Slashdot Mirror
Fine Brothers File For Trademark On Word "React"
DewDude writes: You've probably seen them on YouTube: Fine Brothers are the two behind the video series Teens React, Kids React, and Elders React. Well, the two seem to feel they somehow invented this whole thing and have now filed for a very broad trademark. The USPTO filing says the trademark will be published tomorrow and looking at the filing; it is literally for the word "react" and simply shows a screenshot of their YouTube page. They have also apparently gotten approval for "Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React"; as well as filed applications for things such as "Do They Know It," "Lyric Breakdown," "People v. Technology," and "Try Not To Smile Or Laugh."
I'd like to trademark "fuck off and die", then use it liberally in these cases.
"Oh no... he found the
...They said "Parents React" twice. I guess they really like parents reacting.
No words for this idiocy.
"Mr. Express, I represent the Fine Brothers, and I'm filing a suit against you for copyright infringement..."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Bad Editing. "They have also apparently gotten approval for "Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React""
Goatse React.
Trolling is a art,
Facebooks "react" component might be under some pressure to change names. https://facebook.github.io/react/
Acronym for Radio Emergency Associated Communication Teams. Any other use would cause confusion.
Have gnu, will travel.
That the trademark office had 300+ applications for the word "react" on file. Eli the Computer Guy did a fine a video on this controversy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byy8e37spOg
This trademark BS has gone to far!
And with bad laws like the TPTA and others any can say if you don't pay for my trademark we can shut you down.
Makes me want to trademark the letter E online and I be a nice guy only $0.0002 per use.
Nope, never heard of them before. Nor have I heard about their react products til now. (but didn't click the link 'cuz parenting doesn't interest me)
Another slashdot fail.
Facebook has more money and lawyers than a random youtuber. Let's see the Fine's C&D/sue over react.js. Facebook will crush them.
But I've already trademarked "fine" and "brother"...
We had a twenty+ year-old product named React, and Facebook threatened to make sure the owner's children ended-up homeless and personally called to threaten several employees at home. They have a JavaScript framework of the week named React, and they are screwing over people hard that also use the same name. Facebook is going to put these morons out of business like they did my company. Over twenty years in business, and using the name React killed us.
Slashdotters react[TM].
I posted a video reaction to this myself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Basically, it's tough to trademark a word that describes the thing you're selling. "React" describes the videos they create. Although this doesn't conflict with any valid trademarks the USPTO has registered, it shouldn't survive a challenge in court. Anyone who makes react videos themselves should have standing to oppose the mark.
Filing an opposition is not as simple as filling out an online form. I believe there's a trademark attorney willing to help for free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you want to file an oppsition notice yourself: http://estta.uspto.gov/filing-...
And man, are they losing subscribers over this...
How about ReactOS and ReactX?
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
http://reactintl.org/
Karma: Bad
There's no chance this registration will go through. The "hearing" to prevent this registration will consist of walking into the room and chuckling.
Although the text of the statutory law says you can't trademark words that are "merely descriptive" of the product, USPTO regularly denies applications that are at all descriptive. Really they want to see evocative, not descriptive. So Ford can trademark Mustang because it doesn't describe the car at all, it merely evokes the general idea of fast and wild.
Both of my trademark applications were denied for being descriptive and neither were NEARLY as generic as "parents react".
You said you'd like see trademarks using common words banned. They pretty much already are, if using the word in the normal way. You have a car Ford Edge only because the word Edge doesn't have anything to do with cars. Also note that trademark for cars called Edge ONLY applies to cars. You can sell or trademark the Edge taco or Edge jeans without infringing Ford's trademark.
Allow me to react, "Screw you, Fine brothers"
They posted to youtube a video explaining it only covers the stuff they made and that people can still use "React." Did they lie? Is this post FUD? I wonder.
they have only one reason to get these: automated takedown notices on youtube. what they are trying to do is not make money off the trademark but rather prevent anyone else from using them in their video title by using automated enforcement. the ideal result is that anyone searching youtube for a reactionary video will only get results of videos they have posted. they are in effect trademarking search terms.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
On youtube, facebook, and comedy and meme sites the two are getting utterly destroyed. For example, one member said that one of the fine brothers' meth addict looking eyes couldn't be shown on youtube because Steve Buscemi has prior art. The real problem people see is first, they're "franchising" out something they don't own in the first place (a video format as opposed to their actual brand name) while secondly potentially preparing to sue everyone who reacts to viral videos in a similar way to their common format. Well guess what, anyone and everyone can make a "let's play" and it's a similar format because in the US you can't patent or trademark or copyright general presentation formats.
