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

[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?

[1714822019]

1714822019

[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.