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

[1715508284]

1715508284

[1715508284]

1715508284

[1715508284]

1715508284

[1715508284]

1715508284

[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

[joepie91]

People confuse the patent process with trademarks.

Anybody got a dumber than dumb idea to fix that much? Globally? Besides distribution by language.

I am not 100% sure how the trademarking process works in the US, but in the Netherlands you would *never* get a trademark on a widely used and acknowledged term or name.

[SgtSpike]

People confuse the patent process with trademarks.

Anybody got a dumber than dumb idea to fix that much? Globally? Besides distribution by language.

I am not 100% sure how the trademarking process works in the US, but in the Netherlands you would *never* get a trademark on a widely used and acknowledged term or name.

That's how it is supposed to work in the US as well... but apparently, the trademark office failed to do some due diligence on research.  A simple google search for "bitcoin" would have assured them that the term has been in wide use for some time now.

Heck, all anyone needs to point to for proof is the many news articles that have been written over the past several months.

[ColdHardMetal]

Maybe they're getting ready to send out a flurry of cease and desist letters to people using the term bitcoin, and just figure everyone will be happy to settle out of court for some amount less than it would cost to litigate it and prove the mark is invalid.

It wouldn't be the first time someone did something along those lines.

[billyjoeallen]

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

Does this guy have any idea of the hacker retribtion he will be subject to if this goes through?

[wolftaur]

Does this guy have any idea of the hacker retribtion he will be subject to if this goes through?

He probably thinks it's worth it for the millions he bets he'll get trying to extort licensing fees from everyone who says bitcoin on the net.

[billyjoeallen]

Someone may want to communicate their displeasure with Mr. Michael S. Pascazi, Esquire:

Pascazi Law Offices PLLC
1065 Main Street, Ste. D, Fishkill, New York 12524 U.S.A.
Ph: +1 845.897.4219 / Fax: +1 845.468.7117* E-mail:Info@pascazilaw.com*
*Service Not Accepted by Fax or E-mail

22 Avenue Pierre Köenig, 95200 Sarcelles [Paris] FRANCE** Tél: +33 9.77.21.86.40
**Service Américain Non Accepté Ici

[Jaime Frontero]

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

Does this guy have any idea of the hacker retribtion he will be subject to if this goes through?

probably not.

it's a pretty old-school play.  the world is changing quick...

[the founder]

My problem with the whole thing is that there IS money involved in this.   He could theoretically turn himself into his own mini-RIAA if he wanted.

"Bitcoin is trademarked by me and these hackers adopting widespread trademark infringement are using evil file sharing technology and encryption hurting my good name and my ability to make money from it"

Some 80 year old judge would hear the words "Hackers, file sharing, trademark infringement, money"  and think he's going to get a payday from the RIAA ....   seriously this needs to be stopped now....

[kjj]

People confuse the patent process with trademarks.

Anybody got a dumber than dumb idea to fix that much? Globally? Besides distribution by language.

I am not 100% sure how the trademarking process works in the US, but in the Netherlands you would *never* get a trademark on a widely used and acknowledged term or name.

That's how it is supposed to work in the US as well... but apparently, the trademark office failed to do some due diligence on research.  A simple google search for "bitcoin" would have assured them that the term has been in wide use for some time now.

Heck, all anyone needs to point to for proof is the many news articles that have been written over the past several months.

I'm pretty sure the trademark office operates on the "Announce, Listen, Revoke" model.  Doing the research up front is horribly wasteful.  Consider the history of the Linux trademark.

[wolftaur]

My problem with the whole thing is that there IS money involved in this.   He could theoretically turn himself into his own mini-RIAA if he wanted.

"Bitcoin is trademarked by me and these hackers adopting widespread trademark infringement are using evil file sharing technology and encryption hurting my good name and my ability to make money from it"

Some 80 year old judge would hear the words "Hackers, file sharing, trademark infringement, money"  and think he's going to get a payday from the RIAA ....   seriously this needs to be stopped now....

http://www.uspto.gov/about/contacts/

Everyone send letters indicating we're concerned because someone illegally trademarked it. And Gavin or Satoshi should consider filing an application for the trademark...

[phantomcircuit]

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1065.html

[Grant]

If im not mistaken the smartass who registered bitcoin as his/her own trademark, is risking a fine of upto $250,000 USD. (thats the penalty for falsely claiming a trademark, which evidently is what he/she did here, he claims first use in commerce was in 2011)

[legion050]

It's not like he can take our bitcoins away.

[wolftaur]

If im not mistaken the smartass who registered bitcoin as his/her own trademark, is risking a fine of upto $250,000 USD. (thats the penalty for falsely claiming a trademark, which evidently is what he/she did here, he claims first use in commerce was in 2011)

Which is why people using bitcoin need to start contacting the USPTO now. Especially since if he ever did sue anyone, or threaten to, the more evidence there is of prior use, and complaints to the USPTO, the less likely he could possibly prevail.

[Jaime Frontero]

I'm pretty sure the trademark office operates on the "Announce, Listen, Revoke" model.  Doing the research up front is horribly wasteful.  Consider the history of the Linux trademark.

quite so.

the trademark office was really designed as a feeding trough for lawyers...

[phantomcircuit]

Actually reading about trademark law this could be a serious problem.  Prior use does not apply with trademarks apparently, so prior users would only be protected on a state by state common law usage.

This could be a serious problem.

[joepie91]

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1065.html

Now that's a strangely relevant URL. Bitlaw.

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

[trentzb]

I am more concerned about "FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622" than someone holding a trademark to a name. I sure don't want Bitcoin to be used in commerce at all, maybe some of the folks here do.

[SgtSpike]

I am more concerned about "FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622" than someone holding a trademark to a name. I sure don't want Bitcoin to be used in commerce at all, maybe some of the folks here do.

Isn't the purpose of bitcoins to be used as a currency?

[Grant]

I am more concerned about "FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622" than someone holding a trademark to a name. I sure don't want Bitcoin to be used in commerce at all, maybe some of the folks here do.

If you dont want to use bitcoins for commerce, feel free to give me all your bitcoins, i have some commerce id like to do with them

[trentzb]

Once it's shown (and evidenced) that Bitcoin is used in commerce then the US has complete jurisdiction over it (within US states/posessions) and can regulate at will (commerce clause). Like I said, I think some folks here want that sort of regulation, I sure don't and I think there is a number of other folks that don't either.

If this is the turning point for Bitcoin, all activity prior to 06/22/11 would not be subject to such regulation. IANAL, this is opinion only.

[SgtSpike]

Common law trademarks versus federal registration:

The term "common law" indicates that the trademark rights that are developed through use are not governed by statute. Instead, common law trademark rights have been developed under a judicially created scheme of rights governed by state law. Federal registration, a system created by federal statute, is not required to establish common law rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration, if available, is almost always recommended and gives a trademark owner substantial additional rights not available under common law. See the BitLaw discussion of federal registration for more information.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html

[trentzb]

Common law trademarks versus federal registration:

The term "common law" indicates that the trademark rights that are developed through use are not governed by statute. Instead, common law trademark rights have been developed under a judicially created scheme of rights governed by state law. Federal registration, a system created by federal statute, is not required to establish common law rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration, if available, is almost always recommended and gives a trademark owner substantial additional rights not available under common law. See the BitLaw discussion of federal registration for more information.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html

Now that would be a trademark right that I would get behind.

[sadpandatech]

Does anyone have a link to the trademark application that was filed for this? I am curious to see what 'proof of concept' they submited along with the app, if any at all. Am still very curious to see it. Will take a hunt myself and post what I find if anything.


Any one here with some biz law / trademark law back ground care to chime in?

[trentzb]

I am more concerned about "FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110622" than someone holding a trademark to a name. I sure don't want Bitcoin to be used in commerce at all, maybe some of the folks here do.

If you dont want to use bitcoins for commerce, feel free to give me all your bitcoins, i have some commerce id like to do with them

I don't use bitcoins for commercial activity. If you wish to label (evidence) your bitcoin activity as commercial feel free to do so. I prefer to not participate in commerce.

[SeriousWorm]

Does anyone have a link to the trademark application that was filed for this? I am curious to see what 'proof of concept' they submited along with the app, if any at all. Am still very curious to see it. Will take a hunt myself and post what I find if anything.


Any one here with some biz law / trademark law back ground care to chime in?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ii9kz/bitcoin_trademarked_on_the_united_states_patent/c23yv4i

How to get to the page:

go here http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
go to 2. SEARCH MARKS
go to Basic Word Mark Search (New User)
Search Term: Bitcoin

[Matt Corallo]

If you look deeper you will notice that is has only just been filed and is too new to even oppose yet.  When is is published in the USPTO Official Gazette, anyone can file an opposition for 300USD if they can show why they "would be damaged by the registration of the opposed mark".  I would ask that mtgox or some other Bitcoin-based company file such an opposition.

"Current Status: New application will be assigned to an examining attorney approximately 3 months after filing date."
"Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)"
"Current Location: 042 -New Application Processing"
In other words it has not yet been granted or registered, only filed.

[sadpandatech]

ewwww,
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

[gjy4ygfds]

How was bitcoin never trademarked before now? <.<

[sadpandatech]

Link to Letter of Protest for said mark if anyone wishes to check it out.

http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s2

Should be a lot easier than waiting until the mark has been published for opposition, which would cost money to file against and a fancy lawyer to make sincee of the extra paper work. ;p

[RchGrav]

Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server.

This page was generated by the TARR system on 2011-07-06 13:54:11 ET

Serial Number: 85353491 Assignment Information           Trademark Document Retrieval

Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)

Mark


(words only): BITCOIN

Standard Character claim: Yes

Current Status: New application will be assigned to an examining attorney approximately 3 months after filing date.

Date of Status: 2011-06-27

Filing Date: 2011-06-22

Filed as TEAS Plus Application: Yes

Currently TEAS Plus Application: Yes

Transformed into a National Application: No

Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

Register: Principal

Law Office Assigned: (NOT AVAILABLE)

If you are the applicant or applicant's attorney and have questions about this file, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov

Current Location: 042 -New Application Processing

Date In Location: 2011-06-27

[Matt Corallo]

The next step is for this trademark to be examined by someone who will then object or not, if they make no objections (hopefully they use google first), it will be published in the USPTO Gazette, at which point anyone has 30 days to file an objection.  Hopefully the examiner will object, but if not, someone needs to, this wont get past.

[Matt Corallo]

Link to Letter of Protest for said mark if anyone wishes to check it out.

http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s2

Should be a lot easier than waiting until the mark has been published for opposition, which would cost money to file against and a fancy lawyer to make sincee of the extra paper work. ;p

Dead link.

[sadpandatech]

Link seems to be working fine here. has anyone else tried it and can verify if working or not?

[Man From The Future]

Link seems to be working fine here. has anyone else tried it and can verify if working or not?

Server Error
This server has encountered an internal error which prevents it from fulfilling your request. The most likely cause is a misconfiguration. Please ask the administrator to look for messages in the server's error log.

Probably depends on your session.

[SgtSpike]

Link to Letter of Protest for said mark if anyone wishes to check it out.

http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s2

Should be a lot easier than waiting until the mark has been published for opposition, which would cost money to file against and a fancy lawyer to make sincee of the extra paper work. ;p

"Error
Please select the global form from the main page"

Is what I get...

[the founder]

screenshot here:

http://rogerwehbe.com/?p=73

[Alex Beckenham]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.

Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

[sadpandatech]

The next step is for this trademark to be examined by someone who will then object or not, if they make no objections (hopefully they use google first), it will be published in the USPTO Gazette, at which point anyone has 30 days to file an objection.  Hopefully the examiner will object, but if not, someone needs to, this wont get past.

Ideally I would think it would be easier to protest it before it gets to that point. Being that one of the purposes of the letter of protest is to facilitate doing so.

 (3) if the mark has not yet published for opposition, factual and objective evidence that is relevant and supports a reasonable ground for refusing registration

Sorry, go here http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s3

and input the serial number for this trademark    85353491

[Alex Beckenham]

Sorry, go here http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s3

and input the serial number for this trademark    85353491

I did that... and get this:

Error
Please select the global form from the main page

[SgtSpike]

Sorry, go here http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s3

and input the serial number for this trademark    85353491

I did that... and get this:

Error
Please select the global form from the main page

Same.

sadpanda, please post instructions on how you got to that page.

[joepie91]

screenshot here:

http://rogerwehbe.com/?p=73

Who develops those things? :|

"Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated to you."

[sadpandatech]

Sorry, go here http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s3

and input the serial number for this trademark    85353491

I did that... and get this:

Error
Please select the global form from the main page

Same.

sadpanda, please post instructions on how you got to that page.

Sorry, baby jesus hates me. here is the main forms page. 10. Letter of Protest is what I am looking at.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp

[Brutus]

The trademark is invalid.  Bitcoin is covered within the MIT License and the term 'Bitcoin' is used extensively within the software covered by the license.  First use and all that.  

One could easily argue that the this nob polisher's use of the term Bitcoin in any commercial enterprise would be confusing.

This is a fail even if Jeff Bezos tried it.  

[sadpandatech]

The trademark is invalid.  Bitcoin is covered within the MIT License and the term 'Bitcoin' is used extensively within the software covered by the license.  First use and all that.  

One could easily argue that the this nob polisher's use of the term Bitcoin in any commercial enterprise would be confusing.

This is a fail even if Jeff Bezos tried it.  

You are very correct, and one would trust this would be discovered in the course of due diligence in the processing of such an application.
However, we have the capacity to present such facts before hand to stop it before it even reaches that point.
Just in case...

[Brutus]

The trademark is invalid.  Bitcoin is covered within the MIT License and the term 'Bitcoin' is used extensively within the software covered by the license.  First use and all that.  

One could easily argue that the this nob polisher's use of the term Bitcoin in any commercial enterprise would be confusing.

This is a fail even if Jeff Bezos tried it.  

You are very correct, and one would trust this would be discovered in the course of due diligence in the processing of such an application.
However, we have the capacity to present such facts before hand to stop it before it even reaches that point.
Just in case...

