Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ? ™ © ® ™

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

™ © ® ™

Here is my Story

I bought the domain : dsds.tv @ Sedo.de for around 300.-$

A few weeks later RTL germany took the domain away from me
RTL germany has a TV show called : dsds ( Deutschland Sucht den Superstar )

WTF

A trademark, trade mark', or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although trademarks used to identify services are usually called service marks.
The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity, trademarks are often displayed on company buildings.

What is a trademark and what does it protect?

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention.



What does it mean to have a TM ?
Why does a TM include any domain ?

let,s start on the TM : Apple

there are more than 400 TM for the term : Apple ( and these are not only Apple computer )
Should every supermarket now be sued for selling Apples ?

How is it even possible to TM the term Apple ?

what about NOKIA ?

there is a Car named : KIA
there is a company named NOKIA

this is insane

i was so happy when i heard that Rick Schwartz lost his case on DomainKing.biz

first : nobody has the right to be a King
second : that he even got the TM on DomainKing was wrong
third : nobody need,s a King

Did you know that you can delete a TM ?
Did you know that there are so many categries to get a TM ?

for Example : you even can get a TM Facebook for perfume or soap

to the point

What do you think about TM ?

i don,t like any kind of TM and i will fight them !

So , let,s start a Revolution

First come first serve

 

[ZapNano]

Paris
has a long history of badgering domain name owners. It once convinced a rogue panelist to transfer the domain name Parvi.org in a UDRP. That decision was overturned in a U.S. court and Ville de Paris was found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

The city has also gone after anyone with Paris in their domain names, including
Paris.com, Paris.tv and even WifiParis.com.

don,t visit Paris !!!

How about "Paris Jackson" is she gonna be subject to TM violation?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Posts Tagged ‘trademark nonsense’
Sigh: Oculu File Trademark Dispute Against Oculus Rift
By John Walker on February 12th, 2014 at 6:00 pm.

Share this:

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Reddit

More trademark bullshittery is taking place, this time targeted at Oculus Rift.
The 3D goggles are being taken to court by a company you’ve never heard of called Oculu, for “false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition”. So what 3D virtual reality hardware do Oculu make?
Oh, wait, hang on – they appear to be a business-oriented video streaming service.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Kardashians, Caitlyn Jenner, and More Celebrity Trademark Nonsense
June 3, 2015 Posted in Trademarks


Kendal and Kylie Jenner have filed applications to claim trademark rights in their names with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The applications for KENDALL JENNER, KYLIE JENNER and KENDALL & KYLIE were filed last month based on an intent to use the marks in commerce in the future. (Does anyone else think it is super odd that Bruce Jenner adopted the name “Caitlyn” Jenner for his new gender identity – eschewing the family “K” names in favor of a “C” spelling?).

As I wrote here a few weeks ago, a name is usually not a trademark. A name can become a trademark if used to sell goods or services in a trademark manner. This is not the same as a celebrity endorsement. Rather, it is the association of a name with a particular product or service among consumers over time. Think George Foreman Grill® but not Chuck Woolery and Australian Dream arthritis cream.

What is the product or service that the Kardashians offer in connection with their “marks”? Apparently a line of clothing is among the branded goods, as evidenced by a federal registration for KENDALL & KYLIE issued in 2013 in connection with “belts; bottoms; coats; dresses; footwear; head-wear; jackets; lounge-wear; scarves; swimwear; tops.” A picture of the specimen of use is shown here. I only wish they had submitted a picture of the entire garment so I could see what “lounge-wear” looks like.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Sony loses attempt to trademark Let’s Play

GameCentral for Metro.co.uk


Everyone objected to Sony’s nonsense
The US Patent and Trademark Office has told Sony it can’t trademark the term ‘Let’s Play’, which will remain public domain.

Games companies get up to a lot of strange things, but this is one of those times where it’s impossible to imagine what Sony thought they were doing or how they imagined this would work.

A few weeks ago Sony Computer Entertainment America tried to trademark the phrase ‘Let’s Play’, which is widely used across the Internet to describe video footage of ordinary people playing games.

Despite not being associated with the PlayStation more than any other format, if Sony was successful it would’ve meant that nobody else could use the term without their permission.


Quite why Sony wanted to make themselves public enemy number one across the whole of YouTube we don’t know, but thankfully the US Patent and Trademark Office has told them not to be so silly.

