Author Threatens To Sue Book Reviewers Over Trademark Infringement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Author Threatens To Sue Book Reviewers Over Trademark Infringement

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 11, 2012 @09:14PM from the let-me-know-how-that-works-out-for-you dept.

Nate the greatest writes "Do you know what is crazier than sending DMCA notices to a site like Lendink which doesn't host any content? It's when an author threatens to sue book reviewers over trademarks. Jazan Wild, a comics creator, is sending out threatening emails to any and all book blogs who review a recently published book called Carnival of Souls. The book was written by Melissa Marr, and it happens to use a title which Jazan Wild owns the registered trademark. He's also suing the publisher for trademark infringement, but HarperCollins is laughing it off. The book blog Bookalicious posted the email they got from Jazan. Needless to say they did not take down the review."

218 comments

Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-09-11 21:23 · Score: 5, Funny

If DMCA can be applied to kitchen, maybe a chef who trademarked "salt" would sue anyone who dare to use salt in their cooking

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by daem0n1x · 2012-09-11 21:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That would lower everybody's blood pressure! Seems like a good move. All food will taste like shit, though...
2. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by daem0n1x · 2012-09-11 22:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I can only reply with one thing:
  A big fucking WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
3. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:53 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  If DMCA can be applied to kitchen, maybe a chef who trademarked "salt" would sue anyone who dare to use salt in their cooking
  1. DMCA has exactly NOTHING to do with trademark claims.
  2. IF someone were to trademark the word "salt", it would not apply to the use of salt but the use of the word "salt", for example in a recipe.
  3. If such a trademark were ever actually granted, and they did NOT file suit against someone else using it, that would amount to failure to protect the trademark, thus rendering it invalid. So they HAVE to sue (or at least issue cease and desist).
  4. Such a trademark would not be granted. You have to show that the TM is synonymous with your brand and isn't already a commonly used term.
  5. Trademark does not cover any possible use of a word. Rather, it covers uses of the word in which one brand could be mistaken for another brand of similar or otherwise related items.
  In short, you're either clueless or a troll. Based on your first post position, I think it's safe to call you a Troll.
4. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by slartibartfastatp · 2012-09-11 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if 3-hit-combo of wooshes or great sarcasm.
  
  --
  -- --
5. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by RaceProUK · 2012-09-11 23:26 · Score: 2
  
  You've set off the douche alarm!
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
6. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by RaceProUK · 2012-09-11 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  *head explodes trying to understand AC*
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
7. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by cpt+kangarooski · 2012-09-12 00:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  2. IF someone were to trademark the word "salt", it would not apply to the use of salt but the use of the word "salt", for example in a recipe.
  No, if there were a SALT mark, it would not apply to the word 'salt' where that word is used to mean an actual salt substance, e.g. common table salt. It would be generic in that context, and anyone could use it. OTOH, if you had a line of clothing called SALT, or SALT-brand brake pads for automobiles or something, that would be fine. If it helps, think of Apple, which has the APPLE mark for computers and consumer electronics, but has no power in the realm of fruit.
  
  4. Such a trademark would not be granted. You have to show that the TM is synonymous with your brand and isn't already a commonly used term.
  Again, as with APPLE for computers, you can use commonly used words as valid marks. You just can't use them in the context in which they're already commonly used. APPLE is a generic mark for fruit, and thus unprotectable; but it was arbitrary for computers, and thus quite strong.
  
  3. If such a trademark were ever actually granted, and they did NOT file suit against someone else using it, that would amount to failure to protect the trademark, thus rendering it invalid. So they HAVE to sue (or at least issue cease and desist).
  No, a mark holder does not have to file suit or even send off nasty letters when other people use the same thing. That's not required at all. So long as the relevant group of customers are not confused about the commonality of sources of goods and services labeled with the mark, there is no confusion, and no danger to the viability of the mark, and thus no need to take action to defend it lest it be lost.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
8. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by psiclops · 2012-09-12 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  i didnt see the word racist in his post. was it some sort of easter egg and how do i unlock it?
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
9. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by History's+Coming+To · 2012-09-12 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot white people, they come from Africa too.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
10. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  I live in Africa. You guys had girly bees that needed improvement to begin with
11. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by RaceProUK · 2012-09-12 00:45 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Admonished by an AC! However will I live?
  *returns to SSRS 2005 (yes I know it's crap, no it's not my choice)*
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
12. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Please take your meds and leave.
13. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, here in the effen states, our damn food has so much salt that I don't need to use any for cooking purposes. That's right, there's salt added even to those lovely fresh cut pork chops and steaks at the butcher shop and it's added by the packing house.
14. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by dgatwood · 2012-09-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  3. If such a trademark were ever actually granted, and they did NOT file suit against someone else using it, that would amount to failure to protect the trademark, thus rendering it invalid. So they HAVE to sue (or at least issue cease and desist).
  No, a mark holder does not have to file suit or even send off nasty letters when other people use the same thing. That's not required at all. So long as the relevant group of customers are not confused about the commonality of sources of goods and services labeled with the mark, there is no confusion, and no danger to the viability of the mark, and thus no need to take action to defend it lest it be lost.
  Worse than that, they can be countersued for doing so, as purely nominative use of a mark to name the covered product is prima facie protected use of a trademark. It would be particularly extraordinary if such a suit ever succeeded. As such, this lawsuit, if it ever hit the courts, would almost certainly be deemed frivolous, possibly rising to the level of barratry, and at a minimum, this clown would owe the reviewers attorneys' fees and probably additional damages.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
15. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  then why all the hoopla with apple records? a computer company is not a record company.
  hell, even a music store is not a record company, and only a retard would confuse the 2.
16. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by dgatwood · 2012-09-12 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well, upon rereading the summary, it turns out it's a purely nominative use of a mark to describe an uncovered product. Still, it's a factual, nominative use, without which it would be impossible to describe the product in question, so it should be pretty solidly on the "this guy has no case" side of the line.
  Now whether he has a case against the publisher or not is another question.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
17. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  "then why all the hoopla with apple records?"
  They've already been to court. Apple Computer (as they were known then) agreed to stay out of the music business, to avoid confusion. Then they created iTunes. Probably a big part of why it took so long to get The Beatles on iTunes.
18. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by cwsumner · 2012-09-17 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  That would lower everybody's blood pressure! Seems like a good move. All food will taste like shit, though...
  Actually, it would not lower most people's blood pressure. Without salt, people die. Check out "heat stroke".
19. Re:Next, chef sues recipe users ! by daem0n1x · 2012-09-17 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Whoooooooosh!
Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 21:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I feel bad for the guy. He's been using the mark since 2004 for his business with his wife. That's their brand. Sending the C&D's to review sites was a mistake, but these obviously aren't going out from a lawyers office... he's trying to get it solved himself while Harper Collins gives him the finger.
I generally don't like C&D's, but I don't like a huge publisher just screwing this guy and his wife because they can, either.
1. Re:Well... by ledow · 2012-09-11 21:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As others have pointed out, "Carnival of Souls", even if trademarkable, is a pretty generic name and has been in use for FAR, FAR longer. Hell, I'm sure I've played at least one computer game where that was the name of a level, for instance.
  It's like me trademarking "Emotional Rollercoaster" and then trying to enforce it. If he had a case, it's only against HarperCollins. And if he had a case, it would be expensive and difficult to win and would make him a lot of money from them playing off his established trademark.
  I doubt he has a case. He has to enforce the trademark. But he does not have to enforce third-party reviews of the trademark (hell, that just adds to evidence of damages if anything else). But the second you sue HarperCollins, the first thing they will have done is work out if he had a case. Chances are that he just doesn't.
2. Re:Well... by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 21:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Reading a bit I would agree with the very un-/. opinion that this is not completely without merit.
  The C&D's to review sites are plain wrong, but he may indeed have a valid claim to the trademark with the publisher or author.
  It's not so much the title of a single book, which cannot be trademarked, but a title of a series of books, which can be trademarked.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
3. Re:Well... by Tx · 2012-09-11 21:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FTA: "Any sane person would have put a few minutes thought into the matter and realized that such an obvious phrase as Carnival of Souls would likely have been used as a title many times before. In fact, Bookfinder turned up at least a couple dozen different books, movies, TV episodes, and more – some of which dates back to 1962. And if you look inside books, Google says that it found the phrase no less than 5600 times (with some duplication, obviously)."
  You do get that, right? A phrase used dozens of times as the title of books, movies, and TV episodes. If it was an original phrase that had never been used before, then his case might have some merit, but it's not, and he's just trolling.
  
  --
  Oh no... it's the future.
4. Re:Well... by paiute · 2012-09-11 22:14 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You do get that, right? A phrase used dozens of times as the title of books, movies, and TV episodes. If it was an original phrase that had never been used before, then his case might have some merit, but it's not, and he's just trolling.
  I am no lawyer, but the difference here is the difference between a copyright, which you automatically get upon creation, and a trademark, which you have to apply for and pay the USPTO for.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
5. Re:Well... by slartibartfastatp · 2012-09-11 23:28 · Score: 2
  
  There's an instance of this same name in a article published today in /. about Magic the Gathering. It's a name of some card. So I guess it's an expression on public domain already. Therefore, the C&D letter is a troll.
  