No doubt.  If by chance the .gov didn't find it and provided the TM it will save us legal troubles down the road when this guy pulls a Bezos and sues everybody that ever used an HTTPSession Cookie for 'buying' stuff on the webz with a 'single click'!!!! 

[sadpandatech]

LOL, sadly I'm not familiar with the Bezos thing. It sounds like a riot though.  And yea, the primary concern is not so much the legitimacy of this app but the potential troubles it could cause for the valid 'owners' of Bitcoin.

  Which, brings to mind some other questions. In order to avoid other app ninjas in the future both trademark and patent wise, is there a way to trademark/patent
Bitcoin in a way the limits the amount of control the US gov would have over it?
I.e possible to register it as a community project and still be afforded the same protections? Maybe reg as  aco-op type deal?
I am completely lost at that point. Will give a close business attorney friend of mine a call and see if he has any insight.

[Alex Beckenham]

Well, I've just sent in my Letter of Protest (quite a few steps on that form).

[Jaime Frontero]

Sorry, go here http://teasg.uspto.gov/gf/spring/nonteas?execution=e1s3

and input the serial number for this trademark    85353491

I did that... and get this:

Error
Please select the global form from the main page

Same.

sadpanda, please post instructions on how you got to that page.

Sorry, baby jesus hates me. here is the main forms page. 10. Letter of Protest is what I am looking at.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp

yup.  that works, inputting the trademark serial number above.

[joepie91]

LOL, sadly I'm not familiar with the Bezos thing. It sounds like a riot though.  And yea, the primary concern is not so much the legitimacy of this app but the potential troubles it could cause for the valid 'owners' of Bitcoin.

  Which, brings to mind some other questions. In order to avoid other app ninjas in the future both trademark and patent wise, is there a way to trademark/patent
Bitcoin in a way the limits the amount of control the US gov would have over it?
I.e possible to register it as a community project and still be afforded the same protections? Maybe reg as  aco-op type deal?
I am completely lost at that point. Will give a close business attorney friend of mine a call and see if he has any insight.

It's nice how a system forces you to conform and centralize, because if you keep it decentralized someone else will centralize it for you and take it away.

Oh, the joys of 'freedom'.

[sadpandatech]

LOL, sadly I'm not familiar with the Bezos thing. It sounds like a riot though.  And yea, the primary concern is not so much the legitimacy of this app but the potential troubles it could cause for the valid 'owners' of Bitcoin.

  Which, brings to mind some other questions. In order to avoid other app ninjas in the future both trademark and patent wise, is there a way to trademark/patent
Bitcoin in a way the limits the amount of control the US gov would have over it?
I.e possible to register it as a community project and still be afforded the same protections? Maybe reg as  aco-op type deal?
I am completely lost at that point. Will give a close business attorney friend of mine a call and see if he has any insight.

It's nice how a system forces you to conform and centralize, because if you keep it decentralized someone else will centralize it for you and take it away.

Oh, the joys of 'freedom'.

ahhh, painful irony..

Is there anyone about like Gavin or other Dev or someone with some business law smarts that could chime in on what options the community has if any?
Would it even be possible to register in a way that provides protection to the Bitcoin itself without putting it in danger of being gov regulated?

[Brutus]

LOL, sadly I'm not familiar with the Bezos thing. It sounds like a riot though.  And yea, the primary concern is not so much the legitimacy of this app but the potential troubles it could cause for the valid 'owners' of Bitcoin.

  Which, brings to mind some other questions. In order to avoid other app ninjas in the future both trademark and patent wise, is there a way to trademark/patent
Bitcoin in a way the limits the amount of control the US gov would have over it?
I.e possible to register it as a community project and still be afforded the same protections? Maybe reg as  aco-op type deal?
I am completely lost at that point. Will give a close business attorney friend of mine a call and see if he has any insight.

Bezos did the controversial 1-click patent on behalf of Amazon for something which was commonly in use at the time which was the use of a web browser and a cookie to facilitate online sales transactions irrespective of how many clicky it took one to get to their cart.

There is seemingly no limit that the US gov has when concerned with commerce under the Commerce Clause within the US.  I say this not tongue in cheek but with an eye toward the types of decisions that the Fed has permitted itself under the Commerce Clause.

IMHO the limiting factor for the US gov concerning Bitcoin is the design of the P2P currency itself and it's usage across the .net.  The design itself is limiting to the amount of oversight that can be exerted over the usage of the currency.  

[Alex Beckenham]

I hope the owner of bitcoin.com helps me defend the domain space... he has a lot more to lose.

[w1R903]

I'm glad as hell that someone discovered this.  Could have been a real headache.  Roger, I'll assume you weren't doing research on trademarking 'Bitcoin' yourself, right?  You were probably researching a product or service with 'Bitcoin' in the name.  Anyway, we all owe Roger a big thank you for finding this.

You know who might help us with this if it becomes a problem?  The EFF.  I'm upset at the way in which they returned all their Bitcoins, but I understand why they did it.  Even in a case like this, they would be serious legal and ethical issues involved if the EFF were holding any Bitcoins.

Alex, did it cost $100 to file the letter of protest?  And did you provide evidence of the MIT license?

Based on my research on this lawyer, Michael S. Pascazi, it looks like he probably has an ideological affinity for Bitcoin.  See: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2855  In any case, trademarking the name of an open source project a shitty thing to do.  I hope he's older and doesn't realize just how bad this will look in the eyes of Bitcoin supporters.  Mr. Pascazi, if you're reading this, perhaps you'd like to say a word or two in your defense?

[sadpandatech]

I'm glad as hell that someone discovered this.  Could have been a real headache.  Roger, I'll assume you weren't doing research on trademarking 'Bitcoin' yourself, right?  You were probably researching a product or service with 'Bitcoin' in the name.  Anyway, we all owe Roger a big thank you for finding this.

You know who might help us with this if it becomes a problem?  The EFF.  I'm upset at the way in which they returned all their Bitcoins, but I understand why they did it.  Even in a case like this, they would be serious legal and ethical issues involved if the EFF were holding any Bitcoins.

Alex, did it cost $100 to file the letter of protest?  And did you provide evidence of the MIT license?

Based on my research on this lawyer, Michael S. Pascazi, it looks like he probably has an ideological affinity for Bitcoin.  See: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2855  In any case, trademarking the name of an open source project a shitty thing to do.  I hope he's older and doesn't realize just how bad this will look in the eyes of Bitcoin supporters.  Mr. Pascazi, if you're reading this, perhaps you'd like to say a word or two in your defense?

Notice, its( I would assume his wife's) name on the bottom of the 'willing to sell some bitcoins' letter that attached to their trademark app.

And def cheers for finding this.  I missed the $100 cost to file LoP, can anyone verify that?

[Alex Beckenham]

Alex, did it cost $100 to file the letter of protest?  And did you provide evidence of the MIT license?

It was free via the web because I didn't send any attachments, just text. My understanding is that you pay extra if you want to attach some JPG or PDF to your submission.

I may have mis-read that part... but anyway I definitely didn't pay anything, and I have a receipt in my inbox that says "Received your Letter of Protest‏" with no mention of having to pay anything.

[sadpandatech]

Alex, did it cost $100 to file the letter of protest?  And did you provide evidence of the MIT license?

It was free via the web because I didn't send any attachments, just text. My understanding is that you pay extra if you want to attach some JPG or PDF to your submission.

I may have mis-read that part... but anyway I definitely didn't pay anything, and I have a receipt in my inbox that says "Received your Letter of Protest‏" with no mention of having to pay anything.

Thanks, I tested it with some attachements and still came up with no fees.

[FreeMoney]

Remember that decentralized currency.. what was it called? Yeah, I remember, people stopped using it because the government told them they couldn't write it's name down.

[Herodes]

Bruce Wagner should get on the phone to this person trying to trademark 'Bitcoin'. His life will be an absolute living hell if he choses to attempt to extort any money from the bitcoin community.

[bitcool]

I hope the owner of bitcoin.com helps me defend the domain space... he has a lot more to lose.

bitcoin.com, that's $10 reg fee Satoshi should never have saved.

[sadpandatech]

Remember that decentralized currency.. what was it called? Yeah, I remember, people stopped using it because the government told them they couldn't write it's name down.

Well, arn't you clever....
Assuming you're being sarcastic. I apologize if you are not.


The concern is not within the currecny itself and someone being able to f&*k with the community. That will never happen.

 The concern with gov involvent can and will affect legitimate businesses that want to participate. I for one don't want some random trademark filer to have any potential to shut down a site that could house any amount of average joe's wealth. That would be very bad for business.

[sadpandatech]

I hope the owner of bitcoin.com helps me defend the domain space... he has a lot more to lose.

bitcoin.com, that's $10 reg fee Satoshi should never have saved.

Ahh, so true, except its been regged since 2000. ;p  Now, if Godaddy would just let us see for certain if the contract on it ends when the current registration does here at the beginning of 2012...

[Alex Beckenham]

I hope the owner of bitcoin.com helps me defend the domain space... he has a lot more to lose.

bitcoin.com, that's $10 reg fee Satoshi should never have saved.

Maybe he didn't

Did anyone ask the owner of bitcoin.com if he was Satoshi?

[sadpandatech]

I hope the owner of bitcoin.com helps me defend the domain space... he has a lot more to lose.

bitcoin.com, that's $10 reg fee Satoshi should never have saved.

Maybe he didn't

Did anyone ask the owner of bitcoin.com if he was Satoshi?

now, that would be one heck of a cool conspiracy. The site as far as I can tell from a snapshot of it in 2009 was one that was intended to facilitate partial and or per usage type payments for software in 'real time'. It is reg'd by go-daddy (but has reg info protection listed in Australia, likely through Go-daddy as well??) and was last hosted on an IP here in FL in an area that did not (to best of my knowledge) have any nationialy advertised hosting, suggesting the owner lives some where clsoe by.

[ribuck]

I'm surprised you guys are bothered by this. The registrant isn't going to be able to enforce the trademark, so why not save your energy and ignore him?

[FreeMoney]

 

Ahh, so true, except its been regged since 2000. ;p  Now, if Godaddy would just let us see for certain if the contract on it ends when the current registration does here at the beginning of 2012...

How does it normally work when valuable domains expire? Is there a known second when they become available and the person with the best internet connection and a lightning script gets the name?

[the founder]

I'm glad as hell that someone discovered this.  Could have been a real headache.  Roger, I'll assume you weren't doing research on trademarking 'Bitcoin' yourself, right?  You were probably researching a product or service with 'Bitcoin' in the name.  Anyway, we all owe Roger a big thank you for finding this.

I was thinking about trademarking flexcoin  (since we own it,  I wanted to trademark it so no one tries to illegally use a variation of the domain name or snail mail.. whatever...  and go on a phishing expedition...  I know it won't stop thieves.. but it's just another roadblock)  ....  and when I was there I searched for bitcoin for kicks and was unpleasantly surprised to see that garbage...

[sadpandatech]

Ahh, so true, except its been regged since 2000. ;p  Now, if Godaddy would just let us see for certain if the contract on it ends when the current registration does here at the beginning of 2012...

How does it normally work when valuable domains expire? Is there a known second when they become available and the person with the best internet connection and a lightning script gets the name?

pretty much...  There is more to it these days, with Verisgin being the main portal for Registrants of .com names and many registrants assigned under them. The last time I read the fine print on the ability to snag up domains 'before' they open up was more than 5 years ago.

[sadpandatech]

I'm surprised you guys are bothered by this. The registrant isn't going to be able to enforce the trademark, so why not save your energy and ignore him?

You really don't think that if one were established as the trademark holder on Bitcoin they couldn't cause greif for a domesticly run business that was buying, selling or trading Bitcoin? I'd like to think in the long run the business would win out but at what cost? That is what bothers me about it..

[the founder]

The domains are not the core problem people....  the problem is literally the use of the word "bitcoin'  that technically as it stands now might be viewed as trademark infringement. 

Post it on your blog?  You're violating a trademark...   say "we accept bitcoins"  no you don't until you pay the guy a licence fee....   get the point?

[sadpandatech]

The domains are not the core problem people....  the problem is literally the use of the word "bitcoin'  that technically as it stands now might be viewed as trademark infringement. 

Post it on your blog?  You're violating a trademark...   say "we accept bitcoins"  no you don't until you pay the guy a licence fee....   get the point?

Exactly!  Thank you!

[Serge]

Is there anyway to see whois on company who applied for trade mark?

Edit: nevermind, found it.. what I was hunching about isn't true

[the founder]

yea compare the company name with bitcoin.com ... but you guys are SO not thinking big....  it's not the domain name!!   That trademark is gonna spread to every single printed article,  blog story,  business that accepts bitcoins... ect ect...

It can potentially shut down the whole operation by large...  yea it doesn't apply outside of the US... but that's a freaking huge market... 

this has to stop now.

[Serge]

yea compare the company name with bitcoin.com ... but you guys are SO not thinking big....  it's not the domain name!!   That trademark is gonna spread to every single printed article,  blog story,  business that accepts bitcoins... ect ect...

It can potentially shut down the whole operation by large...  yea it doesn't apply outside of the US... but that's a freaking huge market... 

this has to stop now.

I'm not sure how TMs work and how opensource project fit into it. I'm thinking OS should have some sort of brand protection from such things, given that OS community was established way before.

[CurbsideProphet]

People are up in arms about a trademark yet fail to see the much larger problem.  Bitcoin does not, and never will, have a patent on its intellectual property.  That's like Coca-Cola trademarking their name but allowing anyone to use their recipe for free.

[sanjay]

The approach to take in fighting the trademark is that bitcoin is a generic term for describing actual bitcoins and as such is already in the public domain...

"Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protectionKellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term "thermos" has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both "aspirin" and "cellophane" have been held to be generic. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F.505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark."

[sadpandatech]

The approach to take in fighting the trademark is that bitcoin is a generic term for describing actual bitcoins and as such is already in the public domain...

"Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protectionKellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term "thermos" has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both "aspirin" and "cellophane" have been held to be generic. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F.505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark."

Thats pretty much the whole point. I for one don't care so much about the Bitcoin community having a trademark since it should not be neccesary. The problem is somone else having potential to cause harm to Bitcoin users or businesses because they have one.


