Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Trademark Troll Now Sending Bogus DMCA Takedowns
An anonymous reader writes "A couple weeks ago, Slashdot wrote about a lawyer named Michael Pascazi, who was trying to trademark Bitcoin. Techdirt picked up on the story, including Pascazi's evidence of the trademark. Pascazi has now sent Techdirt a bogus DMCA takedown request over the post, claiming that the header and footer in his stationery, which appears via an embed on the story, violates his copyright. He appears to be claiming that simply posting any version of his stationery is a copyright violation. It's not clear if the content in question is even copyrightable, and if it is, how Techdirt's use isn't fair use."
3...2...1...
He should be summarily executed as an example and to prevent such foolishness in the future. We don't need him polluting our gene pool.
Arrogant and dumb person does arrogant and dumb things: Show at 11.
This is just simple fraud. Surely.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Editors: Pls2splchk, kthxbai. In this case it should be stationEry. This idiot troll isn't going anywhere (pun intended).
If you're going to misuse trademark law you might as well misuse copyright law as well.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Stationary stationery.. The stationery that doesn't go anywhere.
Learn to spell.
I wonder if he is a card carrying member of the church of scientology?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Once you hit -10 you instantly die. Same with meta voting on driving. Every car has a heads-up display and you can instantly vote other drivers up or down. At -10 your car turns off. PS, I patented both of those already.
Time for Slashdot to deal with this ourselves.
Someone get and post his address, then everyone send him all the junkmail you can.
If it works for spammers, trolls should enjoy it too.
Does this mean no more /. bitcoin stories? How do I support this guy?
A trademark, according to US law, has to be an adjective. Hence "Band-Aid brand bandages". He's using it purely as a noun "Bitcoins are..." His trademark can be easily struck down on that basis alone. Ironically, using a trademark as a noun is exactly the thing that depreciates the trademark as a protectable entity. (Again: See Band-Aid. They fought and fought to make sure that people not just call all bandages "band-aids", because using their trademark as a noun instead of an adjective is what dilutes it.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
1.Sue them, for filing a false DMCA claim.
2.Collect damages - monetary losses and legal expenses.
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/Internet-Law-and-Intellectual-Property-Articles/Consequences-of-filing-a-false-DMCA-Takedown-Request.shtml
Stop whining, and put your money where your mouth is, people.
Please help metamoderate.
Can someone drop a line to Anonymous. This seems like just the sort of thing they should handle.
Went to USPTO to see it with my own eyes. The record in question is currently marked as "Abandoned July 7, 2011" and effectively DEAD - the trademark seams invalid. Could somebody elaborate, doesn't this only mean that the trademark is in some limbo stage before it goes "live" or something?
All involved lawyers should be disbarred. Not only for the initial, in-bad-faith filing, but also for abusing the legal system with in-bad-faith DMCA letters.
Where to start.... *looks* Ah fuckit. I can't even begin pointing out what's wrong with this without getting into a dissertation on trademark and copyright law. This guy that sent the letters is obviously a "talking asshole" or what is called (in technical terms) a "cartooney." You find them everywhere on the 'net and if you go through life never being impotently threatened by idiots like this, you aren't trying hard enough. (You get extra points if you get cartooneyed by a "lawyer" in Italy defending the "honor" of a porn website)
It's things like this that makes me think that, some day down the road, victims of moronic vexatious litigants are not going to bother with court anymore to rectify shit like this, but rather just have the asshole in question killed outright. And I would stand by and watch the entertainment and approve.
--
BMO
I'm not entirely sure that this is 100% correct... after all I think the Google Search Engine still owns the trademark on Google but no one says Google Search Engine. This could be said as Bitcoin Virtual Currency.
will this count as strike? under the new ISP copyright plan and you will you have to pay $35 to clear your name from the this BS?
Can we get rid of the Bitcoin stories until something actually interesting happens? (Like "gains widespread adoption" or "is forbidden by the government" or something of that scale.)
Parent is a moron. Windows is a registered trademark and is not an adjective.
Someone needs to send this d-bag a nicely formatted stationery letter with a good preamble and all that, with simply the words "Get f---ed." as the body of the message.
Anyone wanna give BitCoin the BitFinger?
But it's not appropriate or necessary to kill ALL the lawyers.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The applicant explicitly abandoned the trademark "BITCOIN". They formally abandoned it on July 7 via the USPTO's online system, and immediately followed up with express mail. This is quite unusual. They'd only filed the application on June 30, and the USPTO hadn't even replied yet.
It's dead.
Slashdot needs a "Number of days since last BitCoin Story" thing on the homepage, kind of like those "Number of Days Since Last Accident" signs at some factories.
