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

[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).

[1715408258]

1715408258

[1715408258]

1715408258

[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.