Photo of Jessica Gutierrez Alm

View my professional biography

I wasn’t planning to be a lawyer. At least that was my thinking as I began law school. This degree was going to give me a leg up in my efforts to enter the business world. Lawyers live in the gray — where there’s never a right answer, only possibilities — and the favorite lawyer answer for any seemingly yes-or-no question is: “it depends.” I was an engineer. I enjoyed the absoluteness of knowing that my answer to any problem was correct or incorrect. Despite my resistance to lawyer thinking, at some point along my law school path, I discovered intellectual property. This world allowed me to be an engineer, to revel in mathematics and physics, while still practicing this thing they call the law. Through my newfound joy in IP, I grew to appreciate that there is a place for gray, and to understand that not every question has a correct answer.

When I’m not working, you’ll find me exploring the limits of my creativity in the form of DIY projects for my house. My husband and I recently purchased our first home and there is no limit to the number of HGTV projects I’ll attempt.

The term Comic Con has become synonymous with a certain culture.  In recent years, comic book conventions (and comic book culture), have become increasingly popular.  Annual comic book conventions are held in major cities across the U.S. and the world.  Many of these conventions are titled—officially or unofficially—“[City] Comic Con.”  One recent jury decision, however, may cause some (official) rebranding.

In 2014, the San Diego Comic Convention (San Diego CC) sued organizers of the Salt Lake Comic Convention (Salt Lake CC) for trademark infringement.  San Diego alleged that Salt Lake willfully infringed its registered COMIC-CON and COMIC CON INTERNATIONAL marks.

Salt Lake CC defended primarily on the ground that “comic con” is a generic term for comic book conventions.  The convention organizers cited to the names of various cities’ comic conventions to show the term is used generically—Motor City Comic Con, New York Comic Con, Denver Comic Con, and Emerald City Comic Con, among others.  Salt Lake CC also pointed to the usage of “comic con” in media to generically refer to a type of convention.

A sampling of the various Comic Cons pointed to by Salt Lake CC as evidence of generic use.

Throughout the case, Salt Lake CC worked to rally fans behind the view that “comic con” belongs to the public.  Eventually, Salt Lake CC’s tweets, Facebook posts, and press releases about the case prompted the federal judge to issue a gag order.  The order temporarily prevented Salt Lake CC from commenting on the case, and restricted their ability to republish public court documents.  The order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately vacated on First Amendment grounds.

At trial, San Diego CC presented its Comic Con to the jury as a brand.  Through surveys and other evidence, San Diego CC convinced the jury that Comic Con is not a generic term for a type of event.  Instead, San Diego argued, it operates as a source designator for the San Diego convention.

The Jury found that Salt Lake CC’s use of “Comic Con” infringes on San Diego’s registered marks.  The infringement, however, was not willful according to the jury.  Thus, despite San Diego’s request of $12 million in damages, they were awarded only $20,000 for corrective advertising.  Post-trial motions will likely be filed, and the case may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  But at least for the time being, it seems Comic Con is (officially) off limits to event organizers without a license.  However, I suspect (unofficial) uses of the term will continue.

Simon Tam wasn’t the only one barred by the Lanham Act from reclaiming a historically derogatory term.

Dykes on Bikes is a nonprofit lesbian motorcycle organization.  According to their website, the group’s mission is to “support philanthropic endeavors in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and women’s communities, and to reach out to empower a community of diverse women through rides, charity events, Pride events, and education.”  In 2015, Dykes on Bikes tried to register their logo as a service mark for entertainment.  The application was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam, as the Supreme Court considered whether Simon Tam could register his band name—The Slants.  In view of the Court’s landmark decision holding the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, Dykes on Bikes will move forward with its trademark application as well.

It was in 2003 when Dykes on Bikes first sought to register the name of their organization as a service mark for education and entertainment services.  Registration was refused on the basis that the mark was disparaging to lesbians.  The organization appealed to the TTAB, arguing that the word “dyke” had become a positive term and a symbol of pride and empowerment.  Dykes on Bikes won their appeal before the TTAB.  But when the mark was published for opposition, an individual named Michael McDermott filed an opposition claiming the mark was disparaging to men.  Ultimately, McDermott’s opposition was dismissed for lack of standing.  In particular, McDermott failed to show either (1) he possesses a trait or characteristic implicated by the proposed mark; or (2) others share the same belief of harm from the proposed mark.  The TTAB dismissed McDermott’s opposition and the Federal Circuit affirmed.  DIKES ON BIKES was successfully registered in 2007.

