Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin enthusiasts were incensed at the application’s claim to ”first use” of the word Bitcoin in commerce on June 22, 2011, the date the application was filed. As evidence, Mr. Pascazi submitted a letter from Celine Pascazi offering to sell Bitcoins for $17.50, also dated June 22. Bitcoiners say the digital currency has been in circulation since as early as 2009.

Mr. Pascazi is aware that Bitcoin has existed for a while. But he was skeptical that its use in commerce could be proven in court, he said.

“My understanding is that they are anonymous and untraceable,” he said. “So how would one prove that a person-to-person transaction occurred?”

Bitcoin transactions are like cash transactions as far as a court is concerned, he said–a.k.a., “not strong compelling evidence.”

“Nonetheless, my client has decided to withdraw the application in the United States because apparently there will be some sort of, there are lots of people interested and alleging they can prove first-to-use and so forth. So strategically that will happen today and simultaneously applications will be made in civil law jurisdictions around the world where the doctrine is first to file,” he said.

That includes France, Italy, Spain, Japan and possibly China, he said.

“In the spirit of capitalism, if somebody sees an opportunity, my view is they should be allowed to seize it and if it never develops into anything, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained,” he said.

From http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/07/bitcoin-flamers-force-lawyer-to-drop-u-s-trademark-application-so-now-hes-trying-it-abroad/
Found from
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ij8uk/bitcoin_flamers_force_lawyer_to_drop_us_trademark/


I suggest seeing the full article at http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/07/bitcoin-flamers-force-lawyer-to-drop-u-s-trademark-application-so-now-hes-trying-it-abroad/

What a crock, trying to get ownership of something he didn't create nor owes. He should be stripped of his rights and licenses of being a lawyer.

“I don’t think you will find that mark registered in any country. If it in fact is so important to so many people, as I’ve received lots of indicators that it is, I sort of ponder the question, would I let that mark go unregistered if it were that important? Either it’s not important to them or it’s important but they’re not doing anything about it because… it’s easier to sit on your couch and complain than to do something,” he said.

From the article:

What a douche. He's trying to call us lazy, whilst at the same time is attempting to trademark something he didn't even create. No one has trademarked it because no one owns it. It's open source software, a decentralized P2P network. No one owns the software or name.

Check out the 'status' on this page:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491&action=Request+Status

Doesn't say anything about it being cancelled.

Can anyone link to some actual evidence that it's been dropped?

Mr. Pascazi became interested in Bitcoin recently after reading about it. He’s a former electrical engineer who worked at IBM and then ran a fiberoptics telecommunications firm for 20 years. “I’m not just some guy who crawled out of a lawbook,” he said.

The Michael Pascazi (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com/) trademark troll (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com) google punishment just started! :D :D :D

Michael S Pascazi - does the s stand for scammer ?

 :)

Check out the 'status' on this page:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491&action=Request+Status

Doesn't say anything about it being cancelled.

Can anyone link to some actual evidence that it's been dropped?

Hahaha I just googled the name of this incompetent lawyer (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com) and the scammer site was at the top of the list already.

"Hmm this guy seems nice, i should google him to be sure... 'wtf.. scammer? o.O'... better get a different lawyer just to be safe..."


i think someone killed their career :/ though he may will sue the site owner. though as far as damage to his name, i think that is all on him and he would have a hard time proving otherwise in court. i wonder if he made it into wikipedia yet as 'the idiot that tried to trademark the bitcoin name". hope he doesn't have any kids :/

"Hmm this guy seems nice, i should google him to be sure... 'wtf.. scammer (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com/)? o.O'... better get a different lawyer just to be safe..."


i think someone killed their career :/ though he may will sue the site owner. though as far as damage to his name, i think that is all on him and he would have a hard time proving otherwise in court. i wonder if he made it into wikipedia yet as 'the idiot that tried to trademark the bitcoin name (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com/)". hope he doesn't have any kids :/

The trademark application identified below was abandoned because a response to the Office Action mailed on Mar 1, 2006 was not received within the 6-month response period.

SERIAL NUMBER:   78687125
MARK:   LEGACY BIOGENETICS GROUP
OWNER:   Pascazi, Michael, S.

Next, i'm going after the douchebag that trademarked Bitcoin for Financial/Banking Services in Portugal.
The trademark was already granted.

Can you give us more info/links on the Portuguese application?

In Europe Tibanne Co. Ltd. (mtgox) tries to register the trademark 4 days ago. And there was noone before who tried it. :-)

He most certainly looks the part he is playing.

Glad I am not him.

The rule of law will decide this.  If he is first-to-file in certain countries and that is the law, then bitcoin trademark is his rightful property.  I applaud him for utilizing the system as it is designed.

The rule of law will decide this.  If he is first-to-file in certain countries and that is the law, then bitcoin trademark is his rightful property.  I applaud him for utilizing the system as it is designed.

Trademarks are not property. They are more like a proper noun to help you distinguish competitors in the marketplace.

Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html) (by Richard M. Stallman)

Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.