Intellectual Property, translated from Latinate words to Anglo-Saxon ones, is Thought Ownership. Then the absurdity is clear.
Of all the I.P. laws --- patent, copyright, and trademark --- trademark to me made the most sense. I don't want another company calling itself Apple Computer. Trademark, then, is just like namespacing, just common sense.
But here I see that even that can be abused. It just goes to show that any law in the category of intellectual property should be sharply restricted, dealt with as if it had a big radioactivity symbol on it.
As for patents, they should just be completely obliterated. I have never seen a patent where I said, if we didn't grant this patent, we would never have got this thing invented. The inventor would have been too scared.
As for copyright, I can't yet say it should be obliterated. But the current terms are way too long. 30 years tops.
As for trademark, like I said, it just helps fight confusion, but still it should be dealt with with the utmost contempt for the requester. It would be better to hold off on granting one, and see what happens, than to grant too many. This is nothing but abuse by the Fine Brothers to unfairly stomp out competition.
The Fine Bros gets fined.
I don't know who the fuck Fine Bros are but there have been reaction videos way before Goatse existed. I'll enjoy seeing the reaction they have when this shit is rejected.
Calling Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53KcqITIPlA
I'd like to try to patent the word "president" it would really help my retirement fund =P
The problem is content producers on Youtube are actually losing money because their title has the word "REACT" in it and the contentID that automates detection of infringing videos are tagging these videos so the creators are losing their ad revenue and getting strikes against their account.
Another problem is that these guys have millions of subscribers so their a big revenue stream for Youtube so they have of course sided with the Fine Brothers.
The Fine Brothers didn't create this kind of content. They are nowhere near the first to use it but they are still basically taking ownership of other people's ideas.
I've subscribed to uploaders who've had these problems and Youtube is notoriously difficult to deal with because you have to prove you're not stealing, instead of the accuser having to make a proper case.
Just today I saw a video of a quad-copter being attacked by a hawk, and it was uploaded by the original owner but the video was flagged by some Korean news agency as theirs even though they had no relation to the video aside from using it in their broadcast. The big stinker is that the uploader was donating the ad revenue to a charity and so they've lost out on a couple grand already.
The system Youtube is using is very flawed but they don't seem to care about the grief and frustration they are causing users.
The most satisfying thing is a live stream of the Fine Bros current number of subscribers and the number just kept plummeting by 20-30 every few seconds.
Schadenfreude.
A trademark doesn't mean no one else can use it. It just means someone else can't use it in a commercial enterprise that competes with the mark holder. IANAL, but it is something close to that. In other words, this story is a tempest in a teacup.
I don't think you'll find many people conflating an operating system to a style of reaction videos. They're two different fields of endeavor.
Words that are merely descriptive may not be trade marked. 15 U.S. Code  1052 (e).
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
What about "Slash dot react"?
Caution here... "Let's get ready to fumble" next sunday.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
All the haters...
"I have just as much right to that goldmine, now that it's worth something!" -- Charles Foster Kane's drunken, worthless father
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Are you fucking serious?
Yes, it's evident that there is a huge problem when people segregate what they see and what they say.
I thought you cannot trademark just one word. Microsoft tried to trademark "Windows" and was told NO because it is one word and a common word. Wouldn't "react" be the same thing???
Here
The biggest problem is actually not that they're trying to trademark the word, it's that they're already cozy with YouTube and are using whatever influence they have there to issue DMCA take downs with impunity. And the beauty of YouTube is that it's a private entity and can take down content for whatever reason it wants, for instance when one of their cronies who brings in a shit load of viewers doesn't like something.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
The fine brothers were losing like 200k subscribers a day over this, it was very unpopular. It appears they are rescinding their attempt: their post about it
Fine Bros have backed down. https://medium.com/@FineBrothe...
Why are submissions reviewed and approved so incredibly slowly? This story is already practically over, except to see what the fallout is (that is, how many people accept the apology).
I'm not blaming the new owners, it has been like this for years. It's obviously not for dupe prevention, that's for damn sure.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
This is internet time we work on, you have to be quick and yes, thorough to be a good news site. Slashdot has failed at this in both regards.
