Originally posted 2011-11-08 11:19:26. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
So eventually all the “big trademark stories” catch up to you, even if you try to avoid them as you would try to avoid … certain assemblies of people in certain locations.
Paul Elias of the Associated Press asked me what I thought about the OCCUPY WALL STREET trademark application, and that turned into this story in the Washington Post:
[Wylie] Stecklow, the attorney for the protesters, says he believed his clients will prevail because they’ve been using the phrase “Occupy Wall Street” for months before the first application was filed….
“This rush to trademark was entirely expected and predictable because this is what everybody does,” said Ron Coleman, a trademark lawyer and author of a popular trademark blog. “The irony is too rich.”
Coleman predicted the New York protesters would prevail because they’ve been using the phrase the longest. Nonetheless, he questioned how the trademark could be managed by a group claiming to be leaderless.
“Who has authority to speak on behalf of the trademark?” Coleman said.
Prevail, I said, as opposed to the t-shirt makers out West, discussed in the story, whose date of first use is both later and, it seems pretty obvious, is entirely ornamental. Then there’s the admission that, well, “Vincent Ferraro of Fer- Eng told Cable News Network that his company had no affiliation with the movement and simply filed the application as a business proposition.” That quote should pretty much deep-six that registration.
In terms of the last quote from me in the AP story, just to be clear — and Paul was typing as fast as he could,* but those don’t sound quite like my precise words — what I meant in the last quote was along these lines: Read More…