NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bluecollardistro.com/reggieland/viewtopic.php?t=4314


Dear Bluecollardistro.com Registrant Sean Ingram,

Please be advised that FAMILYPANTS is a registered trademark of Dave Redl
and is the brand of FamilyPants.com.

There is a profile on Bluecollardistro.com titled "FamilyPants" and
information to contact "FamilyPants" with "FamilyPants" information.

http://www.bluecollardistro.com/reggieland/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=82

This link appears in various search engines such as Google.com. This is
misleading to true potential customers of FAMILYPANTS.com.
The use of this mark is not approved by the owner of the mark FAMILYPANTS
nor is Bluecollardistro.com affiliated with FAMILYPANTS.

Please remove all instances of the mark, FAMILYPANTS from all parts of
your web site, Bluecollardistro.com, immediately to avoid legal action.

On behalf of FamilyPants.com, we realize mistakes happen and wish you and
your site continued success.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter please contact:
Dave Redl
dave@familypants.com



Do you think a forum user name can or should be covered under copyright law? Or should it be fair use.

If it isn't, there's a whole lotta 12-year-olds what needs suing

Well, no. You're not using the name to promote a good or service, so it's not like a brand or anything. That would be like starting a company called "UpwardThrust.com" or "Tree.com" and then making anyone with that name take it down.

I mean, my nation is apparently a Cypriot clothing manufacturer, so I guess I'm unwittingly violating copyright law

Better go patent my name. *runs to patent office*

I wouldn't think so, but if we can, I want to copyright Joey Lawrence. Think I could do that?

Not unless you are making money with the name or in a competing business.

When Sun was suing everybody for using Java, they lost a case because they went after an importer as the name was something like Javac Importers.

But a lawyer type can explain it better.....

There are three general protections available for intellectual property: Patent, Trademark and Copyright. (Well, there are also trade secret laws, but that's minor and irrelevant in general).

In order for something to patentable, it has to be novel, non-obvious and useful, so that would never apply to a word or phrase. (I think that it was fairly obgious that this was outside the scope of patent law anyway.)

Copyright protects expression, not ideas - unlike patent law -, however a word or phrase can never be copyrighted. It's insufficient, even if fanciful, to consitute copyrightable expression. (So next time someone tells you something like threepeat is copyright, you can tell them they are full of shit).

Under trademark law, a word or phrase can recieve protection, but only if certain conditions are fulfilled. (For example a non-generic fanciful name.) However trademarks are not really intellectual property per se - though corporations like to think of them that way - but a method for protecting the public from fraudulent sourced goods. In other words, only rolls-royce is allowed to make an sell cars rolls royce, to prevent Yugo trying to pass of some of it's models as 'rolls.' So as long as competing entity is not in 'trade', (or sometimes in the same area of trade if the competing business is using a mark that is not fanciful &c.) then there is little anyone can do to stop you from using the word or phrase from their trade mark.

Further trademark law, is really more about preventing confusion and dilution of the trademark to protect the public interest. If I started and NS puppet, called coca-cola, and began to post racist shit or something, there still would be very little coca-cola could do (even if they wished to claim 'tarnishment' or their mark), because it would be fairly obvious that the NS profile and the company were not related.

Anway, no! They can't tell you stop using familypants. They can make you a cash offer to stop, but that's it.

There are three general protections available for intellectual property: Patent, Trademark and Copyright. (Well, there are also trade secret laws, but that's minor and irrelevant in general).

In order for something to patentable, it has to be novel, non-obvious and useful, so that would never apply to a word or phrase. (I think that it was fairly obgious that this was outside the scope of patent law anyway.)

Copyright protects expression, not ideas - unlike patent law -, however a word or phrase can never be copyrighted. It's insufficient, even if fanciful, to consitute copyrightable expression. (So next time someone tells you something like threepeat is copyright, you can tell them they are full of shit).

Under trademark law, a word or phrase can recieve protection, but only if certain conditions are fulfilled. (For example a non-generic fanciful name.) However trademarks are not really intellectual property per se - though corporations like to think of them that way - but a method for protecting the public from fraudulent sourced goods. In other words, only rolls-royce is allowed to make an sell cars rolls royce, to prevent Yugo trying to pass of some of it's models as 'rolls.' So as long as competing entity is not in 'trade', (or sometimes in the same area of trade if the competing business is using a mark that is not fanciful &c.) then there is little anyone can do to stop you from using the word or phrase from their trade mark.

Further trademark law, is really more about preventing confusion and dilution of the trademark to protect the public interest. If I started and NS puppet, called coca-cola, and began to post racist shit or something, there still would be very little coca-cola could do (even if they wished to claim 'tarnishment' or their mark), because it would be fairly obvious that the NS profile and the company were not related.

Anway, no! They can't tell you stop using familypants. They can make you a cash offer to stop, but that's it.


So... I can't copyright the english language and make millions? :(

My question would be "what country's copyright law applies?" And who would they go after--a user, or the owner of the forum on which the user participates?

My question would be "what country's copyright law applies?" And who would they go after--a user, or the owner of the forum on which the user participates?

It's a trademark, so it would be govenerned by the madrid convention.

Also, it's a cease and desist. So they go after the user. (Though they may have asked the forum owner to delete the account also.)

It's all bullshit though.

So why can a company like Mc Donald's put a copyright on a phrase like "I'm loving it"?

I don't get it. Maybe I should get myself a copyright (or is it trademark? Man, this is confuuusing!) on the simple phrase "I love you!" or "I hate you!" and bam! I'd be making bucks everytime someone says it?!?

(Same goes for patenting genes that everyone of us owns - but that'd take it too far and maybe hijackthis! thread).

So why can a company like Mc Donald's put a copyright on a phrase like "I'm loving it"?


Short answer, they can't. It's not fanciful.

They can claim its copyright, but the protection will be non-existent.

*looks out window to mob of every New Yorker except myself*:D

Seriously, I'm not too worried.

So... I can't copyright the english language and make millions? :(

No the auto industry already beat you to it! ;)

*looks out window to mob of every New Yorker except myself*:D

Seriously, I'm not too worried.

*mugs N Y C for his name*

Not really because the person isn't really using the name for profit.

*looks at his name*

Ah, hell....

*waits for lawyers to come rushing into his room*

Interesting...several routes you could go with this, depending on how irksome you find cease-and-desist letters to be:

1. Ignore it. They will probably send you more e-mails, but that's what spam blockers are for.

2. Reply. I think a simple "Bite me" would be appropriate in this case ;)

3. File for a declaratory judgement. This is a nice little thing someone came up with for dealing with b.s. cease-and-desist notices, especially when you are certain you are just being bullied. It's what Jib Jab did to Ludlow music after Ludlow kept sending them cease-and-desist letters because of their "This Land" parody. Once Ludlow was on the defensive, they settled quickly out of fear that they would be shown to not have a copyright on the song either.