  --
  -- --
6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Go to the linked review site. He's staunchly defending his C&D letters against review blogs. He's a little shit that needs a crotch punch.
7. Re:Well... by Doctor_Jest · 2012-09-11 23:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Indeed.
  
  Movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_souls (1962)
  KISS Album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Souls:_The_Final_Sessions (1996)
  (some band I've never heard of): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Souls_(Miranda_Sex_Garden_album) (2000)
  
  I could go on, but my toast is burning. :)
  
  --
  It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
8. Re:Well... by jeremyp · 2012-09-11 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  "Windows" is a pretty generic common name. But do you think Microsoft as a trademark on it? Of course they do. Will they sue you if you attempt to sell an operating system named Windows? Yes and they'll probably win.
  If he has a comic book business or product called "Carnival of Souls" and a registered trademark and Harper Collins is also selling a comic book called "Carnival of Souls" it seems to me, as a not-a-lawyer, that he has a strong case.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
9. Re:Well... by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-09-12 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  Go to the linked review site. He's staunchly defending his C&D letters against review blogs. He's a little shit that needs a crotch punch.
  Assuming he's actually a thoughtful and decent guy, he appears to be roleplaying as a batshit crazy cunt of a man. Seems that this isn't his first stab at asserting ownership over things that existed long before he ever put crayon to paper.
  http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/see-carnival-of-souls-comparisons-from-60-million-heroes-lawsuit/
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but that's not a comic book, and not even series, it's a fantasy novel.
  If he'll be stupid enough to actually let it go to the court, he'll probably lose the trademark as lacking distinctiveness AND remain in Internet's memories as an asshole sending C&D's where he shouldn't.
  If he's smart, he'll try and settle with HarperCollins out of court and license the trademark to them. This way he'll keep trademark and might get some pocket change from HarperCollins (but still remain in Internet's memories as an asshole sending C&D's where he shouldn't).
11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft may have a trademark on the term "Windows". They probably have a trademark on the term "Microsoft Windows", but the term "Windows" on its own is too generic and was in use long before MS created their shitty OS. And, if you sold an OS called Jeremy Windows and MS sued you, and you had enough money to defend yourself, you would probably win. Notice "OpenWindows", "DECwindows" and of course the "X Window System", commonly known as "X Windows".
  Disclaimer: I haven't done any research on this recently at all. But I bet you a buck (one shiny dollar) that I'm more correct than you are.
12. Re:Well... by neonKow · 2012-09-12 00:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This guy seems to have a history of suing people for generic, carnival-themed horror. Here he is suing NBC for Heroes' having a carnival scene.
  http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/see-carnival-of-souls-comparisons-from-60-million-heroes-lawsuit/
  I'm can't say with 100% certainty that this Jazan Wild is filing frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting some easy money, but I find the idea that he truly believes that he invented the macabre carnival idea, or that he coined the term "Carnival of Souls" hard to swallow. In addition, this guy be be completely nuts to think he can sue reviewers for copyright infringement. I say he's just fishing.
13. Re:Well... by subreality · 2012-09-12 00:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If it was an original phrase that had never been used before...
  You're thinking of patents and prior art. Trademarks don't work that way - they belong to whoever registers them in specific categories.
14. Re:Well... by neonKow · 2012-09-12 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  You can't go around trademarking terms already widely in use. It doesn't matter that it's not a copyright. It just means this guy should have his trademark challenged.
15. Re:Well... by Endo13 · 2012-09-12 00:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The thing is, it's a trademark. Trademarks must be defended against any potential threat, or you risk losing them. It doesn't matter how strong his case is. In fact, I doubt he expects to win anything. He's just doing what he has to so no-one can say he didn't defend his trademark and just take it away from him later.
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
16. Re:Well... by Endo13 · 2012-09-12 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  You may find this interesting and helpful to your argument.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
17. Re:Well... by cpt+kangarooski · 2012-09-12 00:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You do get that, right? A phrase used dozens of times as the title of books, movies, and TV episodes. If it was an original phrase that had never been used before, then his case might have some merit, but it's not, and he's just trolling.
  No, that doesn't matter.
  Trademarks don't care about originality; you can get protection for your mark even if you copied your mark from somewhere else.
  Trademarks don't care about novelty; you can get protection for your mark even if the word or symbol that constitutes the mark already existed prior to your use of it as a mark.
  You think that Apple or Nike invented the words they use as marks?
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
18. Re:Well... by ledow · 2012-09-12 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Let's assume the Windows thing is true for a second.
  I've just said Windows. Can I be sued for trademark infringement? No.
  Windows is shit.
  Now can I? No.
  Windows is the biggest turd I've ever seen in my life.
  Now can I? No.
  But the person who infringes on the trademark - they can. This isn't about enforcing a trademark. It's about suing people for mentioning two words together, even when they've been told it's the name of a product (and if that IS a problem, then you need to sue the product manufacturer, not the reviewer who - at best - might want to put a correction/clarification up at most).
  The parties being sued did not choose that name or use it to sell items themselves. Someone else did that. That someone else is HarperCollins - the ONLY people he has a basis to sue at all.
19. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  I doubt he has a case.
  He doesn't. Book titles aren't protectable under IP laws.
  Books, yes, but not their titles.
20. Re:Well... by knightri · 2012-09-12 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  I think the concern from the authors point of view is another 'series' being created with the same title. If this is the case, which I don't think it is since the next book from Ms. Marr has a different title, he would be in the right to sue the publisher.
  
  --
  'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
21. Re:Well... by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-12 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  You can't go around trademarking terms already widely in use. It doesn't matter that it's not a copyright. It just means this guy should have his trademark challenged.
  AFAIK, you can pay your money to the USPTO, and they *might* issue a trademark, but it's up to you to sue and prove that you should have the trademark and should receive damages. So, yes, he might have a trademark on "Carnival of Souls", but he's unlikely to get any money for it.*
  
  *Unless he's the Disney corporation. They get most anything they want regards trademark and copyright.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
22. Re:Well... by cpt+kangarooski · 2012-09-12 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  The title of an individual work cannot be protected, but the title of a series can be. Apparently, that's what he's got.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
23. Re:Well... by psiclops · 2012-09-12 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  actually reading through it it's not that bad a complaint. i first looked at the pictures and just laughed but when i read the complaints under each picture it made a bit more sense. indivdually none of them really hold a lot. particularly 1b & 3a - there's not really any other angle to show those from & hall of mirrors is pretty much a staple in any carnival scene, specially a horror based one.
  combining 7 & 9 or even 4a and 10 it seems reasonable that he could feel they stole his ideas. specially if it's something he worked a lot on and poured his heart & soul into.
  note: i haven't read the comic or seen the series nor do i endorse his suing, i'm just saying it doesn't seem obviously unreasonable.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
24. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Look in the comments for nick "Christina" - she quotes the scenes descriptions from Heroes website and what's actually happening in those scenes seem to be quite different (also look for "Enough Bashing" - that seems to be Jazan himself)
  Also, from one of his comments on Bookalicious blogs, he lost in this case and is now appealing.
25. Re:Well... by samazon · 2012-09-12 01:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  RTFA - or lawsuit. The new novel has been recognized as a "new series of novels" of which the subject matter and audience is the same as Wild's graphic novels. HC registered a web site under the name "Enter the Carnival" which happens to be yet another of Wild's "TM" names associated with a top-selling graphic novel. Graphic novels and novels fall under the same category when registering trademarks, as opposed to say, a CD and a comic book would not.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
26. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  You think that Apple or Nike invented the words they use as marks?
  No. But they did invent the association between Apple and computer and the association between Nike and shoes. You can't get a trademark for a common term for a particular item. For example, Microsoft couldn't enforce their trademark on Windows against Lindows. The problem was that they used an already common term. They can enforce a trademark against someone claiming to produce Microsoft Windows though. That's something they actually own.
  Apple can't enforce their trademark on fruit sellers and Nike can't enforce their term on religious artifacts.
  You can't break a trademark with prior art. You can limit a trademark by pointing out existing uses. This guy needed to eliminate other uses of Carnival of Souls before trademarking it. Because it was already in wide and ongoing use, he is really limited in how he can enforce it.
  Examples of terms that were declared not trademarks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#List_of_former_trademarks_that_have_become_generic_terms
27. Re:Well... by samazon · 2012-09-12 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The next book in the series will also be "Carnival" themed. Their web site name also uses one of his trademarks. It looks like HC is taking a top result on book searches (Amazon, I did just check this) and putting out a new series with the same title.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You forgot the Magic: The Gathering card "Carnival of Souls", which was printed and released in 1999.
  http://magiccards.info/ud/en/55.html
29. Re:Well... by YttriumOxide · 2012-09-12 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm can't say with 100% certainty that this Jazan Wild is filing frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting some easy money, but I find the idea that he truly believes that he invented the macabre carnival idea, or that he coined the term "Carnival of Souls" hard to swallow. In addition, this guy be be completely nuts to think he can sue reviewers for copyright infringement. I say he's just fishing.
  In the discussion on the linked Bookalicious page, he has posted quite a bit. He seems to come across as a bit of a dickhead and doesn't get that he shouldn't have sent C&D letters to the reviewers; BUT he does at least seem to have a point with his disputes. He linked this PDF in one of his posts, and I definitely would agree that on the face of it there are TOO many similarities for it all to be coincidence or "generic" macabre carnival stuff.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
30. Re:Well... by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-12 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  He's been using the mark since 2004 for his business with his wife.
  Just because you can cite a warm, fuzzy human interest story does not mean trademarking two common words is any less fucked up.
  Nor does it make his behavior, going after people who are reviewing a book that's not his any less fucked up.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
31. Re:Well... by neonKow · 2012-09-12 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. You can't go around trademarking terms widely in use and have your trademark hold up in court.
32. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Well, no. Despite all the titles describing plot in those slides seemingly made by `sed s/Carnival of Souls/Heroes/`, actual plot of the episode is quite different. Most of his examples are way too generic to be taken seriously. The verdict in this case was not in his favor and he's currently appealing, but I don't think he's going to get anything out of it.
  So yeah, generic art, generic plot, generic title and a huge ego.
33. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Take a look at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/search/refusal_grounds.jsp
  The same name in a different field likely would not prohibit the granting of a trademark.
34. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like HC is taking a top result on book searches (Amazon, I did just check this) and putting out a new series with the same title.
  Wait, if you search for a book titled "Carnival of Souls" on Amazon a book called "Carnival of Souls" takes the top result? That's so unexpected! BTW, how did you "just check it"? For me right now it doesn't, and Melissa Marr's book takes the top spot, which probably gives him some more legal ammo, but really doesn't help proving his popularity.
  Searching Google for "carnival of souls site:amazon.com" turns up mostly 60s movie, Kiss' album and a novel about Buffy, with only one of his on the first page being an Android App.
  BTW, the official name of new series seem to be different, if you read the comments on Bookalicious C&D page - though author referred to it as "Carnival of Souls series" on her blog.
35. Re:Well... by Quirkz · 2012-09-12 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  McDonalds has a trademark on the word "smile." You sure you can't trademark terms widely in use?
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
36. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Movie, song, song. His trademark is in novels, comic books, and graphic novels, so those don't apply.
  He's stupid for trademarking such a term which forces him to send these letters and lose potential customers by looking like a jerk. He shouldn't have applied and he definitely shouldn't have been given that trademark. I still find it baffling that trademarks to words are given at all but that's another conversation.
37. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  There's also a quest in The Secret World called Carnival of Souls.
  However, the actual USPTO trademark listing only has this guy's trademark (well, there's another but it's a dead mark). On the other hand, the item he's defending against is a competing product in printed media.
  It's kind of similar to if someone released a brand of paper towels called Kleenex. The Kleenex brand is still trademarked after all, despite being genericized, and it's still possible to defend it in the realm of absorbent paper products.
38. Re:Well... by Gilmoure · 2012-09-12 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he didn't set is time machine correctly and he meant to go back to 1904?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
39. Re:Well... by Kreigaffe · 2012-09-12 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  There's an old movie by that name.
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055830/
  