I can't imagine we'd need more than three bits (unsigned) to express that value.
From this page:
"Microsoft trademarks should never be used in the possessive or plural form. They should be used as a proper adjective followed by an appropriate descriptor."
Windows Operating System. Windows describes a type of operating system, hence an adjective. While it can be used as a noun, most companies avoid it (though windows doesn't have this issue due to no competition creation windows clones). Trademark names must describe the name of a product, not type. If that name becomes synonymous with the type instead, it's no longer under trademark protection.
Hence, get your facts straight before you call people a moron.
Using trademark as an adjective is more of a well stated guideline to protect trademark rather then an absolute rule. And google did at one point fear loosing their trademark and attempted to "correct" people who was using google as a verb. (They would lose trademark is google became synonymous with general searching rather then searching with google).
http://www.webpronews.com/google-losing-fight-for-its-name-2007-05
It seems while google being used as a verb stayed within using google hence why trademark is kept.
Bitcoin brand bitcoins?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Windows Operating System.
Nope. Sorry boyo:
Word Mark MICROSOFT WINDOWS
It is not a mark for "Windows Operating System" as you falsely claim.
Yes, and that is taken from rules of the International Trademark Assocation not US law.
Ouch!
From http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6222.ars : "So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce."
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Microsoft trademarked Windows operating system. Microsoft would not be able to sue a company for copying/using their trademark by installing an opening in a wall fitted with glass panes, commonly known as a window.
People also tend to dilute trademarks by using them as nouns, like Band-Aids or Kleenex, rather than their full name Band-Aid bandages or Kleenex tissues or their generic names of bandages/tissues. This is why you see these companies fight so hard to attempt to prevent dilution of their trademarks, if they don't they could lose their trademark protections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution
Also see the long Trademark fight between Apple Corps (The Beetles) and Apple Computers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
I don't understand the outright rejection of bitcoin for no apparent reason by some slashdotters. It really is the perfect topic: p2p, crypto-anarchism, distributed protocol...
That's a good idea. They should do it for each category and also include an "average number of days between stories". I felt like we were overdue for a Bitcoin story.
It took years to get Slashdot to add an Ubuntu logo so that stories didn't have to use the Debian one. Why does bitcoin get fast-tracked?
Why doesn't anyone report him to ACLU to have him disbarred for fraudulent litigation?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
From this page:
"Microsoft trademarks should never be used in the possessive or plural form. They should be used as a proper adjective followed by an appropriate descriptor."
Does that mean it is doubly illegal to say "I installed both my copies of Windows"?
1.Sue them, for filing a false DMCA claim.
Is it a false claim if he has a current trademark application?
This lawyer could be doing all geeks a great service.
If handled correctly this could end up in a review of the DMCA rules, possibly (but I am not that naive) a change of the law to make it more compliant with the real world.
And the same with the copyright... And possibly the patent system... After the ruling that you can't copyright something that someone else have made and the sue them, perhaps the same will go for patents, you can no longer patent someone else's inventions and sue them over it?
So that guy is Bitcoin, right? I wouldn't like to be him when bankers, governmnents, IRS, wall street etc. want Bitcoin dead.
BTC's are indeed interesting in a geeky way. And indeed I participated most vigorously in several stories about it. (Personally, I reject it for a lot of reasons that mostly have to do with the complete economic ineptitude of the creation curve.)
But they are not so interesting that we need twice a week stories about it that have absolutely nothing to do with its geeky aspects.
Wrong:
Word Mark MICROSOFT WINDOWS
Didn't even bother to do the couple of minutes of research instead of making false claims?
No. Nowhere is it said to be illegal by Microsoft or anyone else. Microsoft's statement comes from rules of the International Trademark Association for the prevention of your trademark from being diluted.
I hope he wants to own the image.
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-symbol-of-justice-image6642136
Is this appropriation of anthers property?
Bitcoin digital currency alternative. :-P
(P.S., *ANYONE* can use to "claim" a trademark. It's just easier to defend when you file it with the USPTO. Once they have accepted it, you can use ®.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
A "Word Mark" covers the exact graphical presentation of the words. So, for example, "Coca Cola" is a word mark covering the words "Coca Cola" in the script font the Coca Cola corporation uses. Likewise "Ford" written in the script font is a word mark of the Ford Motor Company.
For example, the Ford Motor Company owns the text trademark on "Ford" as it relates to automobiles. However, it has been allowed for non-automotive companies to use the name "Ford". These other companies CANNOT, however, use the script "Ford" in a blue circle, because that is a Word Mark assigned to Ford Motor Company.
A text Trademark covers the name itself, not an exact graphical representation.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.