"Bitcoin" is now a registered trademark in the UK

[Dansker]

Trade Mark No.   Mark Text   File Date   Status   Nice Classes   Vienna Classes   Image   Picking List
E10103646    BITCOIN    07/07/2011    Registered    09 35 38 42        No image exists for Trade Mark E10103646.    
E10050466    bit coin    15/06/2011    Registered    09 38 41        Image for Trade Mark E10050466.    

One is a word mark, one has an (ugly) picture.

Both registered to Tribanne:

Applicant:
    Tibanne Co. Ltd.
    Cerulean Tower 15F 26-1 Sakuragaoka-Cho, Shibuya Tokyo, Japan, 150-8512
Representative:
    BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
    100 New Bridge Street, London, United Kingdom, EC4V 6JA

Is this news, or were you all familiar with the word "bitcoin" now being the intellectual property of Tribanne Co. Ltd. (Mt. Gox etc.) ?

[Stephen Gornick]

Some history:
 - http://mtgox.com/press_release_20111014.html
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48250.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46424.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26527.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39374.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.9
 - http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/07/07/0326213/lawyer-attempts-to-trademark-bitcoin
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26869.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26765.0
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27205.0

[Dansker]

Hi Stephen,

I think you are confusing the UK and the US?

[Stephen Gornick]

Hi Stephen,

I think you are confusing the UK and the US?

Nope, just showing that the topic has come up at least once before.   Though I did add some new links to the list.

[kiba]

The bitcoin trademark should eventually transferred to a bitcoin foundation or something.

[terrytibbs]

hey mr. karpeles please challenge me in court over this i'd love to show you how trademark law works

[JusticeForYou]

All this trademark stuff "isn't worth two bit coins."   

[MagicalTux]

hey mr. karpeles please challenge me in court over this i'd love to show you how trademark law works

We registered the Bitcoin trademark to protect it and allow anyone to use Bitcoins without risking to be attacked by our Pascazi friends (or other people).

More people using Bitcoin freely is of course good for our business. Some US lawyer registering the trademark in various countries with plans to profit from the registration and not by allowing more people to use Bitcoin is bad for our business.

We didn't register the trademark for the purpose of preventing others from using the word Bitcoin, but to protect ourselves and our customers from people who have this kind of mindset.

[julz]

hey mr. karpeles please challenge me in court over this i'd love to show you how trademark law works

We registered the Bitcoin trademark to protect it and allow anyone to use Bitcoins without risking to be attacked by our Pascazi friends (or other people).

More people using Bitcoin freely is of course good for our business. Some US lawyer registering the trademark in various countries with plans to profit from the registration and not by allowing more people to use Bitcoin is bad for our business.

We didn't register the trademark for the purpose of preventing others from using the word Bitcoin, but to protect ourselves and our customers from people who have this kind of mindset.

The intention behind this is excellent.

I'd be happier if it was a separate legal entity that held the trademark though.  If for some terrible reason (simultaneous earthquakes destroying your BTC wallets?) Tibanne went into administration - wouldn't the administrators simply view it as an asset for sale in order to recover funds for creditors?

Similarly, if Tibanne changes ownership - the original intention may not hold.

Still.. you can't account for every possibility. For now, it's well placed in your hands I think.

[niko]

The intention behind this is excellent.

I'd be happier if it was a separate legal entity that held the trademark though.  If for some terrible reason (simultaneous earthquakes destroying your BTC wallets?) Tibanne went into administration - wouldn't the administrators simply view it as an asset for sale in order to recover funds for creditors?

Similarly, if Tibanne changes ownership - the original intention may not hold.

Still.. you can't account for every possibility. For now, it's well placed in your hands I think.

This (change of ownership or bankruptcy) is a legitimate concern. Mark, what's the plan?  Also, thanks for all the hard and productive work.

[MagicalTux]

This (change of ownership or bankruptcy) is a legitimate concern. Mark, what's the plan?  Also, thanks for all the hard and productive work.

We're working on various solutions for this. The problem is if the trademark is not held by a company which trade is actually bitcoin related, it'd make the trademark mostly void.

Change of ownership shouldn't be an issue, as there is no point in preventing people from using bitcoins as an exchange (except if attempting to kill our own userbase). Bankruptcy could  be more of an issue, however we are working on solving this problem too as we explore possible options with our legal counsels. As soon as we have found a definitive option, we'll announce it.

[niko]

...
Change of ownership shouldn't be an issue, as there is no point in preventing people from using bitcoins as an exchange (except if attempting to kill our own userbase). Bankruptcy could  be more of an issue, however we are working on solving this problem too as we explore possible options with our legal counsels. As soon as we have found a definitive option, we'll announce it.

Good to know, thanks!

[Elwar]

Bump for relevance.

