My word! I own it! Mine!

[Broomjockey]

That only works if it's "Sciento*og* sucks".

[protege]

Actually, yes, they do. The same way that Microsoft has people looking for invalid uses of their marks, Merck does, Intel does, etc. Sounds silly, maybe, but trademark law requires them find any and all improper use of their trademarks and stop said improper use. Failure to do their due diligence results in them losing their trademark, which can be very bad for them.

They're not the only ones. The Union Pacific tried to go after model railroad manufacturers over similar issues. (You'd think they would have learned after seeing CSX do it about 10 years prior, and the PR hornets' nest that caused...) Anyway, the UP tried to squeeze companies over their logos, including ones they held on railroads that are no longer in business (Missouri Pacific, Southern Pacific, Chicago & Northwestern, et al.) People got pissed, mainly because the UP (from what I understand, at least in the beginning) was trying to make it retroactive. After several lawsuits were filed, it finally ended.

Er, where was I going with this? Oh yeah--on one of the message boards I belong to, some idiot was trying to claim ownership of the Pennsylvania RR (which is no longer around, BTW) keystone logo. We told him to "buzz off," and that we were sure that he'd be hearing from (I think) Norfolk Southern's legal department...as they own the rights to the logo. Needless to say, he shut up quickly

Then there's the railroad historical society I belong to. Even though quite a few of us have been using the old Penn Central "worms" logo on our webpages...and nobody said a thing, when we formed the PCRRHS, we had to get permission to PC's corporate successor to use it. We don't actually own the logo, but we have permission to use it on our letterhead, our newsletter, society website, etc. There probably wouldn't have been a problem, since PC is still the bastard child of railroading, but we weren't about to take a chance.

[Saydrah]

Update: The guy did, shockingly, manage to prove that despite his unprofessional verbiage and his apparent lack of knowledge of the appropriate way to handle such a request, prove that he does hold the trademark to "pawrent."

We acquiesced to his request that we link to his page on the one post using the term, but to needle him a bit, Canadian Boss Man sent him a link from Dogster showing how often "pawrent" is casually used there (thousands of instances) and saying that certainly much of the pet world seems to feel it's fair use. He also subtly suggested that the gentleman wouldn't really be getting positive PR by this method, since the readers aren't likely to say, "Gee, look, somebody has a stick up their butt, I think I'll visit his website!"

[cinema guy]

I took a look at pawrent.com - they caps with Pawrent on them. Wow.

[protege]

IANAL but I don't really think the guy has any standing at all.

He doesn't. There's practically nothing that can be done to prevent someone from using a word. He's either trying to intimidate people, or just be an annoying bastard.

Then there's this mess: Youtube vs. Utube. Universal Tube is trying to go after Youtube, claiming that misdirected web-surfers are driving their 'net costs up.

[Rapscallion]

Now, again, IANAL and I am especially not a copyright lawyer, but does Johnson & Johnson go around searching blogs for the use of the term "bandaid?" Perhaps this guy does have an actual claim, but I'm getting a definite feeling that he just gets his jollies from annoying bloggers and attempted to convince them that they're doing something wrong.

I used to read Private Eye, a satirical and investigative magazine over here. Quite a decent read, though schoolboy humour is the predominant form of wit.

Anyway, they have a letters section, but the standard there is not a response at the bottom of the letter as in most publications. Instead, they'll have a bold heading for the letter to introduce it and to answer the letter in question. For example, when someone wrote in to officially demand who in their organisation was the mole who had leaked information, the heading of the letter was 'Fuck off'.

Anyway, they received and printed a letter about their use of the word 'portacabin' - someone from the company had seen them use it once in an article and it wasn't actually a 'portacabin' office in question. Though polite, the letter demanded that they use other terminology (such as 'external office facility' or similar) to denote a non-portacabin product.

The heading of this letter? "What a sad way to make a living."

The next few issues proved the Eye's attitude - every letter was headed with 'Portacabin'.

Rapscallion

[Saydrah]

Hah! I think I love whoever publishes that magazine.

However, lawyers are rather smelly and irritating at times, so I think I shall use "pet parent" in the future unless this guy takes the needling Bossman gave him in good humore and withdraws his request.

[jerkface11]

I think I shall use "pet parent" in the future unless this guy takes the needling Bossman gave him in good humore and withdraws his request.

