Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Trademarks "Cyberlaw"
BigTimOBrien writes to mention the EFF is reporting that self-proclaimed cyberlawyer, Eric Menhart, has decided to trademark use of the term "cyberlaw" and is threatening other lawyers with legal action over the term. "I wish I could say I was surprised by this one, but such overreaching invocations of IP rights are all too common -- even where, as in this case, there are no actual "rights" to speak of. But an IP lawyer should know that courts (and trademark examiners, and many tech companies that might be potential clients) don't look kindly on efforts to abuse trademark law to control everyday language. Here's hoping Menhart figures that out fast."
... will not work with regard to the chicks, I suspect, though.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I'll wish the fellow luck on his quest (nothing like taking on a hard problem) but I don't like his chances of succeeding in trademarking the term . . .
Anything to get rid of that horrible "cyber" prefix on ordinary stuff. Please make it all go away. Please.
Cheers,
Ian
I would say that needlessly trademarking quick buzzwords like that is obiously not what trademark law was meant for, but who really cares about "Cyber-____" ? That went out in like, the 80s. If he truly is trapped in the 80s, may God have mercy on his soul.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
At least, the first mention of "cyberlaw" I can find on Google Groups is this EFF newsletter from 1992-04-30:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.org.eff.talk/msg/bc39f25662095d9a >
Isn't it just like a cheap soap opera? It's like watching the 512th episode of Dallas - the bad guy walks in, make some outrageous claim and uses all means to bully the good guys - again. Just like in episode 511, 510, 509, ... The bottom line here is that the world is full of bullies, who who really know what real life is and who don't care because they just want everything RIGHT NOW!!!
Oops, reading old Usenet groups took me back. Here is a proper link.
Somebody please trademark "Intellectual Property"! We'd certainly like to hear less of it.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
I don't understand why is everybody focusing on this lawyer.
The real culprit here is the idiot who approved the claim.
Where's Jack Cade when you need him?
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I don't think I've ever used the word 'cyberlaw' ever, and I talk to lawyers on a pretty regular basis about laws pertaining to this Internet thing
(TM)Well (R)You (TM)know (TM), (R)it (R)was (c)bound (R)to (TM)happen (R)sometimes(TM). (R)((R)All (R)trademarks (R)owned (R)by (TM)their (R)owners(R))(TM).
Just callin' it like I see it.
Wikipedia has something new to add to their article on Cyberlaw, which dates back to January, 2003.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
... 'unmitigated, indecypherable, unattuned asshole!'? (Captcha: attune)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Now who's going to come forth and claim cybersex? I'm sure someone here could ;).
Menhart, what have you done? You've changed the future! You've created a time paradox!
If he gets away with it I want to get in first with copywriting "Fire" and "Wheel"
... when they start turning on themselves it must be a feeding frenzy.
Is it really wise to go after the one group most adequately prepared to sue back? Seriously, sue a bunch of lawyers? All you are going to end up with is a bunch of countersuits and years of legal wrangling. He should have picked a demographic to go after that couldn't arm themselves with infinite free legal representation. I mean, what, the RIAA has some sort of monopoly on suing the old and infirm?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
1. Eric, who graduated law school around 2005, was one of the lawyers who was scammed in a work-from-home scheme on craigslist.
2. He is currently suing the scammer, but apparently without success so far; his motion for discovery was denied.
3. His client successes page consists of, essentially:
(a) we won an anti-spam appeal... after we lost the initial case... in which we were the plaintiffs when we were in law school.
(b) A startup needed some startup forms. We drafted some startup forms.
(c) A journal needed some licensing forms. We drafted some licensing forms.
4. His "Attorneys" page talks about "the people in the organization", and then lists: Eric Menhart. His two "Appellate Advocacy" cases include (a) his own case, from 3(a), and (b) one other case, which appears to be a TCPA junk fax lawsuit.
5. His "Alliances" page starts by pointing out that he's only a few blocks from the White House, and "near" the Supreme Court and other courthouses - including being within 100 miles of other circuit courts. It then addresses the actual issue of alliances: They have "numerous strategic alliances with other lawyers and law firms around the nation." That's it.