Well, probably not those exact words but they did point out that someone has already trademarked the term ‘LP LET’Z PLAY’.

Since nobody has heard of that phrase, or the company responsible for it, the more serious obstacle to Sony’s plans is that the trademark office has now been made aware of just how generic and widely used the phrase is.

The McArthur Law Firm cited over 50 examples of people using the term Let’s Play, as well as the Wikipedia page for the concept and /r/letsplay on Reddit.


‘The previous “rejection”, widely misreported a few weeks ago, was in reality just a minor nuisance to Sony, said the law firm. ‘This rejection is far more lethal to Sony’s trademark application.’

‘Given the strength of this evidence, we are confident that Sony will not be able to overcome this rejection. The term “Let’s Play” is now forever in the public domain.’


Email [email protected], leave a comment below, and follow us on Twitter



More
Games news
New Nintendo Switch revealed with Zelda, Mario, Splatoon and… Skyrim

• 
  Nintendo NX announcement due today at 3pm

• 
  Sponsored17 reasons Salzburg should be your next winter getaway

• 
  Watch the Red Dead Redemption 2 trailer here, and be amazed

• 
  Sponsored13 reasons Secrets and Lies is the gripping detective drama you need in your life

• 
  This fan-made Sonic The Hedgehog game looks amazing

Comments

Must read

1. 
   New Nintendo Switch revealed with Zelda, Mario, Splatoon and… Skyrim
2. 
   Game review: Titanfall 2 could be the FPS of the year
   From the creators of Call Of Duty comes a sci-fi shooter sequel that improves on the original in every way, including single-player.
3. 
   Nintendo NX announcement due today at 3pm
   The mysterious new console from Nintendo will finally be revealed this afternoon, in a surprise livestream event.
4. 
   Watch the Red Dead Redemption 2 trailer here, and be amazed
   The first look at Rockstar's new game features some of the best graphics you've ever seen, as the GTA makers tease their next open world epic.
5. 
   This fan-made Sonic The Hedgehog game looks amazing
   The dream of decent 3D Sonic game may finally have come true, and it’s all thanks to a couple of very dedicated fans.
6. 
   Game review: Tethered is another great PlayStation VR original
   One of the first big new titles since the launch of the PlayStation VR is also one of its best, in this magical new god game.
7. 
   Game review: Batman: Return To Arkham lightens up the Dark Knight
   The Caped Crusader returns with remasters of his two best games, but do Arkham Asylum and Arkham City really look better than ever?
8. 
   What is the Nintendo Switch and why should you care?
   GameCentral considers everything we know so far about the Nintendo Switch and the questions that are still yet to be answered.
9. 
   Game review: Owlboy is a real hoot
   Nine years in the making, this stunning new 2D platformer is finally ready to leave the nest and enter your games collection.
10. 
    Nintendo Switch will not have Wii U or 3DS backwards compatibility, probably
    Japanese magazine Famitsu has got a few more details out of Nintendo, who insist the Switch is not a replacement for the Wii U or 3DS.

More trending stories »

1. 

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/sony-loses-attempt-to-trademark-lets-play-5649185/#ixzz4Ou5PWkDK

 

[ZapNano]

While back Att was being sued for using "Thank you" or saying thank you to att customers

 

[ZapNano]

One company said they own that phrase. I never heard the outcome of this case.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Warner Music Pays $14 Million to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit

Universal Pictures/ Courtesy: Everett Collection

The music publisher will also not stand in the way for a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain.
Sing the song, blow out the candles, eat the cake and unwrap the gifts.

According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You." Additionally, the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain. A memorandum in support of the settlement sings the praises of the deal as "truly, an historic result." U.S. District Judge George H. King will have to sign off on it.

The revelation of the settlement terms comes after King came to the conclusion this past September that Warner and its predecessor didn't hold any valid copyright to the song and never acquired the rights to the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. At the time, the judge stopped short of declaring that the song was in the public domain, and just before a trial was set to begin in December exploring the history of a song dating back to a 19th century schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill, the sides reached an agreement.

Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years.

"The judicial determination that 'Happy Birthday' is in the public domain also has substantial value," states the memorandum in support of the settlement. "Because Defendants have charged for use of the Song, untold thousands of people chose not to use the Song in their own performances and artistic works or to perform the Song in public. This has limited the number of times the Song was performed and used. After the Settlement is approved, that restraint will be removed and the