And yea, the .com thing was a side track from the whole trademark issue. Thouse, certainly a .com would be much more succeptable to trademark dmg than a .net, etc as was pointed out.

And, trademark and patent are two very different things and I see where people are confusing the issue of this trademark as it relates to the Bitcoin itself and talking about the software, though not applicaple, would fall under patent law if it were.

[static]

so basically the guys who created bitcoin dropped the ball in respect to trademarking the name.


so how did bittorrent and other opensource programmers do this?

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

[Mr. E]

Ahh, so true, except its been regged since 2000. ;p  Now, if Godaddy would just let us see for certain if the contract on it ends when the current registration does here at the beginning of 2012...

How does it normally work when valuable domains expire? Is there a known second when they become available and the person with the best internet connection and a lightning script gets the name?

Pretty much any name worth picking up from a drop is grabbed by sites that auction them off to the highest bidder.  You can place backorders on names.  For names with backorders, they go to the highest bidder to ones with backorders.  That is the gist of it anyway.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

Does this guy have any idea of the hacker retribtion he will be subject to if this goes through?

Today, it was announced that LulzSec is coming out of retirement to hack... (tongue in cheek).

[ryepdx]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

[spruce]

As has been stated a few times, this is just someone trying it on. The mark has been filed but has not been granted. It might be interesting for some journalist to interview the creep attorney concerned and see what he has to say about it.

[sadpandatech]

so basically the guys who created bitcoin dropped the ball in respect to trademarking the name.


so how did bittorrent and other opensource programmers do this?

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

They didn't really drop the ball there as they have the software covered as much as it needs to be. It is the concept that is not protected.
The concern here is not protecting the software. Anyone can modify under the same license and do what the hell they want with it. They however would have a hard time calling it Bitcoin. What could be potentially at issue is the use of the currency and the term itself when referencing such currency and not the software.

Its a concept attack if you will, which if one can convince a judge they were first to implement such concept could cause all kinds of troublesome things to happen to the front ends of commerce that need to operate in an area that is accessable by US regulation.

[static]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

[wolftaur]

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

File a statement with the USPTO stating that Bitcoin cannot be trademarked, as it has been in use since 2009, and point to proof. (Wikipedia articles, news articles, etc.)

If everyone does this, then that lawyer isn't going to succeed in trademarking Bitcoin.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Is the familiar Bitcoin image properly copyrighted or trademarked?

[static]

so basically the guys who created bitcoin dropped the ball in respect to trademarking the name.


so how did bittorrent and other opensource programmers do this?

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

They didn't really drop the ball there as they have the software covered as much as it needs to be. It is the concept that is not protected.
The concern here is not protecting the software. Anyone can modify under the same license and do what the hell they want with it. They however would have a hard time calling it Bitcoin. What could be potentially at issue is the use of the currency and the term itself when referencing such currency and not the software.

Its a concept attack if you will, which if one can convince a judge they were first to implement such concept could cause all kinds of troublesome things to happen to the front ends of commerce that need to operate in an area that is accessable by US regulation.

we're talking about the name. not the concept. that's what the trademark is. anyone can use the software and do the same damn thing bitcoin does. taking the name seems to be the threat here.

[Mr. E]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

It has already been mentioned that the term bitcoin has been in use in the public domain long before the Trademark was filled.  I don't think the TM has a leg to stand on.  Also, anyone with bitcoin in a domain name should not have to worry about this TM if their name was registered and in use before the TM was created.  The person with the TM should not be able to get those names that is known as "reverse domain hijacking".

[static]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

It has already been mentioned that the term bitcoin has been in use in the public domain long before the Trademark was filled.  I don't think the TM has a leg to stand on.  Also, anyone with bitcoin in a domain name should not have to worry about this TM if their name was registered and in use before the TM was created.  The person with the TM should not be able to get those names that is known as "reverse domain hijacking".

ok, fine. but still, this is an issue we need to think and talk about. how many of us honestly saw something like this coming?

[sadpandatech]

so basically the guys who created bitcoin dropped the ball in respect to trademarking the name.


so how did bittorrent and other opensource programmers do this?

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

They didn't really drop the ball there as they have the software covered as much as it needs to be. It is the concept that is not protected.
The concern here is not protecting the software. Anyone can modify under the same license and do what the hell they want with it. They however would have a hard time calling it Bitcoin. What could be potentially at issue is the use of the currency and the term itself when referencing such currency and not the software.

Its a concept attack if you will, which if one can convince a judge they were first to implement such concept could cause all kinds of troublesome things to happen to the front ends of commerce that need to operate in an area that is accessable by US regulation.

we're talking about the name. not the concept. that's what the trademark is. anyone can use the software and do the same damn thing bitcoin does. taking the name seems to be the threat here.

You're right is is the name that is trademarked with its intended use attached to it. (From the application);Financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network.


While, one would like to think it would never go through, it would not be wise IMHO to underestimate the potential ignorance of a Trademark Judge to allow it to sneak into approval status.

We have 2 options,
 1. Ignore it and assume that it is useless for some individual to hold a trademark on Bitcoin.....

Or, the more prudent option requiring very little effort on anyones part.

 2. File a Letter of Protest #10 here http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp    with * serial   85353491
which cost nothing but time and point out where Bitcoin is not subject to being trademarked by this or any other individual and attempt to stop it from even getting into the approval process.

[the founder]

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

Who stops anybody from "owning": .bitcoin.

ICANN does allow that TLD...



EDIT: Can almost predict bitorrent magna-links networks of just "name.bit" style... lots... like "dht.bit.coin".

And you thought they were top secret!

the problem with that is there is a 100,000 dollar application fee,  then a registration process that needs to be built.. etc...  you're talking close to a million USD just to launch... and they are not going to accept bitcoins to try that.  

Of course someone can fund that... and charge for registrations,  etc etc...   but at the end I'm not gonna buy flexcoin.bit when I have flexcoin.com  ..  just using an iphone when entering in a URL it adds the .com automatically.....   it would flop like .info


And AGAIN... Domain names ARE NOT Trademarks...

Start another thread regarding bitcoin domain names... seriously this is screwing up the thread.. and detracting from the Trademark threat.

[the founder]

Is the familiar Bitcoin image properly copyrighted or trademarked?

No ... and considering someone just trademarked "bitcoin"  how long before they trademark the coin image?

the end result is we're going to have stupid legal issues now rather than focusing on growing the economy....  look I found that shit and posted it here so everyone can see it...  it's up to you guys to take action...   all of us... 

So what's the plan?

[eramus]

It has already been mentioned that the term bitcoin has been in use in the public domain long before the Trademark was filled.  I don't think the TM has a leg to stand on.  Also, anyone with bitcoin in a domain name should not have to worry about this TM if their name was registered and in use before the TM was created.  The person with the TM should not be able to get those names that is known as "reverse domain hijacking".

It would seem that prior use is irrelevant in regards to trademark law. Everybody should reread this post: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26527.msg333383#msg333383

The users need to plead a case based on the term being generic and also that the bitcoin community represents a "substantial majority of the public." That is what will slow this down.

[Mr. E]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

uh...so what do we do...keep changing the name so we don't get into trademark wars?

It has already been mentioned that the term bitcoin has been in use in the public domain long before the Trademark was filled.  I don't think the TM has a leg to stand on.  Also, anyone with bitcoin in a domain name should not have to worry about this TM if their name was registered and in use before the TM was created.  The person with the TM should not be able to get those names that is known as "reverse domain hijacking".

ok, fine. but still, this is an issue we need to think and talk about. how many of us honestly saw something like this coming?

I didn't see it coming and you are right this is an issue that does need to be talked about.  I'm not a TM lawyer, so I guess my opinion really does not matter, just the law, wish someone would step in and chime in on the subject with more knowledge.

[eramus]

Is the familiar Bitcoin image properly copyrighted or trademarked?

No ... and considering someone just trademarked "bitcoin"  how long before they trademark the coin image?

the end result is we're going to have stupid legal issues now rather than focusing on growing the economy....  look I found that shit and posted it here so everyone can see it...  it's up to you guys to take action...   all of us... 

So what's the plan?

(in the US) copyright of an image is implied when the artist has completed it. no one is gong to "steal" the logo. im sure the original artist has plenty of proof that it was created by them.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

[ribuck]

I'm surprised you guys are bothered by this. The registrant isn't going to be able to enforce the trademark, so why not save your energy and ignore him?

You really don't think that if one were established as the trademark holder on Bitcoin they couldn't cause greif for a domesticly run business that was buying, selling or trading Bitcoin?

I don't think grief is necessary. If your (U.S.) business gets a nastygram from their lawyer, just switch to the term "Bit Coin" for the time being (since the ordinary words are not trademarked). Then their lawyer sends a nastygram to the next Bitcoin business, and the next Bitcoin business, and so on. Eventually they run out of money from paying lawyers and abandon their trademark, and everyone resumes using "Bitcoin".

Spending time and energy worrying about this is pointless.

[sadpandatech]

I'm surprised you guys are bothered by this. The registrant isn't going to be able to enforce the trademark, so why not save your energy and ignore him?

You really don't think that if one were established as the trademark holder on Bitcoin they couldn't cause greif for a domesticly run business that was buying, selling or trading Bitcoin?

I don't think grief is necessary. If your (U.S.) business gets a nastygram from their lawyer, just switch to the term "Bit Coin" for the time being (since the ordinary words are not trademarked). Then their lawyer sends a nastygram to the next Bitcoin business, and the next Bitcoin business, and so on. Eventually they run out of money from paying lawyers and abandon their trademark, and everyone resumes using "Bitcoin".

Spending time and energy worrying about this is pointless.

I hope you're right...

[eramus]

I'm surprised you guys are bothered by this. The registrant isn't going to be able to enforce the trademark, so why not save your energy and ignore him?

You really don't think that if one were established as the trademark holder on Bitcoin they couldn't cause greif for a domesticly run business that was buying, selling or trading Bitcoin?

I don't think grief is necessary. If your (U.S.) business gets a nastygram from their lawyer, just switch to the term "Bit Coin" for the time being (since the ordinary words are not trademarked). Then their lawyer sends a nastygram to the next Bitcoin business, and the next Bitcoin business, and so on. Eventually they run out of money from paying lawyers and abandon their trademark, and everyone resumes using "Bitcoin".

Spending time and energy worrying about this is pointless.

and what do you propose for businesses that have "bitcoin" in their registered name? or their official copy? or slogans? just go change it? good thinking /sarcasm

[mjmvisser]

If he's trying to be a trademark troll, he'll fail hard. The moment he tries to extort money from one of us, let us know. It's easy to build a legal defense fund when we can send money near-instantaneously and anonymously. 

[eramus]

If he's trying to be a trademark troll, he'll fail hard. The moment he tries to extort money from one of us, let us know. It's easy to build a legal defense fund when we can send money near-instantaneously and anonymously. 

hahah

assuming you are referring to btc as payment, there is very little about bitcoin that is near-instantaneous or anonymous.

and good luck finding a (good) lawyer that will accept only bitcoins as payment.

[sanjay]

LOL check out their example of use in commerce: http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

A fucking letter wherein they sell one bitcoin for $17.50.  I spoke to my IP attorney and he said that the application will be rejected since it has not yet been granted and a simple google search will prove that the filer is an idiot.  There is only a filing date on this and no registration date which means it has not yet been issued.  They have filed for International class 036 which is financial services and completely in the public domain.

The only exception to the above is if Satoshi is secretly the filer in which case good for him.  I highly doubt it though.

Keep sending those protests and this will not be granted.

[sadpandatech]

LOL check out their example of use in commerce: http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

A fucking letter wherein they sell one bitcoin for $17.50.  I spoke to my IP attorney and he said that the application will be rejected since it has not yet been granted and a simple google search will prove that the filer is an idiot.  There is only a filing date on this and no registration date which means it has not yet been issued.  They have filed for International class 036 which is financial services and completely in the public domain.

The only exception to the above is if Satoshi is secretly the filer in which case good for him.  I highly doubt it though.

Keep sending those protests and this will not be granted.

lol, its not even a sales letter, its an 'Offer to Sell' ;p Jerks. Wish I was up in NY would atleast want to go give the guy the evil eye...

[eramus]

Keep sending those protests and this will not be granted.

^^^

[nhodges]

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.

Could we collectively file for a trademark and then release the word Bitcoin into the public domain?

[KeyserSoze]

Do what hackers do best; add a 'z'. Now it's "Bitcoinz". Quick, trademark it and grab the domains.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Google ads a threat to eBay trademark? ---> http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024_3-5061888.html

I'm thinkin' 'bout getting a trademark for the verb "Googled": The only verb in the English language that MUST be capitalized for proper sentencing. (I don't think I penned that sentence correctly [the part after that 2 up-and-down dot doohickey])

Everybody else is more than welcome to trademark the verb...wait for it..."Goxed".

[Anonymous]

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9442.0

I posted about someone doing a nefarious trademark application in relation to bitcoin.com back in may.

Maybe the same guy who owns the domain is the one behind the trademark application ?

[kjj]

yea compare the company name with bitcoin.com ... but you guys are SO not thinking big....  it's not the domain name!!   That trademark is gonna spread to every single printed article,  blog story,  business that accepts bitcoins... ect ect...

It can potentially shut down the whole operation by large...  yea it doesn't apply outside of the US... but that's a freaking huge market... 

this has to stop now.

What world do you live in where trademark holders have that kind of power?

[sadpandatech]

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9442.0

I posted about someone doing a nefarious trademark application in relation to bitcoin.com back in may.

Maybe the same guy who owns the domain is the one behind the trademark application ?

no, as far as I can tell not the same guy. And in response to your other thread his usage is not the same as Bitcoins and he would not be able to show any sales since he never, from as far as I can tell did any business.
snapshot of the site shows what his business was planning to do.
http://www.domaintools.com/seo-browser/?domain=bitcoin.com

I can't find record of him even registing the 'Bitcoin Ltd' he has signed at the bottom of the page.
In my search however I found a funny entry on Florida's biz site showing a 'Bitcoin Solutions LLC' registered 5/24/2011, with no FEIN or biz description listed. maybe conicidence but the guy lists an adress in Miama FL and one in NY. You have to atleast have a local agent in FL to register here, so no telling if they are here or in NY.

edit;  Bitcoin Sollutions LLc registered here the same day.
edit2; none of it means much of anything just thought it to be interesting info to put out there.
edit3; searhcing here on the forums for BS LLc answers some of it anyhows...