Because they had already won the disparagement battle for their first mark, Dykes on Bikes was surprised to face another disparagement refusal for a second mark.  In 2015, the group sought to register their logo as a service mark.  They sought review by the TTAB, and the case was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam.  Dykes on Bikes also filed an amicus brief in the Tam case, arguing in favor of Tam’s position.  After the Supreme Court held in Tam that “the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” the DYKES ON BIKES W M C logo was approved for publication.

Dykes on Bikes and The Slants had similar goals.  As Dykes on Bikes described in their amicus brief, both groups “have chosen to reclaim self-referential terms as trademarks for the benefit of the groups those terms refer to.”  They also drew a distinction with respect to a certain NFL team name: “the Washington Redskins have chosen a term that is unrelated to the people who identify as members of the football team and is commonly understood to be a slur which members of the identified group have not reclaimed.  Whatever the constitutionality of the PTO’s treatment of the Redskins mark, the team’s use of that name is immoral and Dykes on Bikes encourages the Washington Redskins to give up their trademarked name as a matter of respect and decency.”

While the Tam decision may have opened the proverbial flood gates of offensive trademark applications, it also allows for these positive trademark uses in reclaiming derogatory terms.

Many of us have been eagerly waiting to see whether the Supreme Court would consider Google’s potential genericness.

As Martha explained, the case began in 2012, after petitioners Chris Gillespie and David Elliot attempted to register hundreds of web domains that included the word “Google” together with a variety of different people, products, and brands (i.e., googlestarbucks.com).  Google objected to the registrations, and Elliot filed a complaint (joined by Gillespie) in federal district court.  Elliot and Gillespie argued that “google” had become a generic term due to its common use as a verb.  The district court ruled against Elliot and Gillespie on summary judgment.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s opinion.  As Tucker discussed recently, the Ninth Circuit held that “verb use does not automatically constitute generic use.”  The court clarified that the mere act of using the term as a verb does not render the mark generic unless it is used to refer to a type of good or service (i.e. an internet search generally).

Without comment, the Supreme Court denied Elliot’s and Gillespie’s petition for review.  (Notably, of the 7,000-8,000 petitions filed each year, the Supreme Court grants and hears argument in only about 80 of them.)

While Google is surely celebrating the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, Band-Aid, Xerox, and Rollerblade are cheering right along with them, while cellophane, aspirin, and thermos look on with envy.

There is an entire gaming sub-culture developed around watching others play video games.  I’m not talking about gathering around the Game Cube in your friend’s basement and passing the only controller.  “Let’s Play” videos are game play videos made by players and posted or streamed online.  The videos usually include the players’ own running commentary, which typically offers sarcasm, loud noises, bad jokes, profanity, and occasionally helpful tips.

The concept of Let’s Play videos has been around, in various forms, as long as recording devices and screen captures have allowed gameplay documentation.  Today, some players make a sizeable living from Let’s Play video ad revenues.  Felix Kjellberg, whose YouTube name is PewDiePie, is easily the most well-known Let’s Play vlogger.  With over 50 million YouTube subscribers, PewDiePie was named the highest-earning YouTuber in both 2015 and 2016.

A screenshot from PewDiePie’s Let’s Play video for the game Dark Souls

Despite their popularity, however, the legality of Let’s Play videos is on shaky ground.  Each video features a reproduction of copyright-protected images from a video game.  The videos also typically feature the player’s voiceover and a small window showing the player’s reactions (see above example).  If not a pure reproduction of copyright-protected material, the videos are at least a derivative work.

Some have argued that Let’s Play videos are protected fair use.  Statutory examples of fair use include criticism, comment, news reporting, and a few others.  Arguably, the gaming videos may be a form of commentary, as at least some of the videos do include commentary on the copyright-protected images themselves.  However, these statutory categories are only examples, and fair use is decided on a case-by-case consideration of six factors.  The transformative nature of the videos may weigh in favor of fair use.  That is, rather than a video game, Let’s Play videos provide video playback of one user’s gameplay with added commentary.  At this point, it is largely unclear whether these videos constitute fair use, and will likely remain so until a court has the opportunity to give guidance.

