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.
"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,
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"...
No need to over-react :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This isn't software, though. Doubt there would be competition because nobody is going to confuse youtube videos for something you might put as a skill on a resume.
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-...
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.
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.
It's time for another example of "Slashdot Totally Misunderstands Trademarks".
Trademarks (in this context, word marks) are not "universal exclusive rights to a word". They're exclusive rights within a certain context. For any given common word, there's generally a dozen or two different companies with trademarks on it in different contexts. There's already 342 trademarks for the word "React", 139 of which are currently active. Indian Industries has it for "paddles used in ball games", while Horizon Hobby has it for "remote controlled hobby vehicles", while Fine Brothers Properties has it for webisodes, while Dekka Technologies, LLC has it for weapons simulators... and so forth. There are no restrictions on anyone using the same word in a different context. You can even trademark the word for your usage of it in a different context.
I wouldn't make a big deal of this, but it seems like not just slashdot but literally 99,99% of the general population seems to think that a trademark is a context-free concept, that if, say, a cell phone manufacturer trademarks the word "jump" then that means that you can't use the word "jump" anymore in regular conversations, or something like that. What it actually means is that you can't make a cell phone called "jump", or anything other cell phone name that would be readily confused for it, or something in the same category as cell phones called "jump". But you can still make a car called jump or a refrigerator called jump or whatnot.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
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.
Misuse the word "Velcro", never m mind the context, and see what (letter from a lawyer) happens.
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.
Except that's how it's going to be applied. Use the word react in your youtube title, tags, or description and it'll be yanked! (or FineBros will take your ad money) I understand the business necessity to trademark your work(s), but in the context of youtube, it's merely a means to bully everyone. Even if that's not their intent, it's going to be very hard not to.
Ask Devinsupertramp how that works.
Calling Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53KcqITIPlA
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.
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.
Many Youtube videos have already been taken down because they have mentioned the words "react" or "reaction" over this. They're also quickly tracking down Youtube videos that use the base word "react" in any way and asking for a cut of ad revenue or be taken down. It's not only an overreaching trademark, but it's being quickly abused.
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.
Since the company that makes velcro also made up the name "velcro", there's only one context for the word - ie: talking about the "velcro" they make.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Trademark + DMCA => You need a lawyer to use the word on Youtube
Somehow I think you missed the context that this is all about creating barriers to entry.
Right, I don't think the issue is about Trademarks in general. It's about THIS fucking trademark. And this one is bullshit, because they are just trying to trademark a generic thing. This is the level of trademarking "sitcoms" or "television comedy". This is the same shit we see in patents and even copyrights at times- "...But it's on a computerrrr I get to owwwwnnn it!"
Fuck'em
That's called a "well known trademark" it takes a lot of time an money to create.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
The issue here is that the other cases are products, not an entire method of communication. It would be like a company having a trademark on the phrase "good bye" when used during telephone calls.
I suggest someone trademark/copyright the term "the fine bros effect" and grant a license to anyone who would otherwise want to use "react" in some sort of public commons license.
Let's treat this with the dignity it deserves and mock the piss out of them.
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.
I don't know. You could always put that question into a video and post it to YouTube asking people for their reaction and see what happens. You can even request that replies be tagged and titled with react somewhere in the title.
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...
It's not even just that that. IIRC, once you file for the trademark, it can still be disputed for up to something like 8 years after you first filed it(see Yoko Ono v. Lennon Murphy), so this doesn't mean it's automagically theirs without dispute, it only means that they have to a) *actively* defend their mark and b) hope nobody shows prior art/use and disputes the trademark.
I am not an attorney but I play one on the blagosphere.
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.
They were already doing DMCA takedowns of any videos they happened across that contained "React" in the title for alleged copyright violation.
These guys are another set of Shkrelis. They are nothing more than rent-seeking scum trying to game the system for profit, while contributing nothing of value or substance in return (unless you think goading a little kid to have a meltdown while you're recording him provides "value").
Maybe we could bring back tarring and feathering?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Would have worked if you'd not stuck in the superfluous comma.
(Would-be Grammar Nazis tend to look foolish if they don't pay attention to such things.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Honestly the best way to deal with Shkreli was something horribly bad that would send a message - be a mega duschebag at your own risk. Setting an example every now and again would really help keep the world a better place.
