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

[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?

[1714153766]

1714153766

[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.