Whether Let’s Play videos are rampant infringement or protected fair use, video game developers have largely chosen a hands-off response. PewDiePie’s videos provide free advertising for the game developers to 50 million subscribers.  The videos give potential players an opportunity to preview gameplay and graphics before purchasing.  Because the draw of a video game is in active play, this likely does not take away from the game developers’ bottom lines.

This week, however, one video game developer reminded PewDiePie of the unstable footing on which his vlogging fame rests. A recent PewDiePie video included some racist commentary.  Unfortunately, it isn’t PewDiePie’s first misstep of this type.  Though this particular incident ruffled the wrong game developer’s feathers.  In a series of tweets, a co-founder of Campo Santo—developer of the game Firewatch—condemned PewDiePie’s statements and vowed to file DMCA takedown notices for PewDiePie’s Firewatch videos.

The Firewatch creator stated “I am sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off of what we make.”  In apparent reference to the legalities, he said “[t]here is a bit of leeway you have to have with the internet when [you] wake up every day and make video games. There’s also a breaking point.”

This game developer’s response illustrates developers’ power with respect to the success of Let’s Play videos, and more generally highlights the power afforded copyright holders by the DMCA. The Firewatch creator’s takedown threat was an apparent result of his personal disgust at PewDiePie’s racist remarks, and did not relate to any new discovery of infringement.  Like other game developers, Campo Santo was well aware of Let’s Play videos.  Instead of using takedown notices to eliminate infringing content, the developer here is using the DMCA to dictate how PewDiePie infringes its content.  With the help of DMCA takedown notices, developers like Campo Santo can stand back in acquiescence, striking only when the infringement becomes inconvenient.  I wonder if the DMCA drafters anticipated this type of selective enforcement by copyright holders.  In a litigation setting, this practice may even raise the possibility of equitable defenses to infringement.

New ideas, creations, and business ventures are often the product of collaboration.  If lawyers had their way, a written agreement would precede every creative collaboration.  Of course, this is not the case.  Collaborators often do not seek advice of counsel, or see the need for an agreement, until after the new idea, creation, or venture is well underway.  As a result, statutes and case law operate to define the joint ownership rights.  Each type of IP affords slightly different rights to joint owners.

Patent

A patent, whether design or utility, provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the patented invention.  Where a patent is owned by multiple entities, each joint owner has the right to independently license any of these rights.  Moreover, patent joint owners do not have a duty to account to one another.  This means that joint owners do not have to share profits with one another.  However, the consent of all owners is generally needed to sue to enforce the patent.  In practice, this means that one joint owner can block others from suing.  Consent of all owners is also needed to exclusively license the patent.

Copyright

A copyright holder has a set of rights, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, make derivative works of, perform, and display, the copyrighted material.  Similar to patents, each joint owner of a copyright may individually exercise these rights without consent of other joint owners.  Each joint owner may additionally license these rights.  However, there is one notable difference from patent law: the duty to account.  Each joint copyright owner has a duty to share profits obtained from the copyright with all joint owner.  Another distinction from patent law is that joint copyright owners may each sue to enforce the copyright without consent of other owners.  However, consent of all owners is also needed to exclusively license the copyright.

Trade Secret

Due to the nature of trade secrecy, the law of joint ownership of trade secrets is not as well defined as with patents and copyrights.  In general, case law suggests that joint owners of a trade secret may each use the trade secret for their individual business purposes.  However, it is unclear whether joint owners have a duty to account.  While consent of all joint owners is likely not needed to sue for misappropriation of the trade secret, the owners must consent to exclusively license the trade secret.

Trademark

The prospect of a jointly owned trademark is something of a different nature.  By definition, a trademark is an identifier of a single source.  While multiple parties can own a trademark, if each party is permitted to use the mark independently in the marketplace, by definition, the mark is no longer designating a single source.  Additionally, the law is unclear on whether joint trademark owners have a duty to account, or whether they must consent for an infringement suit.  In many cases, a co-branding agreement may be a good alternative to a jointly owned trademark registration.  Alternatively, multiple parties may want to jointly own a single entity, which in turn owns the mark.

Consider that SUPER HEROES is often used in conjunction with DC COMICS or MARVEL, which are source designators. What do you think? Are DC and Marvel asking for a genericness battle?

