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

[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.

[1715376077]

1715376077

[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?