Was just thinking about how dumb trademark law can be. Now I’ve been ignited. This is now up there with stuff like “Taco Tuesday” and “Happy Birthday” being trademarked. I don’t understand how...
Was just thinking about how dumb trademark law can be. Now I’ve been ignited.
This is now up there with stuff like “Taco Tuesday” and “Happy Birthday” being trademarked. I don’t understand how common, terms, phrases, and songs, &c. can even be trademarked as intellectual property, or whatever. Trademarking something you didn’t come up with to make money off of feels like a uniquely American capitalist idea and desire that even I, an American, simply cannot understand. I find it a shame that this rewards the person who thought to file paperwork rather than the person who came up with something original. Especially when what’s being trademarked is a simple phrase that is already used colloquially. It’s crazy to me that the copyright office or whoever registers trademarks allows this. Even crazier she thought this would be well received among the community.
IANAL but a quick search mentions that the US is a “first to use” system, meaning that if those people this lady is calling out to cease and desist selling their own merch with the phrase, could possibly fight back, provided they have documentation and proof they’ve been selling merch with the phrase before her trademark was registered. Though of course legal fees likely make this process prohibitive for small sellers especially. I also read something about a 30 day window in which the public can oppose such trademarks. But for something that in scope is quite trivial, I doubt would have much momentum. Though I might be underestimating the power of booktok.
Welp, hopefully she’s alienated herself enough with this blatant greed and selfishness that no one buys her dumb garbage merch now.
Trademarks are much more narrowly defined than copyright, although the two are often conflated. That's why you can have Apple, the iPhone company, own the Apple trademark, in addition to Apple...
Trademarks are much more narrowly defined than copyright, although the two are often conflated. That's why you can have Apple, the iPhone company, own the Apple trademark, in addition to Apple Records, the Beatles company, own the Apple trademark.
Trademark is essentially exclusively concerned with the idea of making sure people know what they're buying. If you buy an iPhone, it must be from Apple. Someone else can't make something and sell it as an iPhone. It doesn't mean you own the word, or something, just that in a narrow slice of commercialized products, you have exclusive usage of the word for commercial purposes.
Trademarks have to be defended. If it's the case that what you trademarked isn't the first thing that comes to mind when the phrase or word comes up, trademarks can be lost. Although Apple is obviously a very common word, in the context of smartphones, no one in good faith can say they don't know what Apple is.
Ultimately, people usually make a bigger deal of trademark than it really is. For one, if you don't actually have a famous product, it's kind of pointless to begin with? Secondly, it's something that's very malleable in court - if, for a variety of reasons, the public no longer associates you with the trademarked phrase, whether that be because of genericazation (e.g, Velcro -> velcro) or simply because you fall off and lose mindshare, it can easily be removed.
This entire situation reminds me of when German boardgame company Hans Im Glueck decided to trademark the fan originated term Meeple, causing deep rifts within the boardgame community and spawning...
This entire situation reminds me of when German boardgame company Hans Im Glueck decided to trademark the fan originated term Meeple, causing deep rifts within the boardgame community and spawning an initiative by a YouTuber to trademark it in the States (ostensibly to defend it from being used by companies as a stick of law).
So, trademark squatting is not necessarily uniquely connected to US capitalists. The famously litigious Germans aren't above the practice either!
I guess hot girls also try to get away with trademark squatting?
Was just thinking about how dumb trademark law can be. Now I’ve been ignited.
This is now up there with stuff like “Taco Tuesday” and “Happy Birthday” being trademarked. I don’t understand how common, terms, phrases, and songs, &c. can even be trademarked as intellectual property, or whatever. Trademarking something you didn’t come up with to make money off of feels like a uniquely American capitalist idea and desire that even I, an American, simply cannot understand. I find it a shame that this rewards the person who thought to file paperwork rather than the person who came up with something original. Especially when what’s being trademarked is a simple phrase that is already used colloquially. It’s crazy to me that the copyright office or whoever registers trademarks allows this. Even crazier she thought this would be well received among the community.
IANAL but a quick search mentions that the US is a “first to use” system, meaning that if those people this lady is calling out to cease and desist selling their own merch with the phrase, could possibly fight back, provided they have documentation and proof they’ve been selling merch with the phrase before her trademark was registered. Though of course legal fees likely make this process prohibitive for small sellers especially. I also read something about a 30 day window in which the public can oppose such trademarks. But for something that in scope is quite trivial, I doubt would have much momentum. Though I might be underestimating the power of booktok.
Welp, hopefully she’s alienated herself enough with this blatant greed and selfishness that no one buys her dumb garbage merch now.
Trademarks are much more narrowly defined than copyright, although the two are often conflated. That's why you can have Apple, the iPhone company, own the Apple trademark, in addition to Apple Records, the Beatles company, own the Apple trademark.
Trademark is essentially exclusively concerned with the idea of making sure people know what they're buying. If you buy an iPhone, it must be from Apple. Someone else can't make something and sell it as an iPhone. It doesn't mean you own the word, or something, just that in a narrow slice of commercialized products, you have exclusive usage of the word for commercial purposes.
Trademarks have to be defended. If it's the case that what you trademarked isn't the first thing that comes to mind when the phrase or word comes up, trademarks can be lost. Although Apple is obviously a very common word, in the context of smartphones, no one in good faith can say they don't know what Apple is.
Ultimately, people usually make a bigger deal of trademark than it really is. For one, if you don't actually have a famous product, it's kind of pointless to begin with? Secondly, it's something that's very malleable in court - if, for a variety of reasons, the public no longer associates you with the trademarked phrase, whether that be because of genericazation (e.g, Velcro -> velcro) or simply because you fall off and lose mindshare, it can easily be removed.
This entire situation reminds me of when German boardgame company Hans Im Glueck decided to trademark the fan originated term Meeple, causing deep rifts within the boardgame community and spawning an initiative by a YouTuber to trademark it in the States (ostensibly to defend it from being used by companies as a stick of law).
So, trademark squatting is not necessarily uniquely connected to US capitalists. The famously litigious Germans aren't above the practice either!