  --
  ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
40. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  You can't go around trademarking terms already widely in use
  You mean like, for example, the word "apple"? Or the phrase "I'm lovin' it"? Because you most definitely can trademark these (and both have been). But the trademark, like all trademarks, has a narrow scope. Apple's trademark only applies to computer companies. McDonald's trademark only applies to restaurant slogans. And, similarly, this guy's trademark only applies to graphic novel series. The existence of records, movies, and books of the same title isn't relevant, nor is the general use of the term. He has a trademark that applies to graphic novel series, and it is arguably a valid one, and therefore no one else can use it for a graphic novel series.
  By the way, an interesting thing about trademarks is that they are published as pending trademarks for (I believe) one year before they're actually granted, and during that time competitors have an opportunity to dispute them.
41. Re:Well... by Rary · 2012-09-12 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, unregistered trademarks exist, too, and are in effect simply by using a particular mark of trade. The "R" symbol is used to denote a registered trademark, while the "TM" symbol denotes an unregistered trademark. However, in the U.S., unregistered trademarks have limited protection.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
42. Re:Well... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-09-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking there were similarities too. Except it seemed similar to Ray Bradbury's 1962 novel "Something Wicked This Way Comes" especially the mirror maze. The house of mirrors scene storyboarded in that article reminded me of a scene in Disney's movie version that was released in 1983.
  Coincidently (as some has pointed out), there was a B-movie called "Carnival of Souls" that was released in 1963. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't comment on if it was inspired by Ray Bradbury's novel.
  In any case, Jazan Wild's concept of a horror story set in a carnival is far from original and his title is the same of as a 1963 horror movie about a carnival.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
43. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  The really bad Carnival Of Souls has been brought back to life via Riff Tracks, some of the MST3K crew, though the original unconnected version does get the occasional broadcast on TCM or IFC.
  No inspired by Something Wicked This Way Comes, it features a church organist who is haunted by visions of ghoulish figures, culminating in a scene where she is chased through a carnival by the dead souls.
  And in other news Ray Bradbury is being sued by the estate of William Shakespeare.
44. Re:Well... by chartreuse · 2012-09-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Coincidently (as some has pointed out), there was a B-movie called "Carnival of Souls" that was released in 1963. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't comment on if it was inspired by Ray Bradbury's novel.
  It isn't. I've seen it, and it's rather good for a $33K (1962 dollars) budget and first-time director. (He'd directed industrial films but this was his first and only feature.)
45. Re:Well... by JimTheta · 2012-09-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think he'd have a case if someone was starting a book *series* called "Carnival of Souls".
  
  But a single-book *title*? That's an overreach.
  
  --
  My stupid web site
46. Re:Well... by Sharon88 · 2012-09-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. He's sued Harper Collins as he should. He even tried to stop them before they released it. Now he's got to send out legal stuff to people to let them know and try to get them to take it down. I hope Harper has to pay him every bit of profit and legal fees.
47. Re:Well... by Quakerjono · 2012-09-12 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Recognized by who, though? While the lawsuit claims that this is a series, as many have pointed out it is not being labeled as such by Marr, Harper Collins or really anywhere else. Even if it is the first book in a series, it is individually named "Carnival of Souls" and there is now real evidence to be found that the series itself is being branded with that name. Regardless, his beef is with Harper Collins, not the various book blogs that reviewed the book.
  
  A wiser approach would have been to go after HC first, get a judgment in his favor and then contact the book blogs and inform them of the judicial decision, asking them to either change or remove their reviews to be in compliance. Then, if they refused, send out the official C&Ds in preparation for legal action against those specific blogs that refused. Going the route he did, shotgunning out C&Ds, makes him look like he's just trolling for attention for his series (even if he's really not), rather than appropriately defending his trademark.
48. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  You shouldn't have to take into consideration the budget and the experience of the director. The film should stand on its own merits.
49. Re:Well... by Adrian+Lopez · 2012-09-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Trademarks only have to be defended against uses that would dilute those marks. There's no reason to believe that reviewing a book bearing an infringing title would do anything to dilute the trademark in question, as almost any reviewer's use of the mark would be strictly nominative. The case against Harper Collins is a different matter, assuming he has a valid trademark.
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
50. Re:Well... by kubernet3s · 2012-09-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't carnival of souls the ICP mythology? Why doesn't he sue them?
51. Re:Well... by chartreuse · 2012-09-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, but I also think budget and direction (and all the other skills that are involved in creation) are elements that are worthy of consideration, and especially in the area of "cult" films (Plan 9 from Outer Space or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Planet of the Vampires, for example, to name three films of widely varying caliber) the relationship between quality and enjoyment are looser than for mainstream Hollywood productions. I'm just trying to say the movie in question can be enjoyed without anesthetizing your higher brain functions.
  I see movies, tv and commercials all the time that I don't care for but can still, on occasion, appreciate their production values and efforts. I recognize my viewpoint as being subjective. Yeah, 90% of everything is crap, but you and I might disagree on why something is crap, or what's in the other 10%.
52. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  well that's all fine and good but this guy is nothing but a lawsuit whore. He tried suing the tv show Heroes a few years back for $60 million
  http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/see-carnival-of-souls-comparisons-from-60-million-heroes-lawsuit/
53. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. He actually does if you read the brief. See they know they don't but since he waited until the books are already out, HP would have to pull all the books back, destroy them, refund everyone and then reprint them. They aren't going to do that unless forced. They figure crushing him is far cheaper. Finally it doesn't matter if the title is generic or not. He got the mark from USPTO in 16 and 41 so they believe its unique. This is where people don't understand the law and the difference between copyright and trademarks. Trademarks aren't conferred upon creation. A title to a single book can be trademarked or copyrighted. However, a series title can. That is why Glee is a trademark and Forest Hills High school isn't (the name of the school in John Tucker must die). The school is mentioned twice in a movie that is a single shot. Glee has almost 100 episodes.
  He has the most written works with the title 'Carnival of Souls'. Therefore he fulfills the requirements. Will he win? Probably not. As for all those titles used far back as 1962? Most are untrademarkable. Someone on another blog brought up Buffy the vampire slayer book with the same name. Even that has it, so no love? Wrong. Its a subheading.
  Finally, I love /. where a discussion on trademark law devolves quickly into a discussion on health, salt and why can't Africa be trademarked. Of and finally yes he was being foolish attacking the reviewers.
54. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  lets see, In his brief, he comments that he licenced the title to Kiss. The movie is not 16 (novels) or 41 (comic books) so it doesn't apply and movies aren't trademarked unless they have sequels. (copyright people).
  Finally Miranda Sex garden again not 16 or 41.
55. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You find it baffling that a law that prevents people from naming a toxic cleaning solution the same name as a popular cola is a bad thing. Because thats what trademark exists for. To prevent confusion in salable items.
  The first trademark statute, enacted in 1870, was struck down by the Supreme Court in The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), for exceeding the powers granted by the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution. Congress responded with the Trademark Act of 1881, which was based on its Commerce Clause powers.
  The current federal trademark statute is the Lanham Act of 1946, codified in Title 15 of the United States Code.
  The Lanham Act establishes a procedure for federal registration of trademarks. If a trademark meets certain qualifications, it can be listed on the Principal Register, which affords it many benefits. Federal registration is not mandatory to receive trademark protection, but a mark owner seeking to enforce trademarks in US federal court needs either a federal registration or a violation of the Lanham Act's specific sections on false advertising or unfair competition. Wild claims both.
  Did you know that /. is a trademark? or that the distinctive shape of a coke bottle is also one (called trade dress). As you commented, 'Carnival of souls' is a generic term. Did you know that according to the Lanham act, a Generic mark, like "laptop computer," cannot receive trademark protection even if they have a secondary meaning. The rule against generic trademarks is particularly important for holders of famous marks, because their marks may lose protection if they become common nouns or adjectives in the public eye. Formerly-trademarked words like "aspirin" and "cellophane" have lost their protection due to genericide. So according to you its a common phrase. In whose lexicon? No. according to USPTO, its a fanciful mark.
56. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Its actually the first of her new series. Go to the HP or her personal website. So yes the series is named that not the just the book.
57. Re:Well... by Carnildo · 2012-09-12 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of patents and prior art. Trademarks don't work that way - they belong to whoever registers them in specific categories.
  Within limits. If a term is already in common use, it's quite difficult to get a trademark for it. You cannot, for example, get a trademark on "Windows" for your brand of wall openings.
  