[Tx2000]

/pitchfork
/mob

[bitplane]

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.

Could we collectively file for a trademark and then release the word Bitcoin into the public domain?

No, trademarks don't work like that. You have to defend them to keep them, which is why this is worthless.

[grndzero]

the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights

this is only proper

Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights.

[sadpandatech]

the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights

this is only proper

Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights.

agreed.

P.S. Is your name any relation to the once in existence coffee house named, 'Gound Zero'?

[grndzero]

the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights

this is only proper

Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights.

agreed.

P.S. Is your name any relation to the once in existence coffee house named, 'Gound Zero'?

Nope, and I picked the name back in 2000 before Sept 11, 2001 also.

[Zerbie]

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.

Registered owner is "Magellan Capital Advisors".  Looks like a banking outfit.  Any use of BTC would surly compete with the established banking system.

[Zerbie]

...
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.

The whole block chain is proof.

[Zerbie]

Maybe they're getting ready to send out a flurry of cease and desist letters to people using the term bitcoin, and just figure everyone will be happy to settle out of court for some amount less than it would cost to litigate it and prove the mark is invalid.

It wouldn't be the first time someone did something along those lines.

Not likely.  This appears to be a banking outfit.  "Magellan Capital Advisors".

[sadpandatech]

the whole idea of bitcoin goes against trademarks and copyrights

this is only proper

Open source doesn't automatically mean anti-copyright and it isn't always a bad thing to protect the authors rights.

agreed.

P.S. Is your name any relation to the once in existence coffee house named, 'Gound Zero'?

Nope, and I picked the name back in 2000 before Sept 11, 2001 also.

Rock on, yea the now closed coffee house was pre 9/11 as well...

[Zerbie]

ewwww,
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

I believe this is "Michel's" Linked in account.

http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/patrice-mouchon/6/222/b23

[sadpandatech]

Wanna see something funny?  Apparently magellan, the company who is attempting to trademark Bitcoin has not kept up their own trademark registration.
*to the letter head creator* Anyone outside the US have an addy I can mail correspondence to? ;p
http://www.trademarkia.com/magellan-capital-77155490.html

[sadpandatech]

ewwww,
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

I believe this is "Michel's" Linked in account.

http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/patrice-mouchon/6/222/b23

he's certainly in the right occupation to fit the bill.... jerks, all of em....

[Zerbie]

ewwww,
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

It looks as if Cline M. Pascazi is attempting to sell all BitCoins to "Michel Mouchon" at a price of $17.50.  That would be around $367.5M.  The letter probably is an attempt to establish not only the writes of the trademark but all the "currency" it represents.  If I'm reading this correctly, they are attempting to establish ownership of the entire project.

[casascius]

I have digitally signed and securely timestamped PDF contracts where I have consummated Bitcoin deals well in advance of 6/22/11.

[sadpandatech]

ewwww,
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85353491/SPE20110625085727/Specimen/1/22-Jun-2011/sn/false#p=1

It looks as if Cline M. Pascazi is attempting to sell all BitCoins to "Michel Mouchon" at a price of $17.50.  That would be around $367.5M.  The letter probably is an attempt to establish not only the writes of the trademark but all the "currency" it represents.  If I'm reading this correctly, they are attempting to establish ownership of the entire project.

nah, you're 'reaching' a bit there I believe, m8.

[phillipsjk]

E-mail sent:

Code:

To: Info at pascazilaw.com
Cc: TMFeedback at uspto.gov
Subject: Bitcoin Trademark dated 20110622 is invalid

[-- PGP output follows (current time: Wed 06 Jul 2011 08:00:53 PM MDT) --]
gpg: Signature made Wed 06 Jul 2011 07:57:17 PM MDT using DSA key ID 1CFDA27B
gpg: Good signature from "James Kenneth Phillips (TPM Consultant) <james at phillipsjk.ca>"
[-- End of PGP output --]

[-- The following data is signed --]

Hello,

It has come to my attention that you have applied for a Wordmark
"BITCOIN"[1]. The peer-to-peer crypto-currency project has been ongoing
for two years now: greatly predating your trademark claim. For most of
that time, the term "Bitcoin" has been used in commerce (in the United
States, among other countries).

Prior to that the domain bitcoin.com was used for an unrelated
electronic currency. According to the WayBack Machine[2], the domain was
registered by "ivntech.com" from June 2003 to February 2005. The page
appears to be Korean.

Because of the widespread use of the term "Bitcoin" when describing a
specific peer-to-peer crypto-currency with a public transaction history,
I suggest you withdraw your trademark application.

Sincerely,

James Phillips

[1] http://rogerwehbe.com/?p=73
[2] http://classic-web.archive.org/web/*/http://bitcoin.com


--
OpenPGP Public Key: http://phillipsjk.ca/signature0611.txt

[-- End of signed data --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOFRJ9PPYMXhz9onsRAi0tAJ4hy6MFPiapyuDiimJx5o4UiK1dhQCeJ29t
tmvUFxOCgqe/PCAnc4U0uKs=
=za1p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Isepick]

Magellan Capital Advisors is registered to the exact same physical location as the lawyer's office that filed the application. Lawyer's web page is here. So not a real banking outfit, just some scumbag lawyer.

The exchanges (especially BX and Tradehill) should be all over this douche, since he will no doubt target them first...Gox is in Japan, so it may be a bit harder for him to fuck with.

This guy is a lawyer, so he can file all the paperwork he wants, it only costs him his personal time and toner. Mass C&D form letters will probably go out if they let him have the trademark.

[sadpandatech]

Magellan Capital Advisors is registered to the exact same physical location as the lawyer's office that filed the application. Lawyer's web page is here. So not a real banking outfit, just some scumbag lawyer.

The exchanges (especially BX and Tradehill) should be all over this douche, since he will no doubt target them first...Gox is in Japan, so it may be a bit harder for him to fuck with.

This guy is a lawyer, so he can file all the paperwork he wants, it only costs him his personal time and toner. Mass C&D form letters will probably go out if they let him have the trademark.

exactly, and its his wife's signature at the bottom of that 'offer to sell' letter.(for lack of a better title since it does not actually convey any kind of trade or agreement between the parties, but implies they 'CAN' sell some Bitcoin. funny shit imho)

[Zerbie]

Anyone filing a protest may also want to include Google trend screenshots to further prove the use of "BitCoin" prior to 6-22-11.

[Alex Beckenham]

I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I think the domain issue is still on-topic, as I was genuinely concerned what affect this would have on my ownership of them.

Where people have mis-understood me is if they think I was saying that's the main issue... it's obviously not.

[hippich]

E-mail sent:

Code:

To: Info@pascazilaw.com
Cc: TMFeedback@uspto.gov
Subject: Bitcoin Trademark dated 20110622 is invalid

[-- PGP output follows (current time: Wed 06 Jul 2011 08:00:53 PM MDT) --]
gpg: Signature made Wed 06 Jul 2011 07:57:17 PM MDT using DSA key ID 1CFDA27B
gpg: Good signature from "James Kenneth Phillips (TPM Consultant) <james@phillipsjk.ca>"
[-- End of PGP output --]

[-- The following data is signed --]

Hello,

It has come to my attention that you have applied for a Wordmark
"BITCOIN"[1]. The peer-to-peer crypto-currency project has been ongoing
for two years now: greatly predating your trademark claim. For most of
that time, the term "Bitcoin" has been used in commerce (in the United
States, among other countries).

Prior to that the domain bitcoin.com was used for an unrelated
electronic currency. According to the WayBack Machine[2], the domain was
registered by "ivntech.com" from June 2003 to February 2005. The page
appears to be Korean.

Because of the widespread use of the term "Bitcoin" when describing a
specific peer-to-peer crypto-currency with a public transaction history,
I suggest you withdraw your trademark application.

Sincerely,

James Phillips

[1] http://rogerwehbe.com/?p=73
[2] http://classic-web.archive.org/web/*/http://bitcoin.com


--
OpenPGP Public Key: http://phillipsjk.ca/signature0611.txt

[-- End of signed data --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOFRJ9PPYMXhz9onsRAi0tAJ4hy6MFPiapyuDiimJx5o4UiK1dhQCeJ29t
tmvUFxOCgqe/PCAnc4U0uKs=
=za1p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Repeated.

2All: Rinse and repeat!

[phillipsjk]

Keep in mind that e-mails sent to "TMFeedback at uspto.gov" don't enter the official record

Edit:

Please note that the proper procedure relative to the USPTO is to file a Letter of Protest.   See form #10 on this page: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp.

We would not actually do anything with the email below.

Thank you.

TMFeedback Support Team

[sadpandatech]

I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I think the domain issue is still on-topic, as I was genuinely concerned what affect this would have on my ownership of them.

Where people have mis-understood me is if they think I was saying that's the main issue... it's obviously not.

  I apologize if it were one of my hammered out responses that made the domain thing seem completely off-topic. I can see where you would be concerned.

  I can't really give much legal guidance in way of trademark law and how it would affect a domain. In my opinion the best some greasy lawyer type could do IF they held a trademark would be to use it to try and convince unwitting hosts to temporarily take down a site. Thats IF someone held a trademark on a service or such that the site was offering and IF a trademark in and of itself would be enough to warrant such things.

  I really wish I had more answers, anything I can say is matter of mostly opinion and from what limited reading I have done thus far. Being that I don't have any stake business wise in Bitcoin I don't really have the time or resources to look too much into it beyond what is readily available to understand without 4+ years of law school under ones belt.


  Anyone here with some professional knowledge in such areas care to enlighten us or look into this further?

[sadpandatech]

Keep in mind that e-mails sent to "TMFeedback at uspto.gov" don't enter the official record.

If I read the LoP correctly, nither does the text submited there, but any attachements will.

[kjj]

Magellan Capital Advisors is registered to the exact same physical location as the lawyer's office that filed the application. Lawyer's web page is here. So not a real banking outfit, just some scumbag lawyer.

The exchanges (especially BX and Tradehill) should be all over this douche, since he will no doubt target them first...Gox is in Japan, so it may be a bit harder for him to fuck with.

This guy is a lawyer, so he can file all the paperwork he wants, it only costs him his personal time and toner. Mass C&D form letters will probably go out if they let him have the trademark.

This is very normal.  Until a corporation is large enough to require a dedicated legal department with several full time lawyers, the state filings almost always list an attorney's address.  Basically, a legal entity is required to have a registered agent that accepts legal documents.

Despite all of the paranoia in this thread, this filing is pretty much meaningless and will go nowhere.  And even if it did, it would have almost no impact on anyone.

[sadpandatech]

Magellan Capital Advisors is registered to the exact same physical location as the lawyer's office that filed the application. Lawyer's web page is here. So not a real banking outfit, just some scumbag lawyer.

The exchanges (especially BX and Tradehill) should be all over this douche, since he will no doubt target them first...Gox is in Japan, so it may be a bit harder for him to fuck with.

This guy is a lawyer, so he can file all the paperwork he wants, it only costs him his personal time and toner. Mass C&D form letters will probably go out if they let him have the trademark.

This is very normal.  Until a corporation is large enough to require a dedicated legal department with several full time lawyers, the state filings almost always list an attorney's address.  Basically, a legal entity is required to have a registered agent that accepts legal documents.

Despite all of the paranoia in this thread, this filing is pretty much meaningless and will go nowhere.  And even if it did, it would have almost no impact on anyone.

Thats very true, except in this instance the lawyer is not listed as an agent, he is the applicant and his wife's name is signed at the bottom of the sales letter....
On your second point, you're hopefully right.

[payb.tc]

this has been submitted but not posted at slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1702382/Lawyer-Attempts-to-Trademark-Bitcoin

i'm not sure how it works with posting comments before the whole story submission has been posted though.

[sadpandatech]

this has been submitted but not posted at slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1702382/Lawyer-Attempts-to-Trademark-Bitcoin

i'm not sure how it works with posting comments before the whole story submission has been posted though.

and holy crap, more interesting info from the pdf that the slashdot article links to on the attorney's website. The wife's middle name just happens to be the last name of who they sent the letter to in Paris....

http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/New_Coin_of_the_Realm_062311.pdf



edited for crap grammar.

[twobits]

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.)

Actually, he did not, and someone else indeed did.  He did cave to the outrage and assigned it to Linus later thankfully.

[twobits]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.

Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

[Alex Beckenham]

this has been submitted but not posted at slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1702382/Lawyer-Attempts-to-Trademark-Bitcoin

i'm not sure how it works with posting comments before the whole story submission has been posted though.

and holy crap, more interesting info from the pdf that the slashdot article links to on the attorney's website. The wife's middle name just happens to be the last name of who they sent the letter to in Paris....

http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/New_Coin_of_the_Realm_062311.pdf

Maybe it's not her middle name, but her maiden name which she kept in addition to her new surname.
Therefore the person in Paris is her brother/sister?

[twobits]

LOL, sadly I'm not familiar with the Bezos thing. It sounds like a riot though.  And yea, the primary concern is not so much the legitimacy of this app but the potential troubles it could cause for the valid 'owners' of Bitcoin.

  Which, brings to mind some other questions. In order to avoid other app ninjas in the future both trademark and patent wise, is there a way to trademark/patent
Bitcoin in a way the limits the amount of control the US gov would have over it?
I.e possible to register it as a community project and still be afforded the same protections? Maybe reg as  aco-op type deal?
I am completely lost at that point. Will give a close business attorney friend of mine a call and see if he has any insight.

Could probably create a trust that owned things like the trademarks on it.  Who would fund and run such a thing though?

[sadpandatech]

this has been submitted but not posted at slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1702382/Lawyer-Attempts-to-Trademark-Bitcoin

i'm not sure how it works with posting comments before the whole story submission has been posted though.

and holy crap, more interesting info from the pdf that the slashdot article links to on the attorney's website. The wife's middle name just happens to be the last name of who they sent the letter to in Paris....

http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/New_Coin_of_the_Realm_062311.pdf

Maybe it's not her middle name, but her maiden name which she kept in addition to her new surname.
Therefore the person in Paris is her brother/sister?

thats what I'm going to assume.

