Slashdot Mirror


Author Threatens To Sue Book Reviewers Over Trademark Infringement

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."

19 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Next, chef sues recipe users ! by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 · · 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 cpt+kangarooski · · 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.
  2. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 Tx · · 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.
    3. Re:Well... by Doctor_Jest · · 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.
    4. Re:Well... by neonKow · · 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.

    5. Re:Well... by cpt+kangarooski · · 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.
  3. He's got nothing... by drkim · · 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.

  4. Re:this is beyond ridiculous by mwvdlee · · 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?
  5. Re:Harper Collins did infringe his trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot copyright or trademark the titles of books.

  6. Read the trademark! by Kupfernigk · · 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 · · 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 Snaller · · 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
  7. The author's take on this by Kergan · · 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.

  8. Re:this is beyond ridiculous by paiute · · 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
  9. So you're anti-semantic? by denzacar · · 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
  10. Re:Does he only sue for negative reviews... by psiclops · · 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