  --
  "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
58. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Actually he's filed, but not yet registered, one on:
  
  IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Downloadable motion pictures and television shows about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films and films for television featuring children's entertainment
  IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing programs, segments, movies, shows, multi-media moving picture shows featuring drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes delivered by television, radio, satellite, internet, live, and mobile applications
  .
59. Re:Well... by Doctor_Jest · 2012-09-12 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Who'd want to be paid in Faygo? :)
  
  --
  It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
60. Re:Well... by Doctor_Jest · 2012-09-12 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly, no. There's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Souls_(Buffy_novel)
  
  --
  It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
61. Re:Well... by samazon · 2012-09-13 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, AC, how I adore you and your sarcasm. I looked it up before posting the above comment (how else would I have just checked it?) and there were more than three results from Wild's series, Marr's book didn't show up, and depending on your browsing/purchase history I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Amazon gives you customized results, so yours and mine are probably not the same.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
62. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Threatening to sue somebody consumes some of their time. The human span is finite and far too short. Not having one's time wasted or stolen by other people, by government, or by legal professionals is a fundamental human right. If a legal professional advised this idiot to do this, that legal professional is unethical. Or an idiot. Or both.
  Writing a book review (in the sense that "book review" is usually used) is fundamentally freedom of speech.
  Threatening to sue somebody, or sending a cease-and-desist order, for engaging in an exercise of fundamental rights is a violation of those rights.
  Any rational legal system will view this as inappropriate conduct.
  Any laws or precedents that make a legal system excessively complex and cause people to believe that they can (or have to) do stupid things violate fundamental rights.
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 21:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It' not his fucking book, idiot. Did you not even read the summary?
carnival of souls is an invalid trademark by iamagloworm · 2012-09-11 21:26 · Score: 1

the universe already owns the rights.
publicity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 21:34 · Score: 1

might as well be orchestrated to drive the sales of the new book... in these times, everything is possible
He's got nothing... by drkim · 2012-09-11 21:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

His comic was put out in 2006, but the title/phrase has been in use since at least 1962.
He will have to show that people would somehow confuse this book, with his comic, which would be fairly hard.
1. Re:He's got nothing... by nagasrinivas · 2012-09-17 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  If he's got nothing and he is suing, I sure hope that the sued party can recover expensed for a frivolous lawsuit and a penalty.
In need of Attention by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 21:42 · Score: 0

will convulse, roll, scream to be noticed. Please ignore.
Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by TheMathemagician · 2012-09-11 21:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is in granting him trademark ownership of the phrase "Carnival of Souls" in the first place. He's just acting to defend it against any infringement as any other trademark owner would. Of course threatening reviewers is ridiculous but the publisher is going to have to pay him off. No way can they put out a book out with the same title as an existing trademark using for comics/graphic novels etc. Someone in Harper Collins legal department should get fired.
1. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually their are many books with the same name...
2. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You cannot copyright or trademark the titles of books.
3. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Quickly! Publish a cookbook called Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Let us know what happens...
4. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by icebraining · 2012-09-11 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, not exactly; what you cannot do is use a single book title as an example of trademark usage, which is required to register it. You can, on the other hand, use a book title if it's part of a series or group of products.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  He is not suing the bloggers or reviewers, he's suing HarperCollins and Marr for infringing his trademark, Carnival of Souls. He received a trademark for his series that has been out in continuous use since 2005 and received the trademark in 2011. That means no one else can put a book out with that title without permission from the trademark owner, which he did not give. They were made aware of the infringement and decided to plow forward anyway, causing Wild to have to sue them. Wild was simply asking the bloggers/ reviewers to remove the mark from their sites which he has the right to, because if you don't police your trademark, then you can lose it. And for those of you saying that it has been used before; yes it has. All for stand alone books, movies or albums which are three different categories for trademark. You have to have a series for a trademark. And no, you cannot copyright a name. Trademark and copyright are two different things. Everyone who used it before the trademark is fine. Anyone using it after the trademark is wrong and infringing. And since I posted before and the comment was taken down, my name is Sharon and not anonymous coward.
6. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  But you totally can trademark an umbrella title covering a series of books.
  Try selling a series called 'Twilight', or 'Discworld', or 'Planet of the Apes'... see how far you get.
7. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by ZosX · 2012-09-13 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly the meat of his argument. That his trademark represents a series. Whether that trademark is unique enough to hold up in court is another story.
  Star Wars is fairly unique and uncommon.
  
  --
  zosxavius photography
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 21:54 · Score: 4, Funny

But I would agree to a patent on TYPING ALL CAPITALS.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Soon /. by aglider · 2012-09-11 21:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

will only talk about patent trials, copyright trielas and related counter-trials.
Which will make the site boring (and sued by almost all comment publishers).
Please, Moderators and meta-Moderators, quit from letting that crap to be published.
We need the ol' good /. ! (aka SlashDotBang)

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:Soon /. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 23:33 · Score: 0
  
  We need the ol' good /. ! (aka SlashDotBang)
  said the guy with UID > 2e+6
2. Re:Soon /. by psiclops · 2012-09-12 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  you don't even have a UID.
  although, i have seen comments from you since i first started reading this site. are you like the original user? before other users i guess they didn't need to number you.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Sorry, but there is a valid point here by popo · 2012-09-11 21:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Jazan holds the trademark over "Carnival of Souls", and he has a legal obligation to legally defend it or lose it.
It may seem silly to sue review sites, but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend illegitimate use of the trademark or risk dilution.

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  He'll still have to take them to court and get money out of them. Nobody is taking him serious, because he's only talking, not doing.
  BTW, are you going to get sued too?
2. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by Kasar · 2012-09-11 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  The trademark office created the joke by giving him the trademark. There've been at least two movies by that name, one http://archive.org/details/CarnivalOfSouls1962 and the other a Wes Craven movie in 1998.
  Maybe I should try to register Psycho or something.
  