Not only had they tried to create something that they developed, produced and grew into a brand recognizable as such, but they have already taken down the trademark applications. https://medium.com/@FineBrothersEnt/a-message-from-the-fine-brothers-a18ef9b31777#.733tpzdoy
The concept that you seem to have missed is the regular creation of series for entertainment. How many shows out there have such generic titles that are trademarked as a way to stop people from just ripping off the title, concept, and format to water down a brand to the point nobody would know what they're watching? Most TV shows have generic titles that rely on the protection of trademark to offer some protection for the work that goes into creating them. Offering some level of niche exclusivity is what attempts to keep the market in less than total chaos. Weather you agree about the quality or levels of effort for each endeavor, is not really what this is about. It's the right for someone to be able to create something and then retain some control over how their creation is identified from all the other stuff around it. How would you feel if there were thirty-three shows out there called Firefly but only one of them was made with the authorization of Wheadon. Sifting through the chaff and trying to find the thing you want even with all the google keywords would be a nightmare. You would always have to be checking the author for everything to make sure you got the version you wanted. And all the crap with the same name would turn so many people off it would have a much lower following than if it could stand just a little apart with a distinct name in it's area of application.
Disregarding the merits of trademark, if you try and build something and don't like trademark it's not like you can try and avoid it. Others could get a claim on the name and if they won, push you out of your own niche that you created. That's why you would have to file and defend your mark even if you didn't want to. Otherwise you run the risk of building up all this content, recognition, and support only to have some douchebag come in and push you out.
But the internet doesn't think of things complexly and so they already did a 180 and rescinded their trademark and will hope for the good will instead of real protection for the content they have been creating that obviously entertains people. There's a market even if you don't like the topic. So people will watch, they may still create, but the incentive for them to build it further is removed since they couldn't use the system without getting bashed for basic protection in a world that requires it with the current laws.
the context is "react" in the title of an internet video.
slashdot did not misunderstand anything.
Maybe you think that the intent was merely to protect their video titles.. well, duh, that is the intent. the intent is to suppress anyone else making react(in the title) videos for youtube or other streaming sites.
if you think that is fair use of trademarks then.. well, good luck. but don't post your reaction to this online in a video.
yeah, so sure you can still make a book called Parents React to Slashdot, though I'm still pretty sure they would sue you for it.
it's fucking stupid and it's just internet fishing at it's worst right now. whats worse is that they're claiming this pretty much after the fact that youtube is already filled with thousands of reaction videos and were filled before they started making their stuff too.
it's like coca cola co. trademarking "refreshing".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I'm going to trademark the word "trademark" and forbid our use in any notices, letters, or terms and conditions.
Whenever someone files a frivolous patent or trademark, you get to punch him in the face until his nose is inverted.
That should make the problem one that solves itself pretty fucking quickly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hereby pledge that if i ever see these two people in real life, and recognize them, i will run up to them and kick them in the balls. If i get arrested for it, i can only say that it will be worth it and i don't give a shit.
Reactionary trademarking not so Fine, brother.
I think Larry needs a slapping from Moe..
Apple. The Beatles. and Then apple, some weird tech company. The McDonalds.com, which was originally owned by a Mr. McDonald and he was using it as a family or family name website. Hmmm. In the very early days of the internet websites were known by a numerical address, IIRC (don't count on it), more like a phone number. And I thought of a brilliant idea: have your website address be a word, or words, like my name (I'm a professional). I should patented the idea! Then ICAN comes along, and takes away McDonalds.com and gives it to a pink slime pusher. And generally the fix was: big entities get their name, and small fry will and did have their names taken away. Oh, yes, there were also cybersquaters, but there really were people using names like bowie.com for things like bowie knives.(RIP David Robert Jones).
But now, after 20 plus years of turning over perfectly good words to corporations I predict the following: it may already be possible to write a sentence where every word is has been Trademarked. Contest, anyone?
"Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React"
Can you get a trademark twice for the same thing?
Is it really enough to just apologize for attempting a hostile takeover of a word? Maybe most people will forgive them. I personally think they should have to answer for everything prior to the apology. At the bottom of their apology page (https://medium.com/@FineBrothersEnt/a-message-from-the-fine-brothers-a18ef9b31777#.um2yg0pm9): "The author has chosen not to show responses on this story. You can still respond by clicking the response bubble." Probably the smartest thing they've done in a long time! (haha -- On a side note, apparently I'm posting as "Anonymous Coward" -- but that's not intentional... I just don't have an account. So -- anonymous coward it is.)
