claim is clearly hogwash. Considering everything that's been done on the site, to argue that the "primary" reason to was to get Paul to pay up is laughable. It's made even more laughable by reading the actual offer to Ron Paul from the domain holders, in which they make it clear they'd rather not sell the domain at all, and offer him a free alternative. It is abundantly obvious that selling the domain was not the "primary" reason for registering the domain, and it was so far down the list that they asked him not to buy the damn thing at all.

Further evidence of bad faith comes from Respondents' registration and use of the domain names to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's RON PAUL mark... In this case, Respondents must have known of Complainant's famous mark prior to registering the domain names. Respondents registered the domain name, utilizing the Complainant's mark, in order to suggest to internet users a connection between the domain names and Complainant. This is misleading and supports a finding of bad faith registration.

[....]

There is a high likelihood that users will be confused and believe that Complainant is the website's source, sponsor, or is some way affiliated with or endorses the website. If not for this likelihood of confusion, the rental value of the domain names would be significantly decreased.

This claim of trying to create a likelihood of confusion might sound reasonable at a first glance... except that the handy dandy Internet Archive shows that, from way back when these supporters first launched the grassroots site, the site had a prominent disclaimer that noted they were not directly associated with Ron Paul. That link above shows you what the site looked like less than 3 weeks after the domain was registered. It has the following prominently marked:

Disclaimer
The RonPaul.com website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his Campaign. For Ron Paul's official website, go to RonPaul2008.com

That's in the sidebar. At the bottom there's the following disclaimer:

The RonPaul.com website is maintained by grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul & Campaign.

In other words, from the very beginning, they were explicit that they were grassroots supporters, and not the campaign or the candidate. For Paul and his lawyers to argue otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Respondents later offered to sell <ronpaul .com> to Complainant for $250,000 and to provide <ronpaul .org> as a "free gift" with the purchase of <ronpaul .com>.

This reaches a level that one might call "lying." The original letter is quite explicit. They would prefer not to sell RonPaul.com at all, and the offer of RonPaul.org for free was not "with the purchase of <ronpaul .com>" but a no-strings-attached offer to Ron Paul if he wanted to use RonPaul.org as his future domain (since it would be less disruptive to his grassroots supporters).

When you read through all of this, it's really quite incredible. Not once does the filing even hint at what the domain has been used for over the past 4.5 years. If you read the filing without context, you'd think that it was solely devoted to a commercial site pretending to be Ron Paul's real site, and the entire effort was built up just to try to sell it to Paul. For a politician who built up his grassroots supporters in large part because of his authenticity and his willingness to speak honestly and truthfully about issues, to turn on his biggest supporters with a pile of hogwash, while clearly abusing a process he doesn't even believe in, to try to forceably take away the site from his fans... is incredible.

As the operators of the site themselves note:

Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice. We helped raise millions of dollars for you, we spread your message of liberty as far and wide as we possibly could, and we went out of our way to defend you against the unjustified attacks by your opponents. Now that your campaigns are over and you no longer need us, you want to take it all away – and send us off to a UN tribunal?

Who knows who is advising Paul on this move, but this seems like a massive miscalculation. Maybe he doesn't care any more, now that he's out of Congress. Maybe he's decided that all those years of standing up as a principled politician can be thrown out the window because he really wants RonPaul.com. Either way, this seems destined to be a stain on his legacy.

Filed Under: bad faith, domain name, ron paul, ronpaul.com, ronpaul.org, trademark, trademark abuse, udrp, united nations, wipo