  --
  vi? Who's that?
3. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by digitig · 2012-09-11 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is a trademark, not a patent. Is prior art relevant? "McDonalds" is a trademark, but the name existed for centuries before the fast-food chain.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
4. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 23:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He'll still have to take them to court and get money out of them. Nobody is taking him serious, because he's only talking, not doing.
  BTW, are you going to get sued too?
  No, he doesn't have to take them to court if they respond to a cease and desist request and stop using it. He only has to take them to court if they refuse.
  And no, he doesn't have to win any money from them, all he needs is a ruling saying his TM is valid. Even if the courts determine the alleged infringement was not actually infringing, as long as the TM is found to be valid it will still stand.
  But if you do not take the proper actions against any case where it appears to be infringement of the TM, you lose it.
5. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by Xest · 2012-09-11 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  "but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend illegitimate use of the trademark or risk dilution."
  So if you don't defend someone who is using your trademark illegitimately, then there is a risk you will be diluted? That sounds a bit harsh.
  Don't worry, we know what you meant:
  "but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend against illegitimate use of the trademark or risk losing the trademark due to trademark dilution."
6. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by gnoshi · 2012-09-11 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art does matter. The whole point of the trademark is that it specifically differentiates the particular thing to which the trademark refers: in the context of fast food places, McDonalds has a trademark on that name; they wouldn't have been able to get this trademark if there were already restaurants with the name McDonalds. Because there are already artistic works called Carnival of Souls, then that would significantly impinge the validity of the trademark.
  For a good example of the importance of existing names for trademarks, look up 'Hungry Jacks' in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack%27s)
7. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by thegarbz · 2012-09-12 00:24 · Score: 2
  
  It may seem silly to sue review sites, but the legal duty of a trademark holder is to actively defend illegitimate use of the trademark or risk dilution.
  No but, just two separate sentences. It may seem silly to sue review sites. Period.
  Actually it IS silly to sue review sites. There's never been a documented case anywhere that says when someone writes a review of something that it causes a trademark to be invalid. That notion is simply absurd as is the action of sending a C&D to the reviewers.
  Jazan suing HarperCollins is understandable and defendable in this trademark case, but don't excuse all actions by this guy who I can only assume has sought some "free" legal advice.
8. Re:Sorry, but there is a valid point here by Coisiche · 2012-09-12 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, he's just defending his trademark. And in his pursuit of that I want to see him take on Gene Simmons over KISS using "Carnival of Souls" as an album title.
  That would really be worth getting popcorn to watch.
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by jbeaupre · 2012-09-11 22:09 · Score: 2, Funny

If you think that by using caps lock you can get me to do what you want... Well, that's where you're right. But - and I am only saying that because I care - there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by mwvdlee · 2012-09-11 22:16 · Score: 0

um, wha? I didn't trip the filter, if that's what you're getting at... besides, it's my keyboard, my thoughts. What are you, a punctuation Nazi?
/quote>
Capitalization nazi, not punctuation nazi. And apparently also a semantics nazi.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:18 · Score: 0

Yeah theres something called Fair use
Great... by Docasman · 2012-09-11 22:24 · Score: 1

Now /. will be getting a DMCA notice too.
Read the trademark! by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-11 22:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is Slashdot and nobody seems to have done a simple USPTO search!
He has not (and I think cannot) trademarked a comic title. He has trademarked a trademark for sources of downloadable media content. From a read of the grant, this does not cover books or reviews. He cannot landgrab his trademark to cover areas outside its applicability. Much as I personally dislike HarperCollins, I suspect that the response of their lawyers will be (correctly) the same as in the famous Arkell v Pressdram.
The USPTO search should be compulsory reading before commenting on these issues. It quickly shows whether someone has a case, may have a case, or doesn't understand how trademarks work. IANAL, this does not constitute legal advice or opinion etc., but in this case I suspect he falls into my last class.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:Read the trademark! by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-09-11 23:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  He has not (and I think cannot) trademarked a comic title. He has trademarked a trademark for sources of downloadable media content. From a read of the grant, this does not cover books or reviews.
  He has two registrations, the first of which most certainly does cover books.
  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.2
  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:m2hq6u.2.1
  I'd have thought the term already sufficiently generic enough to refuse these trademarks, let alone allow him to assert ownership over pretty much any fucking use of the phrase.
  Pro tip for Kazan Wild: Did you know that the phrase "The Good Book" is yet to be registered as a trademark for religious multimedia content. Go grab it, and while you're on your way down to the the USPTO, don't bother looking before crossing any busy roads you encounter.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
2. Re:Read the trademark! by raynet · 2012-09-11 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  You did notice that hey have two registrations of the mark in USPTO, one made in 2009 for 'Comic books; Graphic novels; Novels.' and second in 2011 for 'Downloadable motion pictures and television shows about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films about drama, carnival themes, fantasy, supernatural themes; Motion picture films and films for television featuring children's entertainment'
  
  --
  - Raynet --> .
3. Re:Read the trademark! by Snaller · 2012-09-11 23:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "This is Slashdot and nobody seems to have done a simple USPTO search!"
  Because we use Google, not some weirdo search thing!
  
  --
  If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
4. Re:Read the trademark! by TheEffigy · 2012-09-12 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect that the response of their lawyers will be (correctly) the same as in the famous Arkell v Pressdram.
  That predates me by just over a decade and so I had to look it up - Classic! http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
5. Re:Read the trademark! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Whoever wrote this story did not get correct information. He is not suing the bloggers or reviewers, he's suing HarperCollins and Marr for infringing his trademark, Carnival of Souls. He received a trademark for his series that has been out in continuous use since 2005 and received the trademark in 2011. That means no one else can put a book out with that title without permission from the trademark owner, which he did not give. And if you're saying he shouldn't have a trademark, then you're saying the trademark office doesn't know how to do their job. HarperCollins and Marr were made aware of the infringement and decided to plow forward anyway, causing Wild to have to sue them. Wild was simply asking the bloggers/ reviewers to remove the mark from their sites which he has the right to, because if you don't police your trademark, then you can lose it. And for those of you saying that it has been used before; yes it has. All for stand alone books, movies or albums which are three different categories for trademark. You have to have a series for a trademark. And no, you cannot copyright a name. Trademark and copyright are two different things. Everyone who used it before the trademark is fine. Anyone using it after the trademark is wrong and infringing. You may not be able to trademark Slashdot, but I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone else using that name if you can stop them. Trademark law is intricate and is not understood fully by people who have not gone through the process. So if you don't know it, maybe don't comment like you do.
6. Re:Read the trademark! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  And I am not an "anonymous coward". I have never been on your site and when I replied, it didn't give me a place to put my name or email. It's Sharon.
7. Re:Read the trademark! by TRRosen · 2012-09-12 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  He holds no trademark for a book title as book titles do not fall under trademark. He has a trademark for a series name and is suing about a book title. The two are not the same and he has no case.
  Let's look at it this way. Could you trademark the album title "greatest hits" I have at least 20 albums by that name in my iTunes library. Albums and books are referenced by both their title and author/artist.
8. Re:Read the trademark! by stephanruby · 2012-09-12 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  This is Slashdot and nobody seems to have done a simple USPTO search!
  [...]
  The USPTO search should be compulsory reading before commenting on these issues. It quickly shows whether someone has a case, may have a case, or doesn't understand how trademarks work
  Actually, I did a Trademark search as soon as the story was posted.
  And this is what I found, not that this told me very much, so I didn't post anything.
  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.1
  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:r7b59b.2.2
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:35 · Score: 0

That patent is easily circumvented by using copy&paste.
Captcha: nations — makes sense in the context of typing all capitals. :-)
The author's take on this by Kergan · 2012-09-11 22:41 · Score: 4, Informative

The author's take on this is further down in the comment section of Bookalicious. Quoting the key parts:

I want you to understand something. We contacted Ms. Marr and Harper Collins, way back in June and asked them to please respect our trademark. (...). My wife and I have built our company Carnival Comics over the last 10 years. In that time, we invested endless hours and tons of money building our brands. We have been very blessed. Carnival Of Souls, our series was the number 1 ebook on Blackberry for over a year. It was featured in the LA Times. (...)
So we protected our time and money and brand by registering a trademark for CARNIVAL OF SOULS. I started using the mark in commerce, way back in 2004. I applied for registration in 2009. and the USPTO granted me a mark.
The person you should be mad at is Harper Collins, who themselves own trademarks for book series. This is a big company, looking at someones lifetime of work and just taking it. We begged them to do the right thing. I had hoped Mrs. Marr would stand up for the rights of trademark owners, but she did not. Would you be angry at J.K. Rowling for stopping someone from putting out a HARRY POTTER series? She has a trademark as well.
See my point? I am not doing anything but trying to save my series from an out and out attack by a billion dollar corporation that feels they are above the law. I knew that if they released the Marr book, I would be the bad guy, for trying to defend my trademark. But what else can I do? Would J.K. sit back while someone else released another HARRY POTTER series. I think if you look at the facts in the case, you will see, that Harper Collins, should have not released a book and series, with a mark that they knew, was already out there.
1. Re:The author's take on this by mrbester · 2012-09-11 22:56 · Score: 2
  
  So what about Buffy The Vampire Slayer: Carnival of Souls?
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
2. Re:The author's take on this by Coisiche · 2012-09-11 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's as maybe but I suspect J. K. Rowling might have run into a hitch if she'd titled her first novel Harry Potter, The Witch and The Wardrobe.
3. Re:The author's take on this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 23:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Would you be angry at J.K. Rowling for stopping someone from putting out a HARRY POTTER series? She has a trademark as well.
  No, I would not, because there wasn't already material published under that name. A quick google search will show that the title "Carnival of Souls" is the title of a Horror movie from 1962, which has had a remake as recently at 1998. It was also used in the title of a KISS album in the mid 90's.
  Doing a little more digging I find a comic published on Amazon for the Kindle called "Jazan Wild's Carnival of Souls", with the TM attributed to both Carnival Comics AND Jazan Wild (one of the authors). A little more searching, and look what I find: This is the same guy who tried to sue NBC over the plotline of Heroes, alleging it was ripped off from.... you guessed it- his comic books series "Jazan Wild's Carnival of Souls". Huh, imagine that.
  Now, "Jazan Wild" is actually a pen-name for a Mr. Jason Barnes, just to avoid confusion if you're looking into this as well.
  It's also the name of a (fanfic) novel based on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, published in 2006.
  It's also the name of a card from the card game "Magic: The Gathering" which was released in 1999.
  It's also the name of a mission in the Funcom MMO "The Secret World".
  It's also the name of a song by a group called "Jedi Mind Tricks".
  It's also the title of a bootleg CD of a Jane's Addiction show from 1989.
  If this was targeted at another comic or graphic novel, then yes I could see him trying to enforce his TM. But it's already been used as the prominent title for both a movie and various types of music, so he can't try to apply it to any form of media or entertainment. And as for a book, since he still hasn't filed a suit or issued a C&D over the Buffy book, all Harper Collins has to do is say "Well, here's a list of book titles published prior to the TM, and another list of books published after the TM was granted which they have not attempted to defend." In short, Mr. Barnes will be lucky to walk away from this with his TM intact, let alone get anything out of HC.
  Citations:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Souls_%28Buffy_novel%29
  http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/27327.htm
  http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/see-carnival-of-souls-comparisons-from-60-million-heroes-lawsuit/
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Souls:_The_Final_Sessions
  http://janesaddiction.org/bootography/janes-addiction/cd/carnival-of-souls/
4. Re:The author's take on this by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-11 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  He lost me at "we have been very blessed". Protestants who conveniently forget the bit about not serving God and Money, and confuse worldly success with God's approval, are part of the reason we need the likes of Richard Dawkins.
  
