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""
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
But I've already trademarked "fine" and "brother"...
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.
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.
Damn you!
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.