Jointly owned trademarks are rare, but not unheard of.  Arguably the most famous jointly owned trademark is owned and maintained by two competitors.  DC Comics and Marvel Comics have co-owned the mark SUPER HEROES for decades.  This seems a strange duo since the two companies are not only direct competitors, but also the only major players in the comic book realm.  Nonetheless, the two entities have jointly owned the mark since 1979, and are known for diligently enforcing itSome wonder if this is an example of trademark misuse, as SUPER HEROES does not designate a single source.  A consumer might identify a product with SUPER HEROES as being from either DC Comics or Marvel Comics.  The companies’ fierce enforcement efforts may be an attempt to head off an inevitable genericness fight.

Two Bros are competing over their Bro meal delivery services.

Jamie Giovinazzo is the owner of Eat Clean Bro, LLC, a meal delivery service providing “a convenient service that is designed to bring chef-prepared meals right to your front door.”  “Whether you are looking to lose weight, live a clean and healthy life, or build lean muscle mass through a natural diet, our service has a line of meals to fit your lifestyle.”  Giovinazzo has federal trademark registrations for EAT CLEAN BRO and POWERED BY YOU PROVED BY YOU EAT CLEAN BRO.  According to the website, Eat Clean Bro was founded in 2013.

Earlier this week, Giovinazzo filed a complaint in federal court against Bryan Calcott, owner of Ketoned Bodies. Through Ketoned Bodies, Calcott recently launched his own meal delivery service, Eat Keto Bro, delivering meals catered to a ketogenic diet.  A ketogenic diet is a low-carb, high-fat diet, recently lauded by fitness buffs.

According to the Complaint, Giovinazzo asserts, “Rather than engage in fair competition in the marketplace and allow consumers to exercise their own choice through the use of only the existing Ketoned Bodies trademark . . . Defendants have . . . recently resorted to promoting its EATKETOBRO Services and Products using a trademark eatketobro and domain name, EATKETOBRO.COM, that are confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ EAT CLEAN BRO Trademarks and Plaintiffs’ EATCLEANBRO.COM domain name.”

Giovinazzo alleges both trademark infringement and dilution.

What do you think? Is Eat Keto Bro confusingly similar to Eat Clean Bro?  What about these other bro-related food services?

 

 

 

 

This week’s Matal v. Tam (formerly Lee v. Tam) Supreme Court ruling serves as a reminder that free speech is a two-way street.  It also suggests the value of a sympathetic litigant, at least in terms of public response.

Many rallied behind Simon Tam and his rock band, The Slants.  The band members, who are all Asian American, sought to reclaim and diffuse a historically derogatory term by naming their band “The Slants.”  The band first tried to register THE SLANTS with the Trademark Office in 2010.  The Office rejected the application under the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act.  15 U.S.C. 1052(a).  The band appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and later to the Federal Circuit, which ultimately led to review by the Supreme Court.

The resulting narrative told the story of a group of young musicians pushed out by a bureaucratic system and an antiquated law dictating morality.  Tam and his band were the good guys.  There was no public outcry calling for the band to change its name.  They were not viewed as insensitive or bigoted, at least in part because Tam and the other band members are Asian American and thus belong to the group presumably disparaged by the term.  For many, it was easy to rally behind the argument that The Slants have a First Amendment right to obtain federal trademark protections for their band name.  The Supreme Court’s decision that “the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” thus removing The Slants’ block to registration, was a well-received public victory.  Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293, 2017 WL 2621315, at *20 (U.S. June 19, 2017).

However, as many have since pointed out, this decision was a win not only for The Slants, but for anyone seeking federal registration of an otherwise disparaging mark.

In 2015, a federal district court affirmed the USPTO’s cancellation of THE REDSKINS registered trademarks.  At the time, the district court’s decision that “the federal trademark registration program is government speech and is therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny” was lauded as a moral victory.  Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F.Supp.3d 439, 452 (E.D. Vir. 2015).  The New York Times Editorial Board reported, “Slurs Don’t Deserve Trademark Protection.”  The Supreme Court’s First Amendment decision means the NFL team will now be able to recover their federal registrations for THE REDSKINS.

The Slants and The Redskins each wanted federal trademark protections for racially derogatory terms, but presented entirely different political positions and applicants.