  --
  From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
5. Re:The author's take on this by martinX · 2012-09-12 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  If it's the title of a series, surely the smart thing would have been to disallow a trademark for "Book Title" and allow one for "Author's Name's Book Title". That would have allowed him sufficient coverage, and given other authors the ability to use the same title without confusion.
  
  --
  When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
6. Re:The author's take on this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  There's also a movie, Carnival of Souls, way back in the 50s or 60s or so. Hell, there's even a Rifftrax file for it.
7. Re:The author's take on this by samazon · 2012-09-12 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  Movie and various types of music are NOT covered under the TM he has (16) - which covers written/printed material. I'm sure he can't sue over the Buffy book because of the preface of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in the title. I don't think anyone here understands what, precisely, goes into writing a novel, or a series of novels. One of his major issues is that the themes of the new book are the same as the themes he uses, and so is the target audience.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
8. Re:The author's take on this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  So what about Buffy The Vampire Slayer: Carnival of Souls?
  The Buffy Novel was never trademarked since title of a novel cannot be trademarked.
  And trademarks are "a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others" (http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp) such that a trademark can only be used to identify a source of goods, which in the case of novels would be a series or collection.
  As there does not appear to have been a novel/graphic novel series published prior to the registration of his mark that was similar enough to his works to have caused confusion, his mark appears proper and (pending any other evidence) should be upheld in a court of law.
9. Re:The author's take on this by Chris+Mattern · 2012-09-12 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's as maybe but I suspect J. K. Rowling might have run into a hitch if she'd titled her first novel Harry Potter, The Witch and The Wardrobe.
  Now you've got me imagining Harry and Hermione locked together in a closet. There might be a fanfic in this...
10. Re:The author's take on this by wienerschnizzel · 2012-09-12 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be angry at J.K. Rowling for stopping someone from putting out a HARRY POTTER series?
  No. But I would be angry if she tried to stop somebody putting out review of a Harry Potter book based on the Harry Potter TM.
  What a jerk.
11. Re:The author's take on this by Sharon88 · 2012-09-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  If it's prior to his mark, it's okay. It's anything after his mark that's in trouble.
12. Re:The author's take on this by gameboyhippo · 2012-09-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Money is not condemned in Christianity, but the love of money. There is a difference. Take the "Good Samaritan" for example. Would he have been able to pay for the man's room had he not had money? So if money can be used as a tool, it can be a blessing. To say that owning lots of money means that one idolizes money is like saying that owning lots of bricks means that you throw bricks at windows.
  As for the second part, being blessed does not mean "God's approval". In fact it has the opposite meaning. When one says that they are blessed they indicate that they have been benefited through no fault of their own. So if I say, "I'm blessed because I have a great career, a wonderful family, and a nice place to live" I'm not saying, "I'm the best Christian ever so God's given me all these cool things!" I'm saying, "I sure don't deserve my wonderful life, but I've been given one anyway despite being a flawed human. I'm grateful."
  Finally, what does Richard Dawkins has to do with theology? He's a biologist, not a philosopher or theologian. So the idea of "his theology is wrong, that's why we need a biologist" doesn't make sense.
  Don't worry preteen modders, I already know you're going to mod me (-1 offended atheists with logic), so don't rejoice that you're "hurting my feelings" or whatever.
Proofreading... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:49 · Score: 0

"The book was written by Melissa Marr, and it happens to use a title which Jazan Wild owns the registered trademark"
Huh?
"FOR which Jazan Wild owns the registered trademark".
Morbo voice: "Trademarks do not work that way!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 22:50 · Score: 0, Interesting

You can't use trademark law to stop reviews of your crappy product any more than you can use copyright law to do the same. Where's the possibility of confusion with the actual product if you are reviewing it? Ford or GM can't stop bad reviews of their cars on that basis either. Inaccurate reviews they could challenge on other grounds, but you aren't violating trademark if you use the product name to describe how crappy you think a product is, in your opinion.
I'd be surprised if this person could even find a lawyer willing to bring this case to court. Okay, maybe someone on par with Lionel Hutz.
1. Re:Morbo voice: "Trademarks do not work that way!" by sabs · 2012-09-11 23:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Reading comprehension. It's a skill you should learn.
  He's not stopping reviews of HIS work. He's stopping reviews of someone else's work, because the Book's name infringes on his TradeMark.
2. Re:Morbo voice: "Trademarks do not work that way!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you're right. I misunderstood. But it still doesn't make sense for the same reason. If he has a beef, he should take it up with the infringing book's publisher, not the reviewers, who have *no*choice* but to refer to a product by the name given by its supplier. If that name goes into trademark dispute, fine, but until that dispute is settled there is still no sensible rationale for going after reviewers, and reviewers don't have other options. Does Ford sue reviewers of products or services other than cars if the name "Ford" happens to be in the product name? I doubt it. And even if Ford made boomerangs, so there is genuine reason for confusion (same type of product), the reviewers still don't have much choice but to use that name when referring to them. They should, of course, make it clear it's a different "Ford" being reviewed, but given that author and publisher names are routinely also mentioned when reviewing a book, and there are plenty of different books that have the same or very similar titles but different authors and publishers, I don't see the problem. Leave the reviewers out of it. It's not an issue they have any ability to fix, and there's no harm done if they're reviewing a different book with the same name and make that clear by referring to a different author/publisher. When the book title gets changed as a result of settling the dispute with the publishers, then they can revise their reviews with the new title. Until then, I'd laugh at the C&D too.
3. Re:Morbo voice: "Trademarks do not work that way!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  RanDom capitalizAtion
I Want Sue Over Trademark Infringement by isylumn · 2012-09-11 23:00 · Score: 1

Please, review my books - paste my weird artwork everywhere and quote me til Armageddon, just please, review my books.... http://sites.google.com/site/wistertown/
1. Re:I Want Sue Over Trademark Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but your book isn't good. Noticed you published via Lulu. Mine is too. (Summon the Heroes) however I'm on Amazon, Google play and Itunes. Why isn't yours?
Misleading headline by Arancaytar · 2012-09-11 23:00 · Score: 2

The headline implies that an author is suing the reviewers of his own book.
1. Re:Misleading headline by Sharon88 · 2012-09-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is misleading. He's suing HarperCollins and the author of the other book with the same title. And he's not suing the reviewers. I think the author of the story this thread is related to did not do his diligent research.
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by paiute · 2012-09-11 23:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Capitalization nazi, not punctuation nazi. And apparently also a semantics nazi.
Nazi should be capitalized.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
So you're anti-semantic? by denzacar · 2012-09-11 23:14 · Score: 5, Funny

And apparently also a semantics nazi.
Wouldn't being a semantics nazi make you an anti-semantic?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re: So you're anti-semantic? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't being a semantics nazi make you an anti-semantic?
  I know I am. Their anti-virus solution sucks!
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Prior art! by aglider · 2012-09-11 23:15 · Score: 1

Carnival of Souls is surely prior art!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:Prior art! by Captain+Hook · 2012-09-11 23:48 · Score: 2
  
  Prior art is for patents, not Trademarks.
  
  Doesn't matter how many people might have drawn a Glowing Arch to look like an M, only MacDonalds can use it as a Trademark once registered, at least in the Fast Food Industry.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
2. Re:Prior art! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  Are you really really sure?
3. Re:Prior art! by aglider · 2012-09-12 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, Cpt. Hook.
  So how can I infringe a traded mark like "Carnival of Souls"?
  I should sell books with that very same title and fairly similar plot. Which was not the case, AFAIK.
  Or I should sell anything with the same mark.
  
  --
  Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
4. Re:Prior art! by samazon · 2012-09-12 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  But see, it is the case. Very same title. Similar plot, from what I got... from reading.. the law suit documents...
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
5. Re:Prior art! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  > Similar plot, from what I got... from reading.. the law suit documents...
  You seem to be reading wrong documents. "Similar plot" probably refers to his earlier lawsuit against Heroes TV series (now in appeals, as he lost that one). This one is all about how they wilfully used his trademarks CARNIVAL OF SOULS and ENTER THE CARNIVAL OF SOULS to mislead the readers into believing this has relation to his immensely popular books.
6. Re:Prior art! by aglider · 2012-09-12 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  his immensely popular books
  I think I've missed something, somehow!
  Maybe it was the anonymous irony...
  