6. Among his seven "Practice Areas" pages, the only page actually claiming any experience is the "Litigation" page, which states: "CyberLaw® offers substantial litigation experience. When you retain the firm, your matter will be handled by an attorney with state and federal trial and appellate experience. The firm is also experienced with alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as before the American Arbitration Association."
We know from #3 that Eric gained "state and federal trial and appellate experience" by... filing a lawsuit on his own behalf as a law student, losing it, appealing it, and winning on appeal. And one other case. We don't know if he has other experience in a courtroom. We don't know what he means by "substantial".
7. His "binary logo" - probably mandatory for any firm calling itself CyberLaw - is "11010101011010100101000". That's 23 bits.
I know you can debunk a patent with prior art. Might not 'prior use' debunk this trademark?
A self-proclaimed lawyer is threatening real lawyers with legal action? Not sure if this is gonna work out.
He could keep quite busy practicing his "cyberlaw" on the countless bitter lawyers and techs spamming and DOS attacking him for this little stunt.
Solve this very quickly: Dilute his trademark by spelling it lower case and use the term in a link to an(other) attorney's site. He can't sue the attorney and can't sue you. If you recall, Google got upset when everyone was using "googling" and they tried in vain to stop it because it would dilute the trademark they had created, and that was Google, a company that actually is doing something worth trademarking not some half-wit attorney who thinks he knows cyberlaw or even cyberlaw or possibly cyberlaw and EVEN cyberlaw.
Take that ya farging bastitch.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I regret to inform you that I've trademarked the word 'trademark'. Please send me five dollars every time you use this term, or I'll send my cyber-lawyer after you.
Slashdot obliges by feeding the troll, as always. Yawn.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I've trademarked the name Eric Menhart
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Unless this is just a publicity stunt (which I suspect it is, and is a bad one at that because it just shows how stupid he is,) this trademark will never get approved because it has no secondary meaning.
If trademarking stuff makes it go away, maybe we can get him to trademark "e-law", "weblaw", "nanolaw", "IANAL", "I-for-one-law" and "attorney-at-law." Especially attorney-at-law.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
maybe he meant to say 'substantiable', i.e. can be provided as substance or something real. numerically, he has a '1' bit for experience as opposed to a '0'; realistically, not all that 'substantial' but still, nevertheless, 'of substance'. who cares? he's a weasily worm who'll probably become somewhat of a laughingstock to professional lawyers but will be paraded around by mouth-breathing marketers and hoaxers until the day he's forced to sell his trademark to get out of debt.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Am I the only one who things cyber is a stupid, stupid word?
I never use it, even though it seems I'm sometimes surrounded by people that do.
I prefer Electronic Crime or eCrime to Cybercrime, for example.
Internet Cafe or Net Cafe to CyberCafe and so on.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
Windows, Shell and there will be many others with common words. Walkman however is not.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Lawyers are about to be put out of business due to some recent developments in intelligent agents.
Have gnu, will travel.
Wants to trademark the term "sue you"? He'd make a bank in his industry alone.
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
You're Fired (tm)
EOM
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
They can trademark cyber-dork, use it in place of his name in every legal document he's involved in, and sue him for trademark infringement if he tries to use it in a defamation suit to get them to stop using it.
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. A sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament".
:)
:)
Later on he should patent the ice cube
From what I can gather from the web, without too researching it too deeply is:
"Generic words that are widely used to describe any number of businesses in the same field may not be appropriated by a single competitor. For example, a professional partnership of attorneys would receive no trade name protection for emblazoning the name "law office" across its front doors. Such a name would be considered generic in nature, telling consumers nothing unique or unusual about that particular business"
It would seem to me that cyberlaw is no different then patent law, child custody law, criminal law, property law, copyright law, etc., in that it refers to a particular subset of law. In of itself, I do not believe it is possible to claim any of those. If so, I guess I should trademark the rest tomorrow
that was the single most hilarious shot i've seen in a while!