The long-fought battle over cancellation of the Redskins marks began with a group of Native Americans arguing disparagement.  In this narrative, the team’s owners were often depicted as the villains callously profiting from a racial slur.  The Navajo Nation filed an amicus brief in support of the decision to cancel the trademarks.  Media outlets and NFL announcers refused to use the team’s name in their reporting.  While many also saw The Redskins as leading the charge in the fight against political correctness, The Redskins undeniably faced stronger public opposition than The Slants.

The differences in these cases, and in the  trademark applicants themselves, serve as a reminder that free speech for one necessarily means free speech for all.  Perhaps nothing underscores this point better than the New York Times Editorial Board’s recent statement that they have “reconsidered [their] underlying position” with respect to the team’s name following the Tam decision.

While many will surely still advocate for a new team name, if we are to allow The Slants to enjoy the benefits of federal registration, we must allow The Redskins–and others–the same opportunity.

Justice Kennedy said it best: “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.  The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”  Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293, 2017 WL 2621315, at *25 (U.S. June 19, 2017) (Kennedy, J. concurring).

trolls

We’ve spent time discussing the patent troll phenomenon in the past.  Patent trolls are less pejoratively referred to as non-practicing entities, because they do not make or use the inventions covered by their patents.  Instead, these non-practicing entities operate by purchasing patents on various technologies, accusing companies of infringing those patents, and demanding the companies pay licensing fees.  Faced with the threat of patent litigation, many companies—both large and small—will choose to simply pay the troll’s demand.  The infringement allegations might be thin, and the asserted patent might be invalid.  But the potential cost of litigation gives the patent troll great leverage over the companies they target.  Paying the demanded licensing fee is far more cost-effective than defending an infringement suit.

One company, however, is taking a different approach to what it views as a patent troll.  Cloudflare is an Internet security company and content delivery network.  Cloudflare is facing a patent infringement suit filed by patent owner, Blackbird Technologies.  The Complaint alleges Cloudflare is infringing the ‘335 patent, related to incorporating third-party data into existing Internet connections.  Cloudflare has vowed to fight the litigation, arguing both non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘335 patent.  To help in its efforts, Cloudflare is taking the creative approach of crowdsourcing its defense.   In a recent blog post, Cloudflare’s CEO offered up $20,000, to be divided among individuals who submit relevant prior art to invalidate the ‘335 patent.  In addition, and in an apparent effort to stop Blackbird from asserting any other patents against anyone, Cloudflare is offering another $30,000 for prior art submissions that invalidate Blackbird’s other 37 patents and patent applications.

Blackbird Technologies is . . . a law firm?  Blackbird’s website seems to offer legal services with “top law firm experience.”  But Blackbird is the plaintiff in the suit against Cloudflare.  Based on an assignment recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Blackbird purchased the ‘335 patent from the inventor in October 2016 for $1, and shortly thereafter initiated an infringement action against Cloudflare.  Blackbird is not merely representing a client, but instead appears to be stepping into the client’s shoes by purchasing the asserted patent and bringing suit as the plaintiff.

A little research reveals that this is a regular practice for Blackbird.  Blackbird owns at least 38 patents and published patent applications covering a broad range of technical fields.  Since September 2014, the firm has been named as the plaintiff in 109 federal patent infringement cases (107 in the District of Delaware, and 2 in the Central District of California).  The defendants in many of these cases were large corporations—Amazon, Wal-Mart, Petco, Uber, Lululemon, Target, and Netflix.

So, is Blackbird a patent troll?  Blackbird says its business model helps individual inventors and small companies by providing them with a low-cost solution to monetize their patents.  Blackbird also states that it is different from other companies labeled non-practicing entities, because Blackbird is “ready to litigate cases,” and is not merely looking “to settle cases quickly.”  Though it appears that most, if not all, of Blackbird’s suits have settled.

Cloudflare, however, views Blackbird as a pure patent troll, which led to Cloudflare’s crowdsourced effort to invalidate any and all of Blackbird’s patents.  Cloudflare’s CEO even went as far as a recent scathing blog post about the suit, accusing Blackbird of violating legal ethics rules.