  --
  Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
7. Re:Prior art! by samazon · 2012-09-13 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I am not reading the wrong documents. He notes in the current lawsuit that both are "Carnival themed with elements of love and violence" and mentions something re: horror, I believe. But yes, that's EXACTLY what this is about. It would be like me making a website, slash-dot.com, and using the "name recognition" of THIS web site to promote my own web site and make many many dollars. The tone of the original article (yeah, I'm talking to YOU, Nate and Soulskill) is GROSSLY biased and has set the stage for the disgusting vilification of Wild in these comments. Some of us have legitimate reporting experience (the journalistic kind, NOT the programming kind) and are able to recognize when someone is trying to manipulate us into feeling a certain way about an event.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
Needless to say? by Captain_Chaos · 2012-09-11 23:20 · Score: 1

Needless to say they did not take down the review.
Unfortunately these days it is not needless to say this...
Streisand effect by oheso · 2012-09-11 23:24 · Score: 2

Surely I can't be the first to notice this? HarperCollins couldn't have paid for publicity like this ...
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by cristiroma · 2012-09-11 23:30 · Score: 1

Don't know who modded you as flamebait, but clearly didn't read the summary either
Cease and Desist by puddingebola · 2012-09-11 23:48 · Score: 1

The use of the word "Carnival" is a registered trademark of the Puddingebola Corporation. The website Slashdot, hereafter referred to as "Slashdot" or "/." has infringed on this trademark by posting the word "Carnival" in reference to a book which has been reviewed on another website. We request that Slashdot remove the word and replace it with another word, such as "Onion" or "Tomato" or "Insane."
Nein, das wäre eine antisemantics Nazi sein by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-11 23:50 · Score: 2

It would just make you demand that everybody recognise your right to impose semantics on everybody. Or perhaps Symantec. This is our last territorial demand on your computer! Install Norton or the Tigers roll at dawn!

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I read Carnival of Souls by coofercat · 2012-09-11 23:52 · Score: 1

I read Carnival of Souls. It was alright, I guess.
Sue me.
They didn't by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-11 23:52 · Score: 1

See my post above. The trademark applicability is very restricted (and does not seem to include books, or reviews of books.)

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Just sayin...! by hughbar · 2012-09-11 23:57 · Score: 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055830/ which is from 1962. It's a terrific film BTW.

--
On y va, qui mal y pense!
1. Re:Just sayin...! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055830/ which is from 1962. It's a terrific film BTW.
  Althought the actual test for granting of a mark is more complicated (see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/search/refusal_grounds.jsp) this reference doesn't pertain to the author's trademark as it is not in the same area (i.e. novels, graphic novels, etc...).
Perfectly justified by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 1

I read the Harper Collins filing. This author owns the trademark and is perfectly justified (in fact, bound to), and it's very clear that Harper Collins has knowingly and willfully infringed. More power to him.
1. Re:Perfectly justified by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, he is not. The purpose of trademarks is to avoid customer confusion amongst rival businesses. It does NOT affect book titles. You cannot use trademarks (nor copyrights for that matter) to control book titles.
2. Re:Perfectly justified by samazon · 2012-09-12 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, he is. Read the filing, please. I'm not AC and I agree with (on the same terms, having read the filing) the original poster (AC).
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
3. Re:Perfectly justified by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  The filing is irrelevant. The simple fact is you cannot control book titles (nor movies, for that matter) via trademark.
4. Re:Perfectly justified by samazon · 2012-09-13 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  You can, however, trademark a series title, which is what Wild did, and what he is defending.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
5. Re:Perfectly justified by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, but she used the title for A BOOK, not a series. You can't twist it to stop people from ever using that title for a book.
6. Re:Perfectly justified by samazon · 2012-09-13 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, google "Carnival of Souls series" the first two things to come up are Melissa Marr's book, and she herself notes "HarperCollins' Facebook page for the Carnival of Souls series" RTFA.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by psiclops · 2012-09-12 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

probably related to the tone of his reply. had he said "the person suing is not the author of the book, they simply own a trademark of which they believe the book and anything related - e.g. reviews of the book infringe upon." he probably would have been upmodded.
in the world of argument facts are informative & insults detract from your point.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:35 · Score: 0

Thanks for making me laugh this morning! Had to post as AC because I used a mod point on you. :)
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by psiclops · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 0

capitilization can be considered a part of punctuation (although some may not consider it to be) but one would not be wrong to class incorrect capitilization as incorrect punctuation
punctuation is essentially a tool/set of tools to make sentences easier to read and avoid disambiguation capitilization is part of that
semantics is a fun game

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Who does he think he is? Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:58 · Score: 0

Who does he think he is? Apple?
Remember the "MTG is Turing Complete" article? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:59 · Score: 0

If anyone remembers the "MTG is Turing Complete" article from yesterday posted here, one of the cards used in the actual 50 card setup is Carnival of Souls.
See here http://www.toothycat.net/~hologram/Turing/HowItWorks.html
IC 016 by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-12 01:09 · Score: 2

Look carefully at class IC 016. Although in his description he includes "Novels", it's clear that the scope of 016 is "Goods made of cardboard or paper", and the IC merely references "printed matter". Although printed materials are in scope, it is a stretch of the imagination to extend this to include the title of a novel, or even a series of novels. It relates to publication or printing. One can, for instance, publish a series of books under the imprimatur of "Oxford University Press", because that is applying a trademark to the printing of books. But OUP can't then claim that Oxford University cannot publish its yearbook without their permission, because of the risk of confusion with their copyright. I suspect that you can write a book called "The unofficial history of Oxford University Press" and you will still be in the clear.
As for online reviews, they certainly aren't included in the scope because (a) they aren't made of paper and (b) they are not multimedia.
Oddly the class also includes paper knives. And duplicators. But that does help to show what the framers of the section were thinking about.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Yes, see above by Kupfernigk · 2012-09-12 01:11 · Score: 2

He seems to be trying to extend the scope of Section 16 to titles, rather than trademarks in the way of businesses that produce paper. Scope creep - it's the enemy of progress.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:Yes, see above by raynet · 2012-09-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, bad comic!
  
  --
  - Raynet --> .
2. Re:Yes, see above by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  "Scope Creep" is the name of a central character in my new graphic novel about dating in the 1970's. He's known for wearing polyester and using excessive amounts of mouthwash.
This just in by slashmydots · 2012-09-12 01:17 · Score: 0

This just in: Barbara Streisand is going to appear in this douchebag's next comic :-P
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by mwvdlee · 2012-09-12 01:31 · Score: 1

Not according to the tome of all irrefutable wisdom that is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization.
They describe two distinctly different concepts.
You are free - invited even - to correct me if I'm wrong.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Carnival of Souls by Melissa Marr is GREAT! by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-12 02:16 · Score: 1

It's a fantastic book, possibly the best I have never read.
I just wanted to let you all know that.
Carnival of Souls...Carnival of Souls...Carnival of Souls.
Not the shitty one by Jazan Wild, but the GREAT one by Melissa Marr.
By the way, I have a book coming out titled, "Jazan Wild".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
From another /. post this morning by das989 · 2012-09-12 02:25 · Score: 1

Anyone else read the MTG is Turing complete post? When the machine creates a new 2/2 Ally token under Alex's control, four things trigger: Bob's Noxious Ghoul, Cathy's Aether Flash, Denzil's Carnival of Souls, I guess WoTC should get in line for a lawsuit.
The trade mark is on Microsoft Windows. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:27 · Score: 0

Not windows. Not Windows. But "Microsoft Windows".
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by Gilmoure · 2012-09-12 03:54 · Score: 2

We've secretly replaced the Enterprise's Dylithium Crystals with Foldgers Crystals. Let's see if they notice!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by mcgrew · 2012-09-12 04:10 · Score: 0

Calling someone an idiot is flamebait. Even if is dumb as a post.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by Tastecicles · 2012-09-12 04:14 · Score: 1

so it's going nowhere fast?

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Amazon Reviews by ewhenn · 2012-09-12 04:34 · Score: 1, Troll

Here is a link all of his wares on Amazon. Feel free to review crap on him. Hit the greedy bully fuck where it hurts... the wallet. http://www.amazon.com/JAZAN-WILD/e/B006GFY0LS/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_2
You're (and not "your") wrong Mr. Anonymous! by aglider · 2012-09-12 04:57 · Score: 1

said the guy with UID > 2e+6
Gal, sir!
"Because the first will be last!" said someone that got killed at once!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by chartreuse · 2012-09-12 05:23 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree. "Nazi" has become a generic term, like "aspirin" or "hell" (in fact it's nearly as common as punctuation at this point, as Godwin observed).
Whoever owns the trademark for "nazi" will have to send out C&Ds if they want to prevent that, though they'd probably have to change it up a bit -- Microsoft Nazi(tm)*, anyone?
* (/. is stripping out the "tm" symbol from my post.)
Re:this is beyond ridiculous by paiute · 2012-09-12 05:42 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree. "Nazi" has become a generic term, like "aspirin" or "hell"
The hitler you say!