[Alex Beckenham]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either.

[twobits]

Ah nice..  http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/Pascazi_CV_100207.pdf gives a toll free fax number.  Now we can tell him what we think on his dime even.

[sadpandatech]

Ah nice..  http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/Pascazi_CV_100207.pdf gives a toll free fax number.  Now we can tell him what we think on his dime even.

Nice resume, education wise and the IBM stuff anyhows...  Definetly not what I'd expect to see on the typical lawyer resume. It also confirms he is owner of both the law firm and the magellan biz, not that it wasn't fairly clear from his fillings..

[twobits]

Ahh, so true, except its been regged since 2000. ;p  Now, if Godaddy would just let us see for certain if the contract on it ends when the current registration does here at the beginning of 2012...

How does it normally work when valuable domains expire? Is there a known second when they become available and the person with the best internet connection and a lightning script gets the name?

Used to be something like that, though the 'scripts' where programs written in low level C that did very low level talking to a modfied stack to work as quickly as they could network wise.   Oh, you also had to be a registar to be able to run them,  now you will instead see a clause in the registration agreement and the register themselves will auction if off.

[twobits]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either.

Have not checked if it has changed but last I looked it was a 5k fee.  Never said it would be cheap for you.

[Alex Beckenham]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either.

Have not checked if it has changed but last I looked it was a 5k fee.  Never said it would be cheap for you.

Well I guess it's all relative. 5k sounds pretty damn cheap to me, considering bitcoin.de and bitcoins.de sold for around 30,000 EUR.

[twobits]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either.

Have not checked if it has changed but last I looked it was a 5k fee.  Never said it would be cheap for you.

Well I guess it's all relative. 5k sounds pretty damn cheap to me, considering bitcoin.de and bitcoins.de sold for around 30,000 EUR.

Yeah, cheap enough for bitcoin.com, bitcoin.org filings etc...  but...  not cheap enough to want to go after every silly name with bitcoin in it.
IF you think 5k is pretty damn cheap, you should have enough to be able to at least mount a decent defense then.

[Alex Beckenham]

Yeah, cheap enough for bitcoin.com, bitcoin.org filings etc...  but...  not cheap enough to want to go after every silly name with bitcoin in it.
IF you think 5k is pretty damn cheap, you should have enough to be able to at least mount a decent defense then.

Yeah, I guess my issue is that although I don't necessarily have quality (bitcoin.com), I sure do have quantity (bitcoinbabes.com, bitcoindouble.com, bitcoinbalance.com, bitcoinsafety.com, bitcoinsecurity.com, etc, etc.).

I tried to buy bitcoinblackjack.com but the current owner is holding out for $5000+ which I couldn't justify at the time.

I wonder if she's reading this thread.

Again, sorry to hijack the main issue which is not just about domain names...

[hippich]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

[SgtSpike]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

[Jaime Frontero]

ain't no thief like a lawyer...

[niooron]

How about an anonymous and untraceable bounty on his head?

[Vladimir]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in interstate commerce.

Dahhh!

So he is basically saying (as far as I understand) that since bitcoin is so much anonymous and encrypted it would be impossible to prove in court that bitcoin was used in commerce prior to his letter submitted with trademark application. Only proof he thinks that could exist due to all the encryption and anonymity is hearsay evidence which will not be enough.

At the same time I have written contacts concluded and fulfilled with US customers which were done way before his silly trademark application. Surely other people too conducted commerce in bitcoin and block chain will actually serve as a to beyond reasonable doubt standard proof of that.

Bitcoin is surely a very confusing matter to some...

[SgtSpike]

How about an anonymous and untraceable bounty on his head?

I lol'd.

But seriously, don't do this.  Bad idea, and I will not support it.

[BCwinning]

ain't no thief like a lawyer...

bankers..

[wolftaur]

So he is basically saying (as far as I understand) that since bitcoin is so much anonymous and encrypted it would be impossible to prove in court that bitcoin was used in commerce prior to his letter submitted with trademark application. Only proof he thinks that could exist due to all the encryption and anonymity is hearsay evidence which will not be enough.

At the same time I have written contacts concluded and fulfilled with US customers which were done way before his silly trademark application. Surely other people too conducted commerce in bitcoin and block chain will actually serve as a to beyond reasonable doubt standard proof of that.

I actually think that anyone downloading the Bitcoin application, which was named Bitcoin, could count as commerce. It's a licensed product, after all. Just because something is open-source doesn't mean there's no rights attached to the intellectual property, which is why the GPL can actually require that distributors distribute source code in the first place.

[niooron]

How about an anonymous and untraceable bounty on his head?

I lol'd.

But seriously, don't do this.  Bad idea, and I will not support it.

I said that because a lot of people think (like that guy) that bitcoin is completely anonymous and untraceable.

[sadpandatech]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

Aye, very interesting. I am especially botherd by this segment, "You should further consider the first to file countries where prior use is irrelevant. My client is in the process of filing in numerous civil law countries such as Japan where whining about first to use is of no moment."

I call bs on the 'my client' part as it is fairly obvious from what research we have been able to do so far that it is all him, him and him and a few friends.
I wonder what his intentions are though, that is the disturbing part. I would assume they are not good by any stretch from that reply you received.
The only comfort I saw is that it looks like even he knows that USA is 'first to use' so he will not win that trademark. But, how many of them will he get, and in what countries and what could be the negative ramifications to the community?

[sadpandatech]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

The very nature of the crypto transaction renders it impossible to trace and prove a completed transaction in interstate commerce.

Dahhh!

So he is basically saying (as far as I understand) that since bitcoin is so much anonymous and encrypted it would be impossible to prove in court that bitcoin was used in commerce prior to his letter submitted with trademark application. Only proof he thinks that could exist due to all the encryption and anonymity is hearsay evidence which will not be enough.

At the same time I have written contacts concluded and fulfilled with US customers which were done way before his silly trademark application. Surely other people too conducted commerce in bitcoin and block chain will actually serve as a to beyond reasonable doubt standard proof of that.

Bitcoin is surely a very confusing matter to some...

Aye, very true for the US trademark, but what for the others that use a 'first to file' rule, as he sates?

[sadpandatech]

ain't no thief like a lawyer...

bankers..

car salesmen. *grumbles* "bastards, 20 grand for a 15.5 grand car"

[Jaime Frontero]

what about the MIT Expat (open source) License?

if it's licensed, how can it be trademarked later by a different entity?

[hashcoin]

inb4 extreme lulz at this guy's expense.

Also, if "first use in commerce" date is what it actually sounds like, this guy is blatantly perjuring himself.   Though I don't see how an attorney could be so stupid, so perhaps it does not mean what it sounds like.

[sadpandatech]

inb4 extreme lulz at this guy's expense.

Also, if "first use in commerce" date is what it actually sounds like, this guy is blatantly perjuring himself.   Though I don't see how an attorney could be so stupid, so perhaps it does not mean what it sounds like.

It doesn't quite mean that. On the US filing atleast it reads 'atleast as early as' ;date greasy lawyer mailed fake sales letter.

[twobits]

inb4 extreme lulz at this guy's expense.

Also, if "first use in commerce" date is what it actually sounds like, this guy is blatantly perjuring himself.   Though I don't see how an attorney could be so stupid, so perhaps it does not mean what it sounds like.

No, he is saying that is the applicants first use.

[wolftaur]

Aye, very true for the US trademark, but what for the others that use a 'first to file' rule, as he sates?

First file doesn't actually guarantee success when the use of the non-filer GREATLY exceeds the use of the filer. The purpose of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and courts frequently go by that, rather than technicality. A first-file rule basically covers what happens if two same-sized entities had the dispute -- it's either first file, or first use.

It's a whole other matter when, to 99% of people, "bitcoin" has a specific meaning, and this guy is claiming, "Oh, but my 1% of customers are the ones who are right." The purpose of a trademark is so that you can't walk into, say, a car dealership, ask about an Impala, and be sold something made by Volvo instead of Chevy. (And if I just fucked up the brand reference, pardon -- I know little about cars, I can't actually drive because of a vision defect.)

He may have filed first, but thousands of people were using the term already. Even if he was first, thousands of people compared to him and one fictitious client ...

[sadpandatech]

Aye, very true for the US trademark, but what for the others that use a 'first to file' rule, as he sates?

First file doesn't actually guarantee success when the use of the non-filer GREATLY exceeds the use of the filer. The purpose of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and courts frequently go by that, rather than technicality. A first-file rule basically covers what happens if two same-sized entities had the dispute -- it's either first file, or first use.

It's a whole other matter when, to 99% of people, "bitcoin" has a specific meaning, and this guy is claiming, "Oh, but my 1% of customers are the ones who are right." The purpose of a trademark is so that you can't walk into, say, a car dealership, ask about an Impala, and be sold something made by Volvo instead of Chevy. (And if I just fucked up the brand reference, pardon -- I know little about cars, I can't actually drive because of a vision defect.)

He may have filed first, but thousands of people were using the term already. Even if he was first, thousands of people compared to him and one fictitious client ...

Thank you, Wolftaur

[twobits]

What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.

Yes,  the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder.  It is however not a cheap process for them.

What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either.

Looks like this has been changed a lot since I last researched it,  and the fee is now only  $300 for them.

[aeroSpike]

Aye, very true for the US trademark, but what for the others that use a 'first to file' rule, as he sates?

First file doesn't actually guarantee success when the use of the non-filer GREATLY exceeds the use of the filer. The purpose of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and courts frequently go by that, rather than technicality. A first-file rule basically covers what happens if two same-sized entities had the dispute -- it's either first file, or first use.

It's a whole other matter when, to 99% of people, "bitcoin" has a specific meaning, and this guy is claiming, "Oh, but my 1% of customers are the ones who are right." The purpose of a trademark is so that you can't walk into, say, a car dealership, ask about an Impala, and be sold something made by Volvo instead of Chevy. (And if I just fucked up the brand reference, pardon -- I know little about cars, I can't actually drive because of a vision defect.)

He may have filed first, but thousands of people were using the term already. Even if he was first, thousands of people compared to him and one fictitious client ...

That all makes sense, but do you say that because you know, or because you *hope*, that this will be the courts' stance in 'file first' countries?

[twobits]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

Seems to me we need people that can look for filings elsewhere, probably starting with France.

[twobits]

Aye, very true for the US trademark, but what for the others that use a 'first to file' rule, as he sates?

First file doesn't actually guarantee success when the use of the non-filer GREATLY exceeds the use of the filer. The purpose of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and courts frequently go by that, rather than technicality. A first-file rule basically covers what happens if two same-sized entities had the dispute -- it's either first file, or first use.

It's a whole other matter when, to 99% of people, "bitcoin" has a specific meaning, and this guy is claiming, "Oh, but my 1% of customers are the ones who are right." The purpose of a trademark is so that you can't walk into, say, a car dealership, ask about an Impala, and be sold something made by Volvo instead of Chevy. (And if I just fucked up the brand reference, pardon -- I know little about cars, I can't actually drive because of a vision defect.)

He may have filed first, but thousands of people were using the term already. Even if he was first, thousands of people compared to him and one fictitious client ...

If no one is representing bitcoin's interests in these case, the agencies and courts will most likely give him the tm.  These agencies do not really worry about fighting these things,  the presumption is if there is a legitimate injured party, they will defend themselves.  I am sure the fact there is no one currently representing bitcoin is a big part of what he is counting on to get these accepted.

[SgtSpike]

We could all leave his firm(s) negative ratings on google maps and other rating websites.

[Jaime Frontero]

you think he's got his name trademarked?

[twobits]

you think he's got his name trademarked?

Yep, or at least he claims to.....

[twobits]

you think he's got his name trademarked?

He seems to claim it is in http://www.pascazilaw.com/files/pascazilaw_site_terms_of_use_agreement.pdf


His twitter


Seems he had bankruptcy issues with the fiber company he mentions in his resume:  http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/cgm/118566_57_opinion.pdf

[casascius]

I personally would have absolutely no problem providing incontrovertible proof that would be satisfactory to any court in any jurisdiction, that I used Bitcoins in interstate commerce well before June 22, 2011.

When I was selling Bitcoins, I was producing digitally signed contracts similar to the one at this example:

http://166.70.147.8/btc/AgreementToDeliverBitcoins.pdf

One of the nifty features of buying a PDF signing key is that every document you sign gets a secure timestamp provided by a third party and permanently fixed right into the PDF itself.  Not only that, but the fact that for each contract I executed, there's a timely wire hitting my bank account...

I do have the means to oppose the filing, and am highly likely to do it, particularly if the filing lasts long enough to make an appearance into the USPTO's trademark gazette.

[kripz]

you think he's got his name trademarked?

ahahahaha

do it.

[SgtSpike]

His website:  http://www.pascazilaw.com/
Yahoo reviews:  http://local.yahoo.com/info-35530399-pascazi-law-offices-fishkill
Insider pages:  http://www.insiderpages.com/b/15240937557/pascazi-law-offices-fishkill
More info:  http://www.manta.com/c/mmyy1lm/pascazi-law-offices
Google rating page:  http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=11020796222182954010&q=1065+main+street,+fishkill,+ny+12524&hl=en&dtab=2&sll=41.534876,-73.903926&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&ll=41.537968,-73.908291&spn=0,0&t=h&z=17
Martindale.com lawyer rating website:  http://www.martindale.com/Michael-S-Pascazi/14194021-lawyer.htm
Avvo.com rating:  http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/12524-ny-michael-pascazi-1012851.html?force_review=true


Have fun.  

[sadpandatech]

you think he's got his name trademarked?

ahahahaha

do it.

according to some site I linked earier that shows his 2 trademarks, the one pending application for bitcoin and the one for his Magellan LLc company, the magellan trademark is listed as inactive, and suggests he either did not respond to something or just did not refile in a timely manner for it. Would be worth looking into anyhows.

[sadpandatech]

I personally would have absolutely no problem providing incontrovertible proof that would be satisfactory to any court in any jurisdiction, that I used Bitcoins in interstate commerce well before June 22, 2011.