Usually, infringement allegations asserted by non-practicing entities are quietly settled (see Blackbird’s 108 other cases filed since 2014).  Cloudflare’s approach to the infringement claims will be expensive, but also public.  Cloudflare’s response seems to include rallying its supporters and customers in publicly calling out Blackbird.  Cloudflare even invites supporters to “tell Blackbird Technologies what you think of their business practices” on Twitter.  It’s clear Blackbird has struck a nerve with this defendant.

IMG_0015

I’m a rules follower. Going back to the days of the Game Genie—a device that allowed gamers to play Super Mario Bros. with infinite lives or the Legend of Zelda with infinite bombs—I have always preferred the satisfaction of beating the IMG_0016game by its own rules.

 
Like the video games that have progressed since the Nintendo NES, the corresponding cheat codes have become increasingly more sophisticated. Bossland is a company that creates and sells entire programs dedicated to hacking and cheating in popular video games, such as World of Warcraft, Overwatch, and Diablo 3, all made by Blizzard Entertainment. Many of the Bossland programs allow users to create “bots” that play the game automatically without any user interaction so that the user can, for example, achieve a higher level character without the usual effort. This is a practice sometimes referred to as “botting.”

 
Blizzard has been fighting companies like Bossland for years. Since 2013, Bossland has sold approximately 118,939 products in the United States alone. Blizzard estimates that 36% of these products were cheats for Blizzard games. In June of 2016, Blizzard sued Bossland in the Central District of California. According to Blizzard, the Bossland cheats give users an unfair advantage, reducing the enjoyment of the game for other players. Blizzard alleged, among other causes of action, that Bossland violated an anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA provides:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2). Within its games, Blizzard has “technological measures” that operate to prevent users from using cheats and hacks, but the Bossland programs are designed to work around Blizzard’s measures. At first blush, Bossland’s programming seems like the very type of circumvention efforts that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA were designed to protect against. But the DMCA was enacted in response to internet file sharing concerns. In 2009, Blizzard was involved in a similar lawsuit against another cheat company. Many were concerned that a ruling in favor of Blizzard would overly expand the DMCA to allow for recovery under any circumvention of any type of technological control. Jef Pearlman of Stanford University suggested that “because anything can contain copyrighted works,” a ruling in favor of Blizzard could suggest that “any access to anything becomes a DMCA violation.” Blizzard did win its 2009 case, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

 
Late last year, Bossland motioned to dismiss the lawsuit for a lack of jurisdiction over the Germany-based company. The district court denied Bossland’s motion. After that attempt, Bossland apparently stopped defending the suit altogether. As a result, Blizzard obtained from the court a default judgment against Bossland. The judgment awards damages to Blizzard based on available statutory damages under the DMCA. The DMCA allows a plaintiff to collect a minimum of $200 per violation. Blizzard alleged 42,818 violations of the DMCA, and because Bossland did not dispute any of them, Blizzard obtained a judgment of statutory damages to the tune of over $8.5 million.

 
Bossland maintains on its product websites that “Botting is not against any law.” While perhaps technically true, the circumvention of digital copyright safeguards is.

The trademark filings for new political slogans and catchphrases continue.

Over the last couple of months, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused various news sources of disseminating “fake news.”  As a result, 14 trademark applications have recently been filed for variations of FAKE NEWS.

The goods and services associated with these applications cover a wide range.  Film Roman, best known for animating The Simpsons, filed an application for FAKE NEWS in connection with entertainment programs featuring comedy.  There are multiple filings for board games and card games, at least one of which is apparently connected with the makers of Cards Against Humanity.  Other applications relate to clothing, computer games, online retail, silkscreen printing, photo sharing services, and even wine.

In a similar vein, ALTERNATIVE FACTS has 24 recent trademark filings.

While I don’t dispute that a Cards Against Humanity-style FAKE NEWS game would be great, these types of trademark filings bring up an important issue of timing.

The trademark application process can, and often does, last a year or more. While these FAKE NEWS applicants may ultimately obtain their marks, the social relevance of the slogan may be lost by then.  Will these potential marks have the same value in a year?  Surely our quotable President will have gifted us with dozens of new phases in a year’s time.  Even “Nasty Woman” and “Bad Hombre” aren’t as prevalent as they were a few months ago, and those phrases spurred a combined 27 trademark applications.

What do you think?  Are these potential trademarks worth their weight in filing fees?  What do some of our marketing-type readers think of these phrase-of-the-moment trademark applications? Would you risk building a brand on these?