Of course there isn’t any question where the goodwill resides, it resides with the corporation/kehilla it has always been associated with.

All you’ve done is restate the question. Where there is a simultaneous break and the original source of the goodwill — arguably the previous Admor himself — is no longer able to assert that goodwill, there is a bona fide and probably irreconcilable factual dispute as to the competing claims that requires either that registration be denied or that it be permitted to both groups, neither of whom has priority of use vis-a-vis the other. That is the trademark law part.

Now, if you believe one or the other competing Bobov court is properly and non-controversially identified as the “breakaway” and the other as “the [one] is has always been associated with,” you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe firmly that you are wrong. A contemporaneous split immediately follow the passing of the Grand Rabbi means there is no way to identify one or the other faction in such a manner. Physical possession of real estate is certainly not the deciding factor.

Being that you don’t profess to be an expert on “Jewish practice, custom and dignity”, and being that it isn’t relevant to the Trademark Law, I will refrain from commenting on your view of “Jewish Custom and dignity”.

Hasidic kehillos’ names are not necessarily entitled to less protection than other kehillos. And like most the vast majority of kehillos, most Hasidic courts do not seek the aid of the government in securing that protection. Perhaps they should in a time where everything is up for grabs. But in the middle of a dispute currently pending in beis din (and even otherwise), resort to gentile courts in an internecine dispute is a massive breach of Jewish law, custom and dignity. We non-experts call it a chillul Hashem and an issur d’oraysa. Ask your local expert what those terms mean.

Feel free, however, to continue to refrain from commenting unless you identify yourself or take a different attitude less redolent of what we non-experts call “snark.”

Of course there isn’t any question where the goodwill resides, it resides with the corporation/kehilla it has always been associated with. The breakaway part is a new entity/source and will only use the mark if authorised by the corporation. Should the new entity decide to unjustly use the mark, well, that’s when you need trademark protection.

Why Chasidik Kehilla’s names are less worthy of protection than other Kehillas is beyond me.

Belz, Ponivitsh, Ger, all these are strong marks and recognised by all as such. No one would dare use their name with impunity, hence there is no reason to register those marks. Should one of them feel their mark is threatened, then they should be able to register it.

Being that you don’t profess to be an expert on “Jewish practice, custom and dignity”, and being that it isn’t relevant to the Trademark Law, I will refrain from commenting on your view of “Jewish Custom and dignity”.

You may, in the alternative, argue that both should have the rights as against all others. That may be a good argument. I have blogged on the “single source” issue before, and been enlightened as well. But here, making a choice as to one court or the other would unconstitutionally entangle a federal tribunal in the question in which of two competing groups is the “real Bobov.”

My question as which other Hasidic courts have done this (answer: none) is not relevant to the law. It is relevant to Jewish practice, custom and dignity, however.

I read your blog article and then reported the story on my own blog http://blog.ipfactor.co.il , see http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2007/04/24/rival-bobov-factions-in-trademark-dispute/
since we cover IP issues from an Israeli angle, and boboviously there are a number of local hassidim who will find the issue interesting.

Anyway, I did a search of the Israel Trademark Database and it turns out, not surprisingly, that there are 14 Bobov trademarks filed in Israel by United Bobov International, Inc.

There are possibilities to oppose trademarks in Israel. Usually they are opposed because of interferences etc.

The closest Israel precedent I can think of to the current issue off hand is a mark for Kaynus (i.e. canes) which is a descriptive term for schach (succa covering) in Yiddish, and had competing succa machers fighting it out.

By the way, for the record, I am a mitnaggid, both philosophically and historically (at least on my father’s side of the family), so have no personal interest in the issue.

Michael

I fail to understand what you fail to understand. Can you direct me to other hasidic courts that have sought trademark protection for their “brands”?

Young Israel,
OU,
These you’d understand to be true trademarks, why not Bobov?

Ed.:  Good catch, Mike.  Give me a break — I wrote this erev Shabbos and have corrected the dumb error.

As for cities named after a pre-existing trademark, there’s Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico, which was named after a game show (I think when the show offered to do something favorable for the first town willing to name itself after them).

International enforcement of trademarks is also a complicated issue. It is largely governed by an agreement called the Madrid Protocol.

I would not sweat anyone having to change their cities’ names based on the trademark rights claimed by Hasidic Jews!

If the answer is yes, can the corporation holding the trademark force the city to change it’s name? This following would be a very interesting episode. One of the many Bostoner Rebees trademarking Boston (and Avdak Boston, Bostoner Rebbee, Admor Me’Boston etc.). They will then force all other Bostoner Rebees to change their name. Then they will sue the city of Boston for infringement and force them to change their name (any suggestions). In ten years from now the current US map will be obsolete.

Also, do the Poles have to abide to the PTO rules? Will the town of Bobov have to adopt a new name?

If your problem is less the tragedy itself and more that it’s being adjudicated in a secular court, can you identify any functioning rabbinic court that would have been willing to take this on, and would have been able to exact compliance with its judgments in this matter?