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:49 · Score: 0

Ok here are the facts. In 2004 I decided to do a comic book series titled CARNIVAL OF SOULS. In 2005 I was blessed enough to have it published and it did really well. So I went on to start my own company and even had CARNIVAL OF SOULS become the #1 ebook on Blackberry for over a year.
From there I have had the series do really well on Amazon, reaching the #1 spot several times. So I decided in 2009 to register my series as a trademark. I have every right to do so. Yet in 2012 HarperCollins and Mellisa Marr, want to take my registered "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" trademark and put it on top of her new book. Which even a stand alone book is an infringement, however, it is well known that this is a "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" series. It is listed on Amazon as a series, under the hardback version of Marr's book. It has been said in several places officially that this is a new series.
Ok, AGAIN... I am minding my own business and running my business, when a Billion dollar company, makes a decision to out and out take my series name and mark. And I am the focus of your anger? Not that kind of unethical practice?
They have no right to do this. What if I did that to them?
We contacted HarperCollins in June and asked them to stop using my series name and mark. They threatened to take my mark. They listed all kinds of other uses of the title from other classes of goods... like movies and cds and such. They said the name was common and basicily I should be ashamed for having chosen it. Even though they must now have the crappy name for their new million dollar book series. All of this treatment because I did what... protect my work with a trademark?
Look I have a trademark in classes 16 and 41 for novels, comic books and graphic novels. You can only trademark series, not single items. So yes, there are other CARNIVAL OF SOULS out there. The ones before my mark can stand; the ones after my mark are infringing. They want my mark. They have published a series with the title "CARNIVAL OF SOULS"
my series is called "CARNIVAL OF SOULS." What am I missing? Should I really have never applied for a trademark, because Melissa Marr and HarperCollins may one day in the future decide they want my title? This is insanity. Place your anger where it should be... on that.
And finally as to sending out cease and desists to bloggers... here's the facts. I sat back from June to Sept and received endless "Google Alerts" with "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" being promoted all over web. Not my "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" series but rather a trademark violated version. On Sept 10th the night before my 24th anniversary, I had had enough. I went down the "Google Alert" list and sent the cease and desists to whomever had posted my mark. No bloggers were singled out. This was to let everyone posting this book know that the "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" mark is a registered trademark that HarperCollins is knowingly and willfully violating. The bloggers are not doing a damn thing wrong. They are doing their job and got caught in the crossfire, and for that I am sorry. It is HarperCollins and Melissa Marr who have done the wrong thing since day one. And I have to defend my series.
Now let's let the courts decide the matter.
Best, Jazan Wild
Federal Complaint against Ms. Marr's and (Harper Collins) for Trademark Infringement:
http://www.jazanwild.com/MARR_EXHIBITS_FOR_TRADEMARK_LAWSUIT/First_Amended_Complaint.pdf
Exhibits against Ms. Marr's and (Harper Collins) for Trademark Infringement:
http://www.jazanwild.com/MARR_EXHIBITS_FOR_TRADEMARK_LAWSUIT/EXHIBITS_1-24.pdf
http://www.jazanwild.com/MARR_EXHIBITS_FOR_TRADEMARK_LAWSUIT/EXHIBITS_25-39.pdf
http://www.jazanwild.com/MARR_EXHIBITS_FOR_TRADEMARK_LAWSUIT/EXHIBITS_40-64.pdf
http://www.jazanwild.com/MARR_EXHIBITS_FOR_TRADEMARK_LAWSUIT/EXHIBITS_101-120.pdf
1. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by samazon · 2012-09-13 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  How TF is this downmodded? It's relevant to the discussion, and contains legitimate references. Even if the AC is NOT Wild... Seriously, you would think people who understand creation would be defending this man. How would you feel if I took something you had spent years creating, something you poured your life and energy into, and made something similar and then stole all the "thunder" without having done any of the work involved? This is NOT some patent trolling company. This is one man, and his life's work. You should all be ashamed.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
2. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Because, you sock puppet, it's a garbage lawsuit.
3. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by samazon · 2012-09-13 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Say that to my face! Seriously, it's not like "oh, I'm going to sue you because I spilled some hot coffee on myself"... it's like "oh hey, you stole the name of my series for your series, oh, and it's about the same thing too" ... Why don't you go create something, and then have someone rip it off?
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
4. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by Sharon88 · 2012-09-13 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  You are one of the few people on here who seem to get the facts right. And you expressed them very well! People just seem to want to slam people for the sake of slamming them. They don't actually read what the issue is, and then make dumb comments. I ask then, who is the real idiot? The one with a legitimate issue, or the one who makes an uneducated romper room remark? I know the correct answer.
5. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by ZosX · 2012-09-13 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because that's a completely original title. You cannot expect a well used title to hold up in court under trademark claims. Just because you have been granted a trademark does not mean that it cannot be challenged in court. Seeing as how there are many, many examples of this title being used to the point of cliche, I would imagine if he had his day in court he would be laughed out of it. This guy is also suing a network for using what he considers similar subject matter on episode of a television show. Harper Collins is not stealing his work, not reprinting his books without his permission, and not publishing a book with the same title that steals material directly from the graphic novel. Maybe I should trademark "the road" or "fire in the sky" or "the garden of eden." How about "Lost Souls"?? If I can come up with titles as original as that I should totally have a right to sue anyone that would dare use a title that I obviously ripped off from something else with THE SAME EXACT TITLE. I mean god! The same title! How dare she commit such theft of his intellectual property! She is going to make millions while he isn't according to his sob story and he's getting ripped off because he stole the title first? I mean if you read his statement, he makes it out like they completely ripped his material and reused it. Note how he acknowledges that the title has been used in the past, but note the tone of how he feels he now owns it. Do you feel this is fair or how book titles should be dealt with? I mean what happens when everyone trademarks all the common phrases and words? Do book titles suddenly become "The Long and Winding Road to the Home on the Range under Silver Magnolias on Elm Street?" If you ask me, he's just butthurt that someone is more successful than him and has a similar theme going on. Maybe Tolkein estate should start suing everyone that writes fantasy, because you know, they are just ripping off Tolkein's intellectual property. Boy, all these needless and frivolous lawsuits must be costing this guy a lot of money.
  
  --
  zosxavius photography
6. Re:JAZAN WILD (The Facts) by samazon · 2012-09-14 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Let me ignore your sarcasm and vitriol, and put this in a way you might relate to: you take pictures, right? Let's say you, instead of spamming flickr and instagram, built your own web site, filled with your pictures. Let's say you call it Z-Photography. You work on it for five years and get a pretty decent following of people who enjoy your work and buy your prints, of, let's say, buildings and cityscapes, so you trademark the name "Z-Photography" for your works - maybe you even put out a few coffee table books, as a series. Suddenly, eight years after you start your web site, and three years after you have a confirmed trademark on Z-Photography, a large corporate entity which sells stock photography comes out with a line of stock photos of cities for publication (which is, BTW, how you make money freelancing as a photographer when you're not doing weddings and senior portaits, as I'm sure you know) as well as a couple coffee table books, and calls the whole thing "Z-Photography" - the photographs aren't the exact same, but they're of buildings and cityscapes (just like your photographs!) - and they even use one of your sub-gallery names as their personal web address! Suddenly, when people search ThePlaceWherePeopleBuyPrints (let's say Etsy, even, hmm?) for Z-Photography, it's not YOUR stuff, but some other person's! When they search for your coffee table books on Amazon, it's not your books, which have been out for years, but this brand new stuff.
  The issue here is that he must defend his trademark to maintain it, and that this woman and HarperCollins are stealing a brand he's been building for years. It could just as easily happen to you, or me, or anyone else who creates anything.
  
  --
  I have the hiccups.
I'm calling my next project "Carnival of Souls" by Zadaz · 2012-09-12 06:27 · Score: 1

Do you know how much money promotion costs? How hard it is for anyone to notice a new project? And here is Jazan Wild giving out free promotion for anything with that title! I certainly wouldn't have known about Melissa Marr's book any other way.
Keep up the stellar work, Jazan Wild. I'm sure it's getting you the results you're after.
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by Spiridios · 2012-09-12 08:26 · Score: 1

Don't know who modded you as flamebait, but clearly didn't read the summary either
Calling someone an idiot is flamebait. Even if is dumb as a post.
Something seems to be the words in this thread.
Review excerpts is fair use by nurb432 · 2012-09-12 09:17 · Score: 1

However, with this idiot the only review id give is that he's an idiot and don't buy his books. And i would be sure EVERYONE hears about it.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
read this by isyanq4r · 2012-09-12 10:52 · Score: 1

His comic was put out in 2006, but the title/phrase has been in use since at least 1962. Porno izle daha önce okumadnz Sex Hikayeleri
Very informative, and thanks ! by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-09-12 13:03 · Score: 1

Thanks for a very informative and historical analysis of trademark

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by mcgrew · 2012-09-13 01:21 · Score: 1

You're right, and I previewed it! I'd noticed in others' comments and thought they were being hasty, but after seeing this comment, I think there may be a new slashbug. The last sentence should read "Even if he is dumb as a post."

--
Free Martian Whores!
i think so by yangli520 · 2012-09-18 16:11 · Score: 1

what about this?

--
http://www.aiyiagroup.com Hot dipped galvanized steel coil