This is the important point. I'm not sure I like making 'react' a trademark here even though it would only apply to web video, because it seems overly broad and I don't think there's a risk of confusion requiring such a generic trademark; however the real issue is that DMCA take-down requests can, and invariably are, used to take down a huge number of things that the person sending them has no right to restrict.
I'd love to find someone who did some form of reaction video before these guys, and fund DMCA takedown requests for all of Fine Brothers crap to make a point, however given how cozy they are with YouTube I doubt they'd be inconvenienced much.
For those of you defending the Fine Bros, remember how they struck down a show called "Seniors react" before they even had any of these trademarks (and crucially a few weeks before starting their very own "Elders React".Yeah, the show was somewhat similar in feel to their established "Kids react" but not to the pint of "using their entire format", which is the only situation in which they claim they will take action. Meanwhile they are deleting any comments that dare mention "Seniors react"
This would be a great opportunity to show off what a great editor you are, and update this article with this link where the Fine Bros. announced they are backing off their trademark claims since they announced it too early.
They have already retracted all claims. Way to be behind the curve Slashdot. You used to be cool, what happened man?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Emergency_Associated_Communication_Teams
You never disappoint me Slashdot. It is good to know that if I missed some crap online you never fail to repost it a week later..
This issue has been going on everywhere for a good week and the finebros turds went back on their plan due to backlash from the web about a day or so ago.
> cozy with YouTube and are using whatever influence they have there to issue DMCA
Any takedowns would either be under the DMCA process OR Youtube could choose what they host. The DMCA process leaves no room for Youtube to make a judgement; they just follow the process, they aren't the judge and jury. Once they receive a DMCA notice, they have to do the temporary takedown*. Here's the process mandated by DMCA:
Complainant notifies hoster (Youtube), providing specific information.
Hoster notifies publisher (person who posted the video).
Hoster temporarily takes down the material.
Publisher may counter-notify hoster.
On receipt on counter-notice, hoster puts the material back online.
Complainant may sue in federal court.
Upon initiating federal proceeding, complainant notifies hoster.
Hoster takes it back down if a federal suit is in process.
The counter-notice step isn't as well known as it could be. It means that if anyone files a DMCA notice against something you posted, you can simply reply saying "no, it's not infringing" and the material goes right back up.
* If Youtube chooses -not- to follow the DMCA process, THEY become liable to whichever side wins. They sometimes do that in clear cases of fair use, if the person posting the video waives their right to sue Youtube for helping them. Here's an article about that:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/...
** Wondering how someone who posted a video could sue Youtube for helping them? Imagine you post something which actually DOES infringe the copyright of some popular movie. The movie studio immediately notifies Youtube, so under DMCA Youtube should take it down immediately. Suppose they don't. It stays up for a year. Then the movie studio sues you for infringement, and wins a judgement against you for $2,000 per day. Youtube's "help" just cost you $720,000.
I HATE their all their stupid "reacts" videos. Even the thumbnails of all the heads annoy the crap out of me.
I uploaded a video to Youtube a decade ago. Now, it's being taken down due to a supposed copyright violation. However, Youtube won't tell me what it is I am infringing, the email claims I have to log into my "channel" to find out what the issue is.
I do not even have a "channel" -- and I can't even remember what name/password combination I used to upload the video, because it was a FREAKING decade ago!
I faxed them for more information and they basically sent back a letter that matches their original email. I have to log into my channel.
One thing I discovered is that it's really easy to file a DMCA claim on Youtube, almost nothing is required. Disputing a claim is almost impossible. Sounds like a system ripe for abuse. I'm waiting for a disreputable law firm to start claiming ownership of every video on Youtube.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
All your trademarks are belong to us...
Seriously though why doesn't someone just do some automation on the Oxford English dictionary to stop this stupid system.
I have never seen them on YouTube.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Everything must be owned- every word, every phrase, every idea. Nothing can be unclaimed, everything must be owned.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Sue aggressively or loose your rights. Either they will sue people into the ground and lose any love of the public, or don't sue them and loose their trademark rights..
Bye!
Does this mean I can't use React JS anymore?
Literally 1 day after
People who trademark Youtube video titles just to gain views are dirty damn whores. What's the bottom line? Money? Whores.
...they just announced they're rescinding all trademark claims. I don't think those 200,000 subscribers will be returning.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel