Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:33:43 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Someone Random Trademarked "bitcoin" : Now we can't use the term?  (Read 35091 times)
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:35:00 AM
 #181

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?

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
1480890823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480890823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480890823
Reply with quote  #2

1480890823
Report to moderator
1480890823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480890823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480890823
Reply with quote  #2

1480890823
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480890823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480890823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480890823
Reply with quote  #2

1480890823
Report to moderator
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:36:34 AM
 #182

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


Quote
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?

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:39:07 AM
 #183

ain't no thief like a lawyer...
bankers..
car salesmen. *grumbles* "bastards, 20 grand for a 15.5 grand car"

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:41:15 AM
 #184

what about the MIT Expat (open source) License?

if it's licensed, how can it be trademarked later by a different entity?
hashcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:50:49 AM
 #185

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:56:01 AM
 #186

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.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 06:56:09 AM
 #187

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:05:17 AM
 #188

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 ...

"MOOOOOOOM! SOME MYTHICAL WOLFBEAST GUY IS MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE INTERNET!!!!"
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:16:35 AM
 #189

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

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
 #190

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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:33:25 AM
 #191

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:34:45 AM
 #192

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:37:53 AM
 #193

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:48:34 AM
 #194

We could all leave his firm(s) negative ratings on google maps and other rating websites.
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:52:22 AM
 #195

you think he's got his name trademarked?
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 07:57:52 AM
 #196

you think he's got his name trademarked?

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


twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 08:00:08 AM
 #197

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
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
July 07, 2011, 08:00:22 AM
 #198

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.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
kripz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 08:00:45 AM
 #199

you think he's got his name trademarked?

ahahahaha

do it.

 Merged mining, free SMS notifications, PayPal payout and much more.
http://btcstats.net/sig/JZCODg2
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
July 07, 2011, 08:13:06 AM
 #200

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.  Wink
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!