If you stop using the word pawrent the terrorists win!!! Handle this like an American and make up a new extremely offensive dirty meaning for it (I suggest something involving furries). Then start using it EVERYWHERE on the net.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

One of the vlogs I watch on youtube had to deal with the DMCA recently. Or rather, some self-important, snobby punk decided he would claim DMCA on the owner of the vlog. Problem with that was he had no grounds to claim DMCA, therefore he committed perjury. The owner of the vlog didn't press charges in exchange for a pulic apology and voluntary exile from youtube for a year.

[PepperElf]

so you mean this butt-much owns pawrent.com?
O_o

makes me think that... hell why buy stuff from such a buttmuchz0id

[Pedersen]

makes me think that... hell why buy stuff from such a buttmuchz0id

However much I may like or dislike trademark law, he was doing what he had to do under it. In the USA, if he failed to do *something* to protect his mark when he became aware of someone improperly using it (even if he approved of its use), he could (and likely would) lose it when he found someone else using it and did not want them to do so.

In this case, he has said "You have permission provided you place links". That would be enough to show a judge that he did do something, which would protect his interests in the possible later.

Not going to discuss whether or not it sucks, but I will defend what he did, as it was required to protect his interests.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

That only works if it's "Sciento*og* sucks".

Oh those crazy, crazy, sciento*og*sts. Do you have a V mask?

[Broomjockey]

Can't find one that isn't shite.

[PepperElf]

just because he legally owns the trademark does not, in my opinion, give him the right to be a jerk...
i could be wrong, but... it just sounded like he was rude from the start going "OMG you sooo didn't use MY word, how dare you" instead of handling it politely.

and heck... my evil side and ... basic human reaction too...
when someone tells me "no you can't say my word" my reaction would be to just say it over and over (like pawrent pawrent pawrent pawrent).


now that being said... yes i have borrowed artwork before, but with permission and linked it on the main page.

however i still think there's something not mentally right by someone having such a strong reaction over someone using the word they created. if anything i would think he'd be proud that "his word" had become a household name... Like how Isaac Asimov coined the word "robotics"... I guess legally Asimov could write and threaten everyone who dared use his word, but... no, he didn't...

sorry i'm rambling... I guess I just dislike the guys reaction - even if he legally owns the word now. In my opinion it will just hurt his sales instead of improve it. I already doubt I'd buy from him...

(and from a quick google search it looks like he's got a few more lawsuits to threaten... guess he'd better get moving on them)

[Pedersen]

just because he legally owns the trademark does not, in my opinion, give him the right to be a jerk...

Agreed. There's polite ways of saying "Hey, I've trademarked this word, and it looks like you're using it improperly. We need to come to an arrangement, or I need you to stop using it. Sorry to have to do this, but the law requires it of me." And it doesn't sound like he used any of them.

however i still think there's something not mentally right by someone having such a strong reaction over someone using the word they created. if anything i would think he'd be proud that "his word" had become a household name... Like how Isaac Asimov coined the word "robotics"... I guess legally Asimov could write and threaten everyone who dared use his word, but... no, he didn't...

This part, though, is incorrect for two reasons:

1. Asimov did not register the trademark for the term. If you do not register the trademark, you cannot claim it as your own. In addition, you must register the the type of product that your mark covers. This is why we can have an Apple Computer and an Apple Music (the guys who sold the Beatles records, and yes, they're still in business). There are allowances for starting to use the mark and then registering it, but there's limits on how long you can use it before you have to either register or lose your ability to register. You can search for registered trademarks at the USPTO (for US trademarks. Other countries will have their own trademark databases).
2. Asimov did not coin the term. Czech playwright Karel Čapek is the one who coined it.

sorry i'm rambling... I guess I just dislike the guys reaction - even if he legally owns the word now. In my opinion it will just hurt his sales instead of improve it. I already doubt I'd buy from him...

I know I won't buy from him. Bluntly put, the only unique thing he can be selling is stuff that has the word "pawrent" on it. Anything else he can sell I can get at some other pet store. Unless/until he gets around to apologizing for the methods he employed in dealing with Saydrah, he's permanently lost any potential sales to me.

He had to act. He did not have to act the way he did.

To everybody else: I'm worried this may have gotten into debate land. I'm sorry if it has. I really did want to just help people understand a bit about the way trademark law works. It's easy to run afoul of, and not even know you've done so. And it's just as easy to find yourself receiving letters from lawyers with no incentive to act like decent human beings.

I hope none of you do get screwed by it. I hope that, if you do, some of this information will be able to help you out of the jam a little bit. But please remember this: All of this is simply one observer's bit of education about the law as he understands it. If you do find yourself dealing with it, and do not wish to acquiesce to the demands being given by the other side, this information is not enough. Get a lawyer right away. You're going to need it.