Originally posted 2013-04-16 11:48:26. Republished by Blog Post Promoter


BigTimOBrien writes to mention the EFF is reporting that self-proclaimed cyberlawyer, Eric Menhart, has decided to trademark use of the term “cyberlaw” and is threatening other lawyers with legal action over the term.

Describing yourself as a “cyberlaw” expert is pretty lame, but I just may start right now. In fact, I think I just did!

UPDATE: Eric Goldman rounds up the mockery, plus some background on Menhart, and adds:

Mr. Menhart has blogged a response to EFF that reinforces that he really doesn’t get it. Two unavoidable facts of life for him:

1) The PTO will bounce his TM application
2) If he ever attempts to enforce his purported trademark rights in “CyberLaw” again, he will be met by a buzzsaw of opposition from some very determined folks.

In light of these facts, most savvy lawyers would realize that the absolutely wrong approach is to dig in his/her heels.

I really do like Eric.

UPDATE:  More, from Brett Trout

By Ron Coleman

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION blog author Ron Coleman is a member of Dhillon Law Group in their New York City and Montclair, New Jersey offices. He is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law and Princeton University.

2 thoughts on “I’m a CYBERLAWYER, too!”
  1. […] Eric Goldman updates us on the “Cyberlaw” trademark preposterousness: Despite his initial blustery defense of the application (which, as a reader noted to me, violated the First Rule of Holes), Menhart has now backed off his claim to own the term “CyberLaw.” Instead, he has amended his application to seek a trademark registration only in his stylized CyberLaw logo. . . However, Menhart doesn’t appear to have changed his tune about the merits of his initial application. Instead, the Baltimore Sun quotes him as saying that he amended his application because: It was very clear that this was not going to be an academic argument, it was going to be more of a shouting match, and I didn’t think it was worth my time to get involved in a shouting match with people that were going to shout louder and had more ammunition in their holsters than I had […]

  2. I note that Mr. Menhart’s application was abandoned in October 2008 for failure to respond to the descriptiveness objection in the office action. This result is not at all surprising, and reinforces my confidence in the system.

Comments are closed.