[ðºÞæ]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.

[squatter]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.

It doesn't matter. Anyone else can have the same copyright registered as well. Disputes over copyright ownership are sorted out in the courts, not the Copyright Office.

The whitepaper and original code were already copyrighted by default when they were published. Initial distribution under the MIT license destroys any chance Craig Wright has of charging rent to use the Bitcoin code, as he apparently intends to do.

It almost seems like another pathetic attempt to "prove" he's Satoshi more than anything else.

[franky1]

Disputes over copyright ownership are sorted out in the courts,

and that is the point, craig has a certificate naming him as the creator of a whitepaper of 2008 and a first edition version of the software in january 2009. the MIT licence was added later (someone else pointed out in another similar topic)
thus craig although a known scam artist. doesnt need to prove anything outside of court. but can for just cheap filing fee's now cause mischief by suing MIT or sourceforge or anything, using the certificate as his foot in the door... and then leave the door
open for the people he tries to sue to defend or settle.

its how scammers scam. they dont care about having real evidence to win a case in law. they just care to force others to waste time. money defending. in the hopes they dont defend. thus win by default. or they settle for low % of defense cost to just pay him to go away.

after all look what he done in the past. he managed to scam the aussie tax office for millions using only a text file of PUBLIC keys. you would be surprised what could be done with a certificate that has your name on it saying you created a whitepaper and first edition of software. that has been notorised by a government.

[squatz1]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.

It doesn't matter. The whitepaper and original code were already copyrighted by default when they were published. Initial distribution under the MIT license destroys any chance Craig Wright has of charging rent to use the Bitcoin code, as he apparently intends to do.

It almost seems like another pathetic attempt to "prove" he's Satoshi more than anything else.

I don't understand the rationale behind him still attempting to prove that he's Satoshi, he does it in a way that makes him look like a phony and HE IS A PHONY. He can't sign keys, can't move some funds from the initial blocks, etc, etc.

This guy is just making a fool of himself, and I hope at some point his BSV supporters notice that.

[vit05]

Dr. Craig has now been issued a fully vetted certificate of copyright by US Government Copyright office.
This can not be contested unless you have standing so this is now firm.
Dr. Craig has not applied today, he did that months back.

This is so stupid. Why does he seek so much to prove in justice that he is Satoshi? For that reason it does not prove anything more substantial, as any person who believes in cryptography would. He wants the recognition of those who have no idea what Bitcoin is. The same recognition that TV personalities receive.

[figmentofmyass]

I don't understand the rationale behind him still attempting to prove that he's Satoshi, he does it in a way that makes him look like a phony and HE IS A PHONY. He can't sign keys, can't move some funds from the initial blocks, etc, etc.

This guy is just making a fool of himself, and I hope at some point his BSV supporters notice that.

sadly, mainstream people aren't going to research his claims and debunk them. many people will take his words at face value, particularly since the media happily plays into this sort of nonsense. those are the people wright is going after---not reasonable people who are capable of seeing through his BS.

it's still not obvious to me what his endgame is. he may just be using these stunts to pump and dump BSV, which in and of itself looks like a cash grab. unfortunately, BSV supporters are going to be biased towards whatever is good for the price.

[franky1]

I don't understand the rationale behind him still attempting to prove that he's Satoshi, he does it in a way that makes him look like a phony and HE IS A PHONY. He can't sign keys, can't move some funds from the initial blocks, etc, etc.

This guy is just making a fool of himself, and I hope at some point his BSV supporters notice that.

sadly, mainstream people aren't going to research his claims and debunk them. many people will take his words at face value, particularly since the media happily plays into this sort of nonsense. those are the people wright is going after---not reasonable people who are capable of seeing through his BS.

it's still not obvious to me what his endgame is. he may just be using these stunts to pump and dump BSV, which in and of itself looks like a cash grab. unfortunately, BSV supporters are going to be biased towards whatever is good for the price.

forget about his BSV. thats just the subterfuge. thats his fake 'how i make my money without scamming because blockchains are transparent".. Bsv is just a crap coin, its not going anywhere and wont be a success.. just look at the lack of merchant utility and realise its a pointless crapcoin

how he is really making fiat is from his VC investment scams, patent cease and desist scams.his end game is to not win patents using evidence of actual ownership. but to use flimsy foot in the door 'certificate' of a government document with his name on it saying he authored X to start C&D claims. knowing that without him having to fight, he makes/forces the recipient to have to defend. if they dont defend he wins by dfault. if they try to defend it costs them money, thus they usually attempt to compromise a settlement for a % of the defense costs. and thats his game
he hopes to grab as much fiat as he can to just pay off the aussie government to get them off his back.
its the typical ponzi trick. scam one to pay another to keep the second one from chasing him