Someone Random Trademarked "bitcoin" : Now we can't use the term?

[the founder]

Someone trademarked and was GRANTED the term.  This cannot be allowed to stand....  they were not the first in use?   WTF?


Word Mark    BITCOIN
Goods and Services    IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 20110622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622
Standard Characters Claimed    
Mark Drawing Code    (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number    85353491
Filing Date    June 22, 2011
Current Filing Basis    1A
Original Filing Basis    1A
Owner    (APPLICANT) Magellan Capital Advisors LLC DBA Magellan Capital LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NEW YORK Suite D 1065 Main Street Fishkill NEW YORK 12524
Attorney of Record    Michael S. Pascazi, Esq.
Disclaimer    NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "COIN OR BIT" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark    SERVICE MARK
Register    PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator    LIVE

[kwukduck]

Guess what he's working on in his basement
Maybe a fully controlled virtual currency? Nahhh he wouldn't...

[joepie91]

Pretty sure this is not a valid trademark. The term/name Bitcoin was already established before the date of the trademark.

[gigabytecoin]

Just because I trademark "mom and pop's pizzeria" doesn't mean I can take over every other mom and pop's pizzera place on the planet.

[evoorhees]

Pretty sure this is not a valid trademark. The term/name Bitcoin was already established before the date of the trademark.

Agreed. Pretty funny that it got through, though. The Government fails even at it's own crappy processes.

[the founder]

my point is that he isn't the first in use in commerce.

I think that several people need to file first in use opposition to that thing....  there is no way that can be allowed to be trademarked....

[natman3400]

Pretty sure this is not a valid trademark. The term/name Bitcoin was already established before the date of the trademark.

This. I'm also pretty sure a trademark only allows for protection against uses of it that would hurt business for the trademark holder, too.
Even if that's not true, the bitcoin community has been using the term for quite a while.

[Vladimir]

...
FIRST USE: 20110622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622
...

Fail.

[dinzy]

Is it a trademark or an application for a trademark?

[CJYP]

Even if it is valid, who are they going to sue? If they sue the owners of this forum, people will flock to another forum. We'll still happily use the term bitcoin.

[joepie91]

Pretty sure this is not a valid trademark. The term/name Bitcoin was already established before the date of the trademark.

Agreed. Pretty funny that it got through, though. The Government fails even at it's own crappy processes.

Or not, of course...

[evoorhees]

Even if it is valid, who are they going to sue? If they sue the owners of this forum, people will flock to another forum. We'll still happily use the term bitcoin.

Well "in theory" the legitimate owner of that trademark could sue anyone who used the name/logo of bitcoin on their site (like a vendor who accepted bitcoin, etc.). They could also sue any site that offered bitcoin services.

But again, it's not a valid mark, because it was used in commerce long before the filing by people other than the applicant and this necessarily invalidates it. It's also very easy to prove that it was used earlier. But hey, can't fault the guy for trying to grab the name... I might have =)

[phantomcircuit]

In fact it would appear that the lawyer who filled this trademark application knowingly lied on the application about the first use in commerce date.

[markm]

Remember webspider or spider, the free open source webserver?

They changed to spinner because someone else took the name spider? And then to Roxen because someone else took the name spinner? Then to Caudium because Roxen Internet Services turned it toward proprietary and took the name Roxen with them?

http://www.caudium.net/server/history.rxml

The only reason someone hasn't hijacked "Linux" is because Linus trademarked it.

-MarkM- (I am not a lawyer. I don't think Linus is either.)

[Jaime Frontero]

right.  google the lawyer's name: Michael S. Pascazi

[jack102938]

Pretty sure this is not a valid trademark. The term/name Bitcoin was already established before the date of the trademark.

Sept 7th 1988 to be precise... http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NkrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UWQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1436,506391&dq=bitcoin&hl=en

[SgtSpike]

This is hilarious.

[Stupidpal]

What a joke.

[Vladimir]

...
FIRST USE: 20110622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622
...

Fail.

Whoever get grief from those trademark sharks, get me as an expert witness. I'll testify that I have used term bitcoin in my contracts. ( Dated and signed ) way before 20110622. The case is closed.

P.S. Gavin and many other people would be even stronger experts/witnesses.

[Sannyasi]

the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights

this is only proper