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.
well of course unless you're using it to react to react videos.
it's crappy intellectual propertionism at it's finest..
backstory to this is that the bros are dmca cease & desisting competing videos on youtube. that's bad enough.
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 think Larry needs a slapping from Moe..
"Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React"
Can you get a trademark twice for the same thing?
Let's not go overboard with this. They became popular and rich by creating content people enjoyed. It was not groundbreaking and they did some shady competition take-downs, they are no Shkrelis. They did create something I myself find well produced and entertaining (at times). They just got too greedy.
Let's just hope the internet learned the real lesson here - be vigilant. Next time somebody tries to usurp a big portion of youtube to themselves, they might do it covertly without blabering about it to the whole world like these two dumb asses did.
You have no clue what you're talking about. I wish people would take the time to be informed before posting to Slashdot.
The Fine Brothers didn't request the trademarks for webisodes. That's factually incorrect. They requested the trademark for "observing and interviewing groups of people." That's overly broad and encompasses a lot of things, including in science and psychology. A lot of news outlets interview people for their reactions to big news. That, too, was seemingly covered by the trademark applications.
There are also things called exclusive trademarks, which cover things like the Olympics. If you have a business or a product with the word "olympic" in it, you may very well get contacted by the IOC. It doesn't matter that you're clearly not related to athletic competitions. Most trademarks aren't exclusive, but there is such a thing. Your post is wrong in that respect, too.
The backlash was significant enough that the Fine Brothers have rescinded their trademark claims and applications (http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/fine-bros-back-down-rescind-trademark-claim-on-the-word-react/). Infringement claims were already made on their behalf, which angered a lot of people. They had plans to create something called "React World" where people would need to license the format of their videos to produce similar things. All references to React World have been removed. They're begging for forgiveness now. They don't deserve it, though. This wasn't an honest mistake. Windows Vista was a horrible mistake. Apple adding a U2 album to everyone's library was a well-intentioned but big mistake. Infringing on a patent or trademark you didn't know about is a mistake. This was no mistake. This was pure greed and people need to punish greed by not doing supporting greedy businesses.
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.
We need heavy fines on false use of DMCA.
Fine the [not so] Fine bros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
that's just wrong
"React" is kinda rare. But if trademarking common words is okay, I'm going to trademark the word "the".
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.
I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt if, in their original video, they weren't pushing the line of "we're going to change the world!"
That's some Prosperity Gospel line of bullshit thinking right there.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Since the company that makes velcro also made up the name "velcro", there's only one context for the word - ie: talking about the "velcro" they make.
More to the point, that's *why* they made up the name "velcro". Note, however, that we're perfectly within our rights to have this conversation using their word.
Do you have ESP?
> 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 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.
It's almost as if everyone had forgotten why they're called trademarks.
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...
Someone should start a meme of "React" videos to this topic: "Viewers React to React Trademark"
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!
Links? Articles? Anything?
DMCA doesn't apply to Trademarks, so just challenge the ruling. Of course Google can take videos down unilaterally, they are generally transparent as to why things are removed. But once again, link to said disruptions please?
Bye!
Does this mean I can't use React JS anymore?
Please, explain how the "Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act" applies to Trademark.
DMCA is for copyright violations. Reporting Trademark infringement is an incorrect use of the process.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Literally 1 day after
"Viewers React to React Trademark"
They were already doing DMCA takedowns of any videos they happened across that contained "React" in the title for alleged copyright violation.
Do you have any links to show this? I did a search but failed to find anything to support that claim. Several others have posted it in this discussion too.
Many Youtube videos have already been taken down because they have mentioned the words "react" or "reaction" over this.
Do you have any links to show this? I did a search but failed to find anything to support that claim. Several others have posted it in this discussion too.
...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
Please, explain how the "Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act" applies to Trademark.
DMCA is for copyright violations. Reporting Trademark infringement is an incorrect use of the process.
Worse than incorrect, according to CrossFit, Inc c. Alvies (2014), if you use a DMCA takedown to assert a trademark, you could be liable under section 512(f) of the DMCA.
Crossfit tried to use the DMCA to assert a trademark against the "Crossfit Mamas" website, and lost the counterclaim under DMCA section 512(f).
No words for this idiocy.
I dunno. Maybe the PTO should just do it.
Can I still say that?