Trademarks for Dummies
Trademark attorney Marty Schwimmer offers advice to the fool who slapped Jason Calacanis’ wrist for using the English words “for dummies” without legal footnotes:
In the era of the blogosphere where lawyers letters get posted and linked to, some trademark owners may be trading the possibility of [trademark] dilution for the reality of tarnishment.
Forest, meet tress.
Tags: fordummies
February 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Unfortunately they have a point. The lawyer is using the Restricted symbol meaning the trademark was approved. But I would like to see the actual trademark because I noticed he used “Subject, for Dummies” while the laywer posts “XXXX for Dummies”. Does the trademark include the use of a comma? And would that even stand up for multiple work trademarks?
I reviewed and excellent Trademarks and Patent book on my site. It is an excellent reference for people seeing Patens and Trademarks.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Er…shouldn’t that be “trees”?
February 11th, 2006 at 8:30 am
The For Dummies lawyers may have a point, but there are several people out there who are trying to do for language (or TO language) what the patent-hoarders are doing for patents (RIM). I was presented with a threatening letter by a fellow claiming to “own” the word “stealth”; he has successfully stopped many companies from using that word in products or in company names. He’s been rather successful — was highlighted in the WSJ.
February 11th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Didn’t Donald Trump trademark “You’re fired”? I’m going to see about trademarking “the”.
February 11th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Has anybody even read the letter from the supposed lawyer? She doesn’t say to NOT use “for dummies!” It is not a cease and desist letter! Any talk of a “chilling effect” is totally overblown. The letter is simply asking him to put trademark attribution on any articles that use the “for dummies” trademark, which is totally within Wiley’s bounds as the owners of that trademark, and especially since the article uses the trademark in it’s trademark sense. I think this just highlights the dearth of lazy writers who need to rely on an established, well-known trademark to do their work for them instead of being creative and thinking up their own headline, because face it, unless Wiley had established that mark you wouldn’t see it popping up in headlines like this. And to try and even remotely link this to the Mohammed cartoons is the absolute height of idiocy.
February 11th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Scott Walker, it sounds like you’ve encountered the infamous Leo Stoller. Yes, he apparently has had some success intimidating some folks, but when someone stands up to him, he invariably goes down in flames in court. See http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/ttablog-report-leo-stollers-year-2005.html and http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/ttablog-provides-list-of-leo-stoller.html. For instance, in one 1999 case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board stated that “[t]he lack of credibility of Mr. Stoller is a matter of public record.” Basically, neither the courts nor anyone in the trademark world takes Stoller seriously.
February 11th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
TLB points out that the Marty Schwimmer link says their post is “non-commercial use”. Obviously, tvsquad is not a non-commercial site.
And, when I google for superbowl for dummies, the post in question is #6 (above and below newspapers with similar titles). Conceivably, tvsquad could end up outranking Wiley for the phrase ‘for dummies’ if they tried hard enough.
February 11th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
GH, of course, I read the letter. And it’s still ludicrous. What, I should be expected to insert a trademark footnote for an English phrase that has been in usage for years (and even if it weren’t?)? It’s stupid and Schwimmer is right that the tarnishment of the brand is worse than the protection. I now think that the dummies people are all dummies. And that is thanks strictly to their dummie flunkie who sent out this idiotic letter.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:25 am
“an English phrase that has been in usage for years”
That’s one of the points of trademarks, isn’t it? Preventing something from becoming a generic term.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
PYT: not if the usage predates the invention of the trademark. At least that’s my “fair and balanced” view of it.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:04 am
I don’t recall hearing the phrase “for dummies” before the book series. Obviously, if it was used in commerce before they trademarked it they might have a problem, but if so they’ve probably resolved it.
February 13th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
It was used prior to the publishing. Think back to college. Geology 101 was alternatively called Rocks for Jocks or Dirt for Dummies. I can think of other examples.
February 14th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Whether the wording FOR DUMMIES was used in commerce (or otherwise — the words “in commerce” have a statutory meaning under the Lanham Act) is of little relevance to whether the wording is a valid trademark. The question is whether the wording functions as a trademark, i.e., whether the term is used to identify and distinguish one’s goods (or services) from those sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods (or services).
July 7th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Each month lots of people visit http://www.Alcwin.org Whether it is Chemistry, geology, mathematics or a whole range of topics; our resources offer practical advice and information
for every day life. You will find content to your interests. Build your own volcano; learn about earthquakes or source a new Hot Recipe in our extensive library. Find out about OWW (World Occupational Wages) or visit our American Aircraft section. Wherever your thirst for knowledge takes you today - find the answer at Alcwin.org.