When I was selling Bitcoins, I was producing digitally signed contracts similar to the one at this example:

http://166.70.147.8/btc/AgreementToDeliverBitcoins.pdf

One of the nifty features of buying a PDF signing key is that every document you sign gets a secure timestamp provided by a third party and permanently fixed right into the PDF itself.  Not only that, but the fact that for each contract I executed, there's a timely wire hitting my bank account...

I do have the means to oppose the filing, and am highly likely to do it, particularly if the filing lasts long enough to make an appearance into the USPTO's trademark gazette.

If you wish to oppose you can do so for free and before it reaches the gazette. here
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jspand
10. Letter of Protest
use * serial 85353491

[sadpandatech]

Here is his (lawyers) response - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

Seems to me we need people that can look for filings elsewhere, probably starting with France.

I would certainly agree and note that he mentioned specific countries, namely France and Japan. Japan being where Mt Gox is. Not sure if that is coincidence or if he has really thought that far into this already....

[Grant]

His website:  http://www.pascazilaw.com/
Yahoo reviews:  http://local.yahoo.com/info-35530399-pascazi-law-offices-fishkill
Insider pages:  http://www.insiderpages.com/b/15240937557/pascazi-law-offices-fishkill
More info:  http://www.manta.com/c/mmyy1lm/pascazi-law-offices
Google rating page:  http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=11020796222182954010&q=1065+main+street,+fishkill,+ny+12524&hl=en&dtab=2&sll=41.534876,-73.903926&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&ll=41.537968,-73.908291&spn=0,0&t=h&z=17
Martindale.com lawyer rating website:  http://www.martindale.com/Michael-S-Pascazi/14194021-lawyer.htm
Avvo.com rating:  http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/12524-ny-michael-pascazi-1012851.html?force_review=true


Have fun.  

This episode reminds me of: http://www.businessinsider.com/worldscom-ceo-were-absolutely-going-to-sue-second-life-and-world-of-warcraft-2009-3

Worldscom, did even successfully patent "an idea to have a virtual world", but they never got successfull in collecting on it.

Seriously, what we have now in the world are "fractional fact lawyers".

[Superform]

NOTE: If the e-mail address listed above is either no longer correct for receiving USPTO correspondence or contains a typographical error, please go to the Correspondence Address form to update or correct the e-mail address AND reauthorize the USPTO to communicate with you by e-mail. It is critical that you maintain a current e-mail address with the USPTO. For any technical issues with this process, please contact TEAS@uspto.gov.
WARNING: For an application filed under TEAS Plus, the failure to maintain a correct e-mail address for ongoing e-mail communication will result in the loss of TEAS Plus status and a requirement to pay $50 per class.

[Superform]

Your Letter of Protest Was Submitted Successfully

    Success!
    We have received your form for serial number 85353491. We will send an Email summary of the form to " xxxxxxxxxxxxxx", which will be your official confirmation of receipt. For electronically- submitted forms, the USPTO will not mail any additional paper confirmation.
    NOTE : Do NOT send a duplicate paper copy of this filing to the USPTO, as it will interfere with the proper processing of the electronic submission.
    Thank you.
    TEAS Support Team

[twobits]

The?application?must?be?filed?in?the?name?of?the?owner?of?the?mark.?The?owner?of?the?mark?is?the?
person?or?entity?who?controls?the?nature?and?quality?of?the?goods/services?identified?by?the?mark.?

Ignore the '?', damn cut and past from a pdf off the government site.  Seems here is one point that his application is invalid.

He does not control the nature and quality of bitcoins.

[Bitman_Begins]

Hey guys, pretty sure this is INVALID   L@@K! I just trademarked "poundcoins" now they're all mine!!   Please send all your pound coins to my address or I will file a complaint.

[Isepick]

My client is in the process of filing in numerous civil law countries such as Japan where whining about first to use is of no moment. One can sue in a US federal court for tortious acts committed overseas so long as the defendant has minimum contacts with the US. Food for thought.

This douche is totally going after the exchanges, specifically Mt.Gox it seems. I wonder if MT knows...

[twobits]

I personally would have absolutely no problem providing incontrovertible proof that would be satisfactory to any court in any jurisdiction, that I used Bitcoins in interstate commerce well before June 22, 2011.

When I was selling Bitcoins, I was producing digitally signed contracts similar to the one at this example:

http://166.70.147.8/btc/AgreementToDeliverBitcoins.pdf

One of the nifty features of buying a PDF signing key is that every document you sign gets a secure timestamp provided by a third party and permanently fixed right into the PDF itself.  Not only that, but the fact that for each contract I executed, there's a timely wire hitting my bank account...

I do have the means to oppose the filing, and am highly likely to do it, particularly if the filing lasts long enough to make an appearance into the USPTO's trademark gazette.

If you wish to oppose you can do so for free and before it reaches the gazette. here
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jspand
10. Letter of Protest
use * serial 85353491

Ok , did just that...

Bitcoin has already been in use since before 18-aug-2008 as idicated by the created on date of the bitcoin.org domain name ( Domain ID:D153621148-LROR
Domain Name:BITCOIN.ORG
Created On:18-Aug-2008 13:19:55 UTC
Last Updated On:18-May-2011 04:47:13 UTC
Expiration Date:18-Aug-2019 13:19:55 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
)

This use has not been by the applicant, yet this is the very same bitcoin the applicant claims to want the mark for.  However he has no control over the nature and quailty of these bitcoins, but is merely another user of this product. He is clearly not the owner of this term.  This application is fraudulent and made in bad faith. In addition he shows he is aware of the numerous other reference around to bitcoins of which he had nothing to do with, but seems to be think that this can not be proven as it is only 'articles', not mentioning the web sites that already use this product and term far before he application.  See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435
There exists many who can prove otherwise contrary to what is 'as far as he can tell'.   Since he is well aware of these facts, yet filled this, implying the he has control over the nature and quality of something that he does not,  this seems to be a clear attempt to abuse the trademark system.   I hope that you can take actions that go beyond him just being rejected and losing his nominal fee for making this bad faith application, to discourage others from such fraud in the future.

[twobits]

Hey guys, pretty sure this is INVALID   L@@K! I just trademarked "poundcoins" now they're all mine!!   Please send all your pound coins to my address or I will file a complaint.

I am pretty sure it will go through unless protested.  If you read the pdf on the examiners procedures, they only look at the submitted application. They do not and have no duty to do research and  internet searches etc.

[galaxyAbstractor]

We could all leave his firm(s) negative ratings on google maps and other rating websites.

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/pascazilaw.com Someone already did lol

[ribuck]

Spending time and energy worrying about this is pointless.

and what do you propose for businesses that have "bitcoin" in their registered name? or their official copy? or slogans?

Do you really think some lawyer can get thousands of independent businesses and hundreds of thousands of individuals to abandon their usage of this word? No chance.

What's the alternative? An expensive community-run foundation to hold the trademark around the world, together with the cost and effort that it will consume? And all the infighting deciding who controls the foundation, and who can use the foundation-held trademark, and how they can use it? Maybe if Satoshi were around to hold the trademark it would work, but not otherwise.

It's not worth it. Just ignore this douchebag unless you get a C&D. In the extremely unlikely event that you do get a C&D, don't pay to settle, and don't pay to defend. Just temporarily switch to the separate un-trademarked words "Bit Coin" until the douchebag gives up wasting his money. And make the most of the free publicity that your business will get as a result of publicising the C&D!

[galaxyAbstractor]

http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic?transition=start&source=Log-in.html&language=en&application=CTMOnline Where you can search trademarks in the EU. No hits for bitcoin

http://www.wipo.int/romarin/searchAction.do Apparently lets you search internationally, but no hits on bitcoin.


Uhhhhhh, there is a trademark registration for 'bit coin'. http://pixomania.net/pics/OAMI-ONLINE_-_CTM-ONLINE_-_Detailed_trade_mark_information_-_Mozilla_Firefox-2011-07-07_13.12.07.png
Edit: Actually, I think this is just about that image shown, for use on some site

[Dobrodav]

Hey, guys he have no any chance at court. Relax.

[twobits]

Hey, guys he have no any chance at court. Relax.

It is not a judicial procedure to get a tm. 

Also, what exact do you base your claim it has no chance on?

[ribuck]

The story is on the front page of SlashDot now.

[hazek]

I really don't understand what the big deal is? It's not like the Bitcoin software is bound to the Bitcoin word, lol..

[Anonymous]

I guess the fact the bitcoin block chain is a giant timestamp server yet he cant even show the block explorer link where he actually sent a bitcoin comes into it ?

[N12]

Bitcoin Assassination Market, anyone?

[moderator comment] This comment is in jest, do not take seriously, please check your sarcasm meters, thank you [/moderator comment]

[w1R903]

Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market"  posts?  I agree this guy's an asshole and I'd love to see him disciplined or disbarred for making a trademark claim in bad faith (not that that's likely), but can we please try to maintain at least a veneer of morality here?

You people posting assassination market posts fail to realize that it's not a funny joke.  I'm sure your teenage friends are laughing it up, but in the grown-up world we're disgusted.

[Alex Beckenham]

Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market"  posts?

 in the grown-up world we're disgusted.

Can a mod delete the facist censorship posts? In the free world, it's censorship that disgusts us most.

(And yes I do see the irony in this post)

[w1R903]

Really?  Censorship disgusts you more than calls for murder?  I guess that sums up your character.

[Alex Beckenham]

Really?  Censorship disgusts you more than calls for murder?  I guess that sums up your character.

Pretty much. I can't think of anything more vile.

I think people should be free to call for murder any time, any place... it's just speech, not violence.

[Brutus]

maybe we can just avoid all this nonsense - change the name - and do it right this time.

Bah. Honestly it would be seriously counter to the spirit of Bitcoin if we trademarked the name. No one person should hold licensing rights to a decentralized currency that we all helped build.

I agree.  The Apache folks created a foundation to hold some of their trademarks and such but it just rubs me the wrong way as bitcoin should remain as OS and decentralized as possible.

I'm still of the opinion that the trademark will not stand as bitcoin was already in common use well before this guy tried to TM it.

[joepie91]

Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market"  posts?  I agree this guy's an asshole and I'd love to see him disciplined or disbarred for making a trademark claim in bad faith (not that that's likely), but can we please try to maintain at least a veneer of morality here?

You people posting assassination market posts fail to realize that it's not a funny joke.  I'm sure your teenage friends are laughing it up, but in the grown-up world we're disgusted.

Personally I don't even see it as a joke, but as a good display of what people think and/or what their opinions/morals are. Should his post be deleted because you don't agree with him? Should his post be deleted because it shows the 'bad' side of a person?

As a 'grown-up', you should be able to deal with seeing the less nice side of a person, even if it offends you. Noone is forcing you to look and stare at that post.

[w1R903]

Just to be clear, I'm not concerned about whether it offends me or not.  I think it should be deleted because:

1.  It's bad for Bitcoin.

2.  You're threatening an actual person, with family, maybe kids, etc.  He may be an asshole, but he doesn't deserve to have his life threatened. 

It's funny, you cry fascism, but in many ways your absolutist world view and view on violent speech closely mirrors the *real-life* fascism I came face to face with in ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

[Alex Beckenham]

violent speech

Unless you're taking a megaphone to someone eardrum, I don't believe there exists such a thing.

[proudhon]

Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market"  posts?  I agree this guy's an asshole and I'd love to see him disciplined or disbarred for making a trademark claim in bad faith (not that that's likely), but can we please try to maintain at least a veneer of morality here?

You people posting assassination market posts fail to realize that it's not a funny joke.  I'm sure your teenage friends are laughing it up, but in the grown-up world we're disgusted.

I agree with you that that post is over the line, and I wish blitz hadn't of made it.  Of course, it's up to the mods what to do with it, if anything.  And, just to be clear, I think the lawyer is definitely a douche.

[proudhon]

violent speech

Unless you're taking a megaphone to someone eardrum, I don't believe there exists such a thing.

If that were a true threat of violence it would not be protected speech under the first amendment.  I think, however, that blitz's post, in context, would be considered hyperbolic, and, thus, protected.

[bitbetter]

I dont think people could get a joke if it shat right on their head.

[pokwer]

Just to be clear, I'm not concerned about whether it offends me or not.  I think it should be deleted because:

1.  It's bad for Bitcoin.

2.  You're threatening an actual person, with family, maybe kids, etc.  He may be an asshole, but he doesn't deserve to have his life threatened. 

It's funny, you cry fascism, but in many ways your absolutist world view and view on violent speech closely mirrors the *real-life* fascism I came face to face with in ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Well said.

[MoonShadow]

I think that you guys are really overreacting.  It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so.  After all, there are lawyers on this forum.  Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about.  Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent?  It's not like his email address isn't all over his website.  He's certainly not anonymous.

[joepie91]

I think that you guys are really overreacting.  It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so.  After all, there are lawyers on this forum.  Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about.  Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent?  It's not like his email address isn't all over his website.  He's certainly not anonymous.

Did you read his response on Slashdot? It certainly didn't sound like someone trying to represent the interest of the community.

EDIT: Disregard, I meant ycombinator.

[kloinko1n]

Chill out men!
If this lawyer claims that no one can prove they transact with bitcoins, then how can HE prove they did, in order to cash out from his claim?

[Timo Y]

Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market"  posts? 

I fully agree.  This is perceived as an "official" forum. We should maket it clear that the vast majority of the bitcoin community utterly condemns the initiation of violence.

What is needed is an ostracism market.   

If being an asshole (even if technically legal) hurt people's and corporations' reputation more it would also hurt their business.  Then they would think twice about being assholes.

[mouse]

maybe he got in at 30, is in a shitload of debt, and this is his last ditch effort to drive the price up

[sadpandatech]

I think that you guys are really overreacting.  It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so.  After all, there are lawyers on this forum.  Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about.  Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent?  It's not like his email address isn't all over his website.  He's certainly not anonymous.

Do you really belive that?  Do you seriously think someone who had intentions of 'protecting' Bitcoin would do so without saying anything to any one? And, would they be so defensive to respond with this, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

For a well educated lawyer type his spelling and grammar sure went all to hell in his response..

[Alex Beckenham]

We should maket it clear that the vast majority of the bitcoin community utterly condemns the initiation of violence.

Absolutely. I utterly condemn the initiation of violence.

But feel free to talk about it

[Timo Y]

I think that you guys are really overreacting.  It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so. 

No he didn't. His intentions are perfectly clear from the snooty response he posted.

[Alex Beckenham]

oops

[hippich]

Received answer from TMFeedback. I encourage everyone proceed with filing protest.

Please note that the proper procedure relative to the USPTO is to file a Letter of Protest. See form #10 on this page:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp.

We would not actually do anything with the email below.

Thank you.

TMFeedback Support Team

[sadpandatech]

Received answer from TMFeedback. I encourage everyone proceed with filing protest.

Please note that the proper procedure relative to the USPTO is to file a Letter of Protest. See form #10 on this page:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp.

We would not actually do anything with the email below.

Thank you.

TMFeedback Support Team

Not sure how a reply that simply pointed out that, 'Hey, you're doing it wrong' made you feel it was any more prudent to file, but I certainly agree to encourage filing of Letter of Protest. It cost nothing but some of your time! If by some miracle he did get his app posted in the gazzete it would no longer be free to protest.

Use the form #10 as linked here by Hippich and enter  85353491 for the *serial it asks for at the bottom left.

[hippich]

I just went through process of filling protest and can confirm - no fees required at this point. Simply point to wrong doing by this lawyer with links to resources dated before June 2011. Also make sure to include all evidence as a PDF attached, since letter itself will not go to attorney, only attachments. I included printout of Wikipedia page about bitcoin and Satoshi's technical paper as attachments as well as PDF of my actual letter just to make sure it get through.

[SgtSpike]

Lol, just saw this on Google's reviews, along with 4 negative feedback posts.

Advocat ‎ - Jul 7, 2011
Excellent Law Firm. Smart, Hard Working, and Responsive. Admitted to New York State, and Federal Courts. The recent negative reviews about this firm which all commenced July 7, 2011, which may or may not be removed by Google, were not brought about by any involvement with this law firm, but by those who reacted angrily to a Trademark Application filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office, by Attorney Pascazi, on behalf of a client. Those negative reviews should not be taken as a true evaluation of the firm's capabilities. In fact, one could surmise that this law firm must have done a pretty good job if so many people, whom the firm has never met, reacted angrily.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=11020796222182954010&q=1065+main+street,+fishkill,+ny+12524&hl=en&dtab=2&sll=41.534876,-73.903926&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&ll=41.537968,-73.908291&spn=0,0&t=h&z=17

[spruce]

"Probably", be better off to make sure the trademark holder is held responsible for that trademark to the fullest extent.

Ooh. Like Silk Road?

[sadpandatech]

Lol, just saw this on Google's reviews, along with 4 negative feedback posts.

Advocat ‎ - Jul 7, 2011
Excellent Law Firm. Smart, Hard Working, and Responsive. Admitted to New York State, and Federal Courts. The recent negative reviews about this firm which all commenced July 7, 2011, which may or may not be removed by Google, were not brought about by any involvement with this law firm, but by those who reacted angrily to a Trademark Application filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office, by Attorney Pascazi, on behalf of a client. Those negative reviews should not be taken as a true evaluation of the firm's capabilities. In fact, one could surmise that this law firm must have done a pretty good job if so many people, whom the firm has never met, reacted angrily.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=11020796222182954010&q=1065+main+street,+fishkill,+ny+12524&hl=en&dtab=2&sll=41.534876,-73.903926&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&ll=41.537968,-73.908291&spn=0,0&t=h&z=17

lol, he had me at, 'on behalf of a client'.
"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

[joepie91]

"Probably", be better off to make sure the trademark holder is held responsible for that trademark to the fullest extent.

Ooh. Like Silk Road?

So, anyone feels like sending him a quick enquiry as to what his action will be on Silk Road, seeing as he is filing for a trademark? 

[sadpandatech]

"Probably", be better off to make sure the trademark holder is held responsible for that trademark to the fullest extent.

Ooh. Like Silk Road?

So, anyone feels like sending him a quick enquiry as to what his action will be on Silk Road, seeing as he is filing for a trademark? 

he is gonna send a 'Cease and Desist' order and a demand for any and all inventory they acquired via bitcoin. ;p
*can picture truck loads of dope rolling up in front of a lawfirm in small town NY*

[joepie91]

"Probably", be better off to make sure the trademark holder is held responsible for that trademark to the fullest extent.

Ooh. Like Silk Road?

So, anyone feels like sending him a quick enquiry as to what his action will be on Silk Road, seeing as he is filing for a trademark? 

he is gonna send a 'Cease and Desist' order and a demand for any and all inventory they acquired via bitcoin. ;p
*can picture truck loads of dope rolling up in front of a lawfirm in small town NY*

Heh, this would make for a nice Google Business review.

[MoonShadow]

I think that you guys are really overreacting.  It's as likely as not, that this lawyer trademarked Bitcoin in defense of the bitcoin community, before anyone else with ill intent did so.  After all, there are lawyers on this forum.  Perhaps there was an unaddressed legal threat there, that this lawyer knew that he could do something about.  Has anyone bothered to ask him his intent?  It's not like his email address isn't all over his website.  He's certainly not anonymous.

Do you really belive that?  Do you seriously think someone who had intentions of 'protecting' Bitcoin would do so without saying anything to any one? And, would they be so defensive to respond with this, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2737435

For a well educated lawyer type his spelling and grammar sure went all to hell in his response..

 That certainly doesn't bode well, but why evidence is there that this response was actually written by the same guy?  Whoever wrote this has no concept of what Bitcoin actually does, and is a crappy lawyer to boot.  He's going to get hammered someday, even if he survives the CP that the black hats are likely to put all over his home computer.

[wolftaur]

Has anyone considered reporting the lawyer to the bar association? Making false filings on behalf of a "client" is a pretty major no-no under legal ethics, whether it's to the court or not.

[w1R903]

His client is clearly either himself or a family member (his wife?).  Is it considered ethical for attorneys to represent close family members?  It's a big no-no for physicians and other health care professionals (except in emergencies) and can result in professional censure.

[sadpandatech]

This joker and others like him are going to clog the legal system with so much crap that any serious efforts to regulate/control/throttle Bitcoin will only be so much noise

That is why we did legal automated document systems in disaster recovery.

I look back on my awards about total amount of damage, and, today, this feels like pocket change (that I can't report).

I know there is a way to make money off that real...  flow. Effort? No, just end the chess moves quick...  "transient justice"; everybody wants to know where they can wash their hands.

[I do not guarantee they are clean, yet we can guarantee our generated water is safe to drink. ETA: baby-safe water... "complicated" battle-rattle end-game.]

You're one strange bird, Ballard...
*looks at his hands* they sure look clean on the surface. But what about the germs, you say?

[sadpandatech]

His client is clearly either himself or a family member (his wife?).  Is it considered ethical for attorneys to represent close family members?  It's a big no-no for physicians and other health care professionals (except in emergencies) and can result in professional censure.

aye, his client is magellan blah llc, which he owns.

[sadpandatech]

Has anyone considered reporting the lawyer to the bar association? Making false filings on behalf of a "client" is a pretty major no-no under legal ethics, whether it's to the court or not.

If one were to desire to do so and felt they had cause to do so they would start here,
http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Public_Resources&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=40748
and his NY Sate attorney registration number here,
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5661076

[ensign_lee]

Looks like we got to him.

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that, for strategic reasons, Magellan Capital's trademark (serial number 85353491) filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office has been Expressly Abandoned, pursuant to statute, as of July 7, 2011 at 13:15 EDT.

Simultaneously therewith, my client has begun trademark registrations in those civil law countries, wherein, "first to use" status is not recognized as a defense to trademark registration. These civil law countries, which account for most of the world's population, and land mass, only recognize a "first to file" basis for trademark registration.

Moreover, calling me stupid is simply childish, and not a hallmark of thoughtful adult discourse. I have been called worse; most often from my adversaries, when I succeed on an important matter in a court of law.

tl;dr version. He's giving up here in the US because of all the heat he got, but will STILL PURSUE THIS TRADEMARK IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

I say we continue with the heat!

[sadpandatech]

Looks like we got to him.

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that, for strategic reasons, Magellan Capital's trademark (serial number 85353491) filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office has been Expressly Abandoned, pursuant to statute, as of July 7, 2011 at 13:15 EDT.

Simultaneously therewith, my client has begun trademark registrations in those civil law countries, wherein, "first to use" status is not recognized as a defense to trademark registration. These civil law countries, which account for most of the world's population, and land mass, only recognize a "first to file" basis for trademark registration.

Moreover, calling me stupid is simply childish, and not a hallmark of thoughtful adult discourse. I have been called worse; most often from my adversaries, when I succeed on an important matter in a court of law.

tl;dr version. He's giving up here in the US because of all the heat he got, but will STILL PURSUE THIS TRADEMARK IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

I say we continue with the heat!

LOL, very nice. source link please? I actually accused him if being a 'smart guy'. Wonder who he is replying to that called him 'stupid', would love to read it.

[hippich]

I called him simply jerk. )) since i can't be sure about his stupidness yet =)

[ensign_lee]

Oh yeah, that was from my email chain where I said he was stupid for trying to trademark bitcoin.

[sadpandatech]

Looks like we got to him.

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that, for strategic reasons, Magellan Capital's trademark (serial number 85353491) filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office has been Expressly Abandoned, pursuant to statute, as of July 7, 2011 at 13:15 EDT.

Simultaneously therewith, my client has begun trademark registrations in those civil law countries, wherein, "first to use" status is not recognized as a defense to trademark registration. These civil law countries, which account for most of the world's population, and land mass, only recognize a "first to file" basis for trademark registration.

Moreover, calling me stupid is simply childish, and not a hallmark of thoughtful adult discourse. I have been called worse; most often from my adversaries, when I succeed on an important matter in a court of law.

tl;dr version. He's giving up here in the US because of all the heat he got, but will STILL PURSUE THIS TRADEMARK IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

I say we continue with the heat!

LOL, very nice. source link please? I actually accused him if being a 'smart guy'. Wonder who he is replying to that called him 'stupid', would love to read it.

I'd be willing to bet that his remarks could help serve as some proof in those 'civil law' countries to his intentionally trying to register something he has no right to.....


And, while those 'countries' he is refering to may account for the majority of population and landmass they DO NOT account for any majority of the potential net worth....

Anyone heard from Mt Gox? Would be curious to hear what the company in Japans take is on this if any..?





edit; poor as crap grammar, but I type like a speak, stupid and southern.. I apologize if it hurts any ones brain to read my dribble.

[ensign_lee]

Seems like nobody has gotten to his yahoo review page yet...

http://local.yahoo.com/info-35530399-pascazi-law-offices-fishkill

Funny how he has two positive reviews today. Gee, I wonder if that could be him trying to do some damage control or not...suspicious, no? ^^

[wolftaur]

Anyone contacted the EFF yet?

[TheBitMan]

Yeah, cheap enough for bitcoin.com, bitcoin.org filings etc...  but...  not cheap enough to want to go after every silly name with bitcoin in it.
IF you think 5k is pretty damn cheap, you should have enough to be able to at least mount a decent defense then.

Yeah, I guess my issue is that although I don't necessarily have quality (bitcoin.com), I sure do have quantity (bitcoinbabes.com, bitcoindouble.com, bitcoinbalance.com, bitcoinsafety.com, bitcoinsecurity.com, etc, etc.).

I tried to buy bitcoinblackjack.com but the current owner is holding out for $5000+ which I couldn't justify at the time.

I wonder if she's reading this thread.

Again, sorry to hijack the main issue which is not just about domain names...

wait you own bitcoin balance?

[TheBitMan]

Bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin..sue me

[w1R903]

Anyone contacted the EFF yet?

Might be a good idea.

[proudhon]

Isn't it obvious guys?  Michael S. Pascazi is Satoshi Nakamoto!

[sadpandatech]

You're one strange bird, Ballard...
*looks at his hands* they sure look clean on the surface. But what about the germs, you say?

Bank on banks; we know the possibilities of the flow, point-to-point, of prior art in deposit boxes; how active do you need something like that as governor of your currency? Dignity... "first"?

But for the chicken and the egg.. game is hard to play from sidelines. The mother in all of natures respects owns the embyro while it is still attached to the placenta..

[sadpandatech]

"That name is that name." Semantic web; you want to pay for the role-switch? Some people dream doing that with anybody in the world (hopeless), yet no-one would believe in that perfection (of a coincidence).

I hear those sort of "operations" can be quite costly..

[cdnbcguy]

I think the term 'Bitcoin' is in the public domain. I also think - and I could be wrong - that the iconic image of the B with the strokes through it is also in the PD.

You know what ELSE will be in the public domain? This idiot's entire life after Anonymous gets through with him....

[twobits]

I think the term 'Bitcoin' is in the public domain. I also think - and I could be wrong - that the iconic image of the B with the strokes through it is also in the PD.

You know what ELSE will be in the public domain? This idiot's entire life after Anonymous gets through with him....

Not a relevant concept for trademarks,    remember a few companies are succfully holding a tm on 'apple' for example.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_valid_English_word_be_owned_as_a_trademark

[SgtSpike]

I think the term 'Bitcoin' is in the public domain. I also think - and I could be wrong - that the iconic image of the B with the strokes through it is also in the PD.

You know what ELSE will be in the public domain? This idiot's entire life after Anonymous gets through with him....

I don't think Anonymous is going after him...

[twobits]

Found this about Japanese tm law:

However, any person or business that has been using a trade mark in Japan that is identical or similar to a registered trade mark prior to the application date of the registered trade mark is allowed to continue to use the mark, assuming the mark has become well-known.

So it seems he can't sue existing users, but could  stop new users.

[Lupus_Yonderboy]

It may not be updated yet, but the status still shows active according the USPTO here. It is possible that he is lying about aborting the application here in the US, I would recommend a bit of diligence until we can confirm that it has been withdrawn.


I don't think this is the last we'll hear from attacks of this kind. I don't know how to insure that this doesn't happen again, but I would be willing to toss a few bitcoins into a collective pool to help fund a community based effort. I know many rebel at the idea of any sort of 'Bitcoin Foundation', and I don't pretend to know the optimum solution. But imagine if next time it is BofA or CitiGroup that tries to trademark Bitcoin. They have legions of attorneys, *very* deep pockets, and could give a rat's ass about anybody's opinion. They will not fold simply because we protest en masse to the USPTO or flood their inboxes with nastygrams.

It is part of the growing pains of any project, and as this project matures someone needs to seriously consider making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, or it is gonna get legally hijacked.

[sadpandatech]

It may not be updated yet, but the status still shows active according the USPTO here. It is possible that he is lying about aborting the application here in the US, I would recommend a bit of diligence until we can confirm that it has been withdrawn.


I don't think this is the last we'll hear from attacks of this kind. I don't know how to insure that this doesn't happen again, but I would be willing to toss a few bitcoins into a collective pool to help fund a community based effort. I know many rebel at the idea of any sort of 'Bitcoin Foundation', and I don't pretend to know the optimum solution. But imagine if next time it is BofA or CitiGroup that tries to trademark Bitcoin. They have legions of attorneys, *very* deep pockets, and could give a rat's ass about anybody's opinion. They will not fold simply because we protest en masse to the USPTO or flood their inboxes with nastygrams.

It is part of the growing pains of any project, and as this project matures someone needs to seriously consider making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, or it is gonna get legally hijacked.

amen

[done]

classic thread 

[sadpandatech]

May the internet gods, trolls, citizens, and any other concerned party forgive me in advance.


173.2.27.51

[Alex Beckenham]

I sure do have quantity (bitcoinbabes.com, bitcoindouble.com, bitcoinbalance.com, bitcoinsafety.com, bitcoinsecurity.com, etc, etc.).

wait you own bitcoin balance?

Yep.

Great news for me if this guy really is giving up in the US.

[twobits]

I sure do have quantity (bitcoinbabes.com, bitcoindouble.com, bitcoinbalance.com, bitcoinsafety.com, bitcoinsecurity.com, etc, etc.).

wait you own bitcoin balance?

Yep.

Great news for me if this guy really is giving up in the US.

Not really, just yet,  for WIPO to hear the domain disputes , he only needs to get the tm in any of the signatory countries.

[SgtSpike]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

[Alex Beckenham]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Ah yes of course you're right... just like http://paypalsucks.com/

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Ah yes of course you're right... just like http://paypalsucks.com/

Actually parody and protest sites are carved out special exceptions that do not apply in other uses.

But since of course he is right,  I think it is getting to be time to bow out of this thread for now.

[SgtSpike]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.


You also do indeed, accept an agreement when you register domains,  it requires you to keep up to date whois information and agree to accept this arbitration panel among other things.

[SgtSpike]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

I am sure I can dig them up,  used to keep track of this stuff a lot more 5-6 years ago.  If you really want me to dig out my old research and links to exact cases,  I can do so, but will want a btc fee for doing that much work that you could easily do yourself. If you look in some of the archives of the domain name forums when this was first put into place, you will find some posts about some cases of what at the time was called reverse  where the tm holders got domains being used for completely different purposes pulled because individuals still had not figured out how to work the system  to defend.

[SgtSpike]

Well, sure, I could easily do it myself, if I even had the slightest clue what the name of the arbitration panel was or where their history of resolutions is kept.

Can anyone appeal the arbitration result?  Can it be brought to a court of law to fight further?

[twobits]

Well, sure, I could easily do it myself, if I even had the slightest clue what the name of the arbitration panel was or where their history of resolutions is kept.

Can anyone appeal the arbitration result?  Can it be brought to a court of law to fight further?

I actually already said before,  it is a wipo panel (usually).  

I don't know the current terms,  that was in flux at the time I got out of domaining.   Should be in the registration  agreement though, if you have agreed to binding arbitration or not.    Last I looked,  it had not been made binding yet but that was 5 years back now.

Edit: Does look like the right to contest the decision in court is present though it needs to be done quickly to prevent the transfer of the domain from already being done.  For the fan sites btw, they are often considered commerical sites if they display any ads or charge memberships etc, they have a much better chance of winning if they avoid any attempts to monetarize their traffic.

[phillipsjk]

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

Forget if it was the courts or an arbitration panel, but Canadian Tire sued for the Crappytire.ca domain name. The original domain holder had a parody site complaining about crappy goods he bought at Canadian Tire.

Code:

Domain name:           crappytire.ca
Domain status:         registered
Creation date:         2000/10/11
Expiry date:           2016/07/06
Updated date:          2011/06/14

Registrar:
    Name:              Webnames.ca Inc.
    Number:            70

Registrant:
    Name:              Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

Administrative contact:
    Name:              DNSadmin CTC
    Postal address:    8550 Goreway Dr.
                       Brampton ON L6T5J8 Canada
    Phone:             +1.4164803000x

Edit: The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center considered the complaint from Canadian Tire and Dismissed it.

Not sure what happened after that.

[twobits]

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

Forget if it was the courts or an arbitration panel, but Canadian Tire sued for the Crappytire.ca domain name. The original domain holder had a parody site complaining about crappy goods he bought at Canadian Tire.

Code:

Domain name:           crappytire.ca
Domain status:         registered
Creation date:         2000/10/11
Expiry date:           2016/07/06
Updated date:          2011/06/14

Registrar:
    Name:              Webnames.ca Inc.
    Number:            70

Registrant:
    Name:              Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

Administrative contact:
    Name:              DNSadmin CTC
    Postal address:    8550 Goreway Dr.
                       Brampton ON L6T5J8 Canada
    Phone:             +1.4164803000x

Hmmm... does Canada not protect the protest sites and parody sites like the US law does?Or did the owner not put in any response? If you don't defend yourself , you will almost always lose.

In any case, while an interesting topic, maybe we should move this part of it to another thread and let this get back to the bitcoin trademark issue itself.

[joepie91]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

While not sure if it's relevant to trademarks... JaGeX (the company behind Runescape) has a history of trying to get sites shut down (specifically cheating sites and sites that offer tools like custom clients). I believed they've relaxed their stance now, but this used to be a serious issue.

[Anonymous]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

[proudhon]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

lol

[w1R903]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

Yeah, I don't think this guy is as tech savvy as he fancies himself.  This may all be a good learning experience for him.

[Anonymous]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

Yeah, I don't think this guy is as tech savvy as he fancies himself.  This may all be a good learning experience for him.

http://www.shitsenders.com/  (another good service ripe for bitcoin integration)

 

[sadpandatech]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

[epi 1:10,000]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

Wow...   The community really needs to come together to defend themselves against this Asshole.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml

[joepie91]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

Wow...   The community really needs to come together to defend themselves against this Asshole.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml


Michael S. Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:11pm

Dear Bloggers: If trademarking the term “Bitcoin” is impossible, stupid, ignorant, outrageous etc.; Why all the fuss on this blog, and others? Does any one really care about an action that will never come to fruition? Of course not. But what they do care about, and care deeply, is an action that may come to pass, and moreover, that may hurt them in the wallet. Looking out for number one, pure and simple; that is the name of the game. So let’s not have any illusions about the motives of the blog moderator, and/or the various astute commenters.

Now if you care for a reality check (I know that the facts sometimes get in the way of the foul language): In most, but not all, “first to file” countries, a trademark application can be defeated if it can be shown that the mark is so notorious, so ubiquitous, and so identified with a particular entity that, registration to another would be improper. I’m sure the bar stool lawyers out there can understand this. So, is the term “Bitcoin” so notorious in Italy, for example, that when the average Italian on the street hears it, he/she immediately thinks of company zeta, and none other? Absolutely not. The same can be said for virtually every other country, including those with very large economies, such as China. In fact, it is virtually assured that no person or entity can claim that the term “Bitcoin” is identified with them in Italy.

Now, thanks to you all in the “bitcoin community”, the term “Bitcoin” is absolutely, positively linked to Pascazi. Wouldn’t you agree? Just check the Internet. How many pages upon pages, posts upon posts link Pascazi to the term “Bitcoin”. Interesting evidence to present to a tribunal vis a vis “identified with” criteria; don’t you think?

Moreover, none of the bar stool lawyers or investigators out there in cyberville really know what is going on behind closed law office doors. Perhaps, there is a new crypto-currency under development, one that has a feature to prevent hoarding; one whose money supply attributes are tied to actual publicly reported, worldwide inflationary metrics? Or tied to the Gold Standard? Trade secrets are just that; secret. Perhaps the developer(s) of this new lucre want their currency associated with the term “Bitcoin”? And why not? Because the blogosphere thinks it is a bad idea. To that proposition I reply, as Lt. Gen. Harry W. O. Kinnard did, to a German surrender ultimatum during the Battle of the Bulge, as follows: “Nuts”.

By the way, thanks to all for the pages of spilled electronic ink. Could not have afforded it without you. P T Barnum once said: "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." Maybe there is more going on than meets the eye? Again, food for thought. Arrivederci.



Michael S. Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

Settled, in a "first to use" country. Amazing. Too bad Torvalds was not represented by the incredible posters on this blog; he would have done better than settled, don't you think? Why not jury verdict for the Plaintiff? It is an easy process; no? Slam dunk don't you think? Throw some words out there about the unfairness of it all, the inhumanity of it all, poor old Torvalds, yada yada yada, and voila you win. I wonder how much Della Croce got to go away? Must have been a pretty penny. Oh, the insanity of it all!

Maybe you want to forward some of the pearls of wisdom over to Torvalds from this blog? Maybe he can get a do over? No res judicata in the blogosphere to worry about. Give it a try. Good Luck with that.


Michael S.Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:35pm

How about that "The Face Book" idea from those crazy kids up at Harvard. Think that idea might pan out? No Cali VC worth his/her salt will bet on that crazy idea, don't you think? Do you really think that everyone is a lemming doing exactly what the other guys are doing?

Is there a better crypto-currency under development? Is there no room for improvement? Might a group of former IBMers be working on such a thing?

Well then, somebody better tell those crazy kids up at Harvard to quit their coding because that "The Face Book" thing just won't cut it. Wrong!

Don't assume that is the actual lawyer, and not a troll.

[Raoul Duke]

well you guys should help me bring this website to number 1 on google for his name Michael S. Pascazi

LOL

[Alex Beckenham]

well you guys should help me bring this website to number 1 on google for his name Michael S. Pascazi

LOL

I think you should add trademark troll to your keywords.

[tiberiandusk]

I can list tons of prior art.

[Raoul Duke]

well you guys should help me bring this website to number 1 on google for his name Michael S. Pascazi

LOL

I think you should add trademark troll to your keywords.

I will, my friend, i will... I didn't even inserted meta tags or meta description for the website, let me sleep first and tomorrow i'll SEO it till death

We will teach this Michael Pascazi trademark troll an internet lesson he will never forget

If some of you want to help me, please press the Submit a Report button on the website and write a little article about this trademark troll and i'll approve it as soon as possible, or at least leave some keyword stuffed comments(HTML allowed) in there, please

[Anonymous]

well you guys should help me bring this website to number 1 on google for his name Michael S. Pascazi

LOL

I think you should add trademark troll to your keywords.

I will, my friend, i will... I didn't even inserted meta tags or meta description for the website, let me sleep first and tomorrow i'll SEO it till death

We will teach this Michael Pascazi trademark troll an internet lesson he will never forget

If some of you want to help me, please press the Submit a Report button on the website and write a little article about this trademark troll and i'll approve it as soon as possible, or at least leave some keyword stuffed comments(HTML allowed) in there, please

This guy definitely deserves to be on the bitcoin shitlist 

[sadpandatech]

One good peice of news so far, he did file his express abandonment on atleast his current claim here in the U.S.
See as updated in the current status here;
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85353491



p.s Is there anyone who can translate Italian better than Google Translate can? I posted here about his intentions to file in Italy and I have lost something in translation as it has thus far been shrugged off as an 'Amaericano concern' ;p
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27410.0

[incognegro]

Wow I'm stunned.
Prior art pRior aRt pr1oR arT!

Judging from the way he talks it would appear that guy would seriously benefit from some old fashioned gene pool elimination therapy.
You know, like the application of leeches etc..

[phillipsjk]

Wow I'm stunned.
Prior art pRior aRt pr1oR arT!

"Prior Art" is a term that applies to patents, not trademarks.

The term you are looking for is "prior use." Common words used to describe a product can not be trademarked.

[incognegro]

Good to know thanks

[ColdHardMetal]

Was there ever any more to this story?

[MoonShadow]

nope

[the founder]

In light of the Mt.Gox trademark discussion , this is now relevant.

[kjj]

Check dates before posting.  This thread has been dead since July 2011.

[the founder]

Check dates before posting.  This thread has been dead since July 2011.

Read the post prior before commenting.  Evidently this isn't dead.. not by a long shot.

In light of the Mt.Gox trademark discussion , this is now relevant.

This was wrong in 2011,  and it's wrong now in 2013.  Just because the player before was a lawyer,  and now it's an exchange doesn't make it any better.

The fact is the fact,  the term has seen prior use since 2009.

Sorry to jump on you like that kjj,  but this trademark issue is bugging me...  I don't see how this is any different that Mt.Gox got a trademark for the term. 

[gollum]

Check dates before posting.  This thread has been dead since July 2011.

Read the post prior before commenting.  Evidently this isn't dead.. not by a long shot.

In light of the Mt.Gox trademark discussion , this is now relevant.

This was wrong in 2011,  and it's wrong now in 2013.  Just because the player before was a lawyer,  and now it's an exchange doesn't make it any better.

The fact is the fact,  the term has seen prior use since 2009.

Sorry to jump on you like that kjj,  but this trademark issue is bugging me...  I don't see how this is any different that Mt.Gox got a trademark for the term.  

This discussion is very important to the bitcoin community now that MtGox is risking going bankrupt.
They got 2 assets of value that can and will be sold: customer database, trademark of bitcoin.
We should demand the Bitcoin Foundation to use the money they have earned through member fees to complain about the trademark of bitcoin so it can become revoked.

[btc_jumpnrl]

This whole thread is moot. MtGox released the trademark to the public for open use and the word has since become a generic term. Unless you append some extra words to '__ __ Bitcoin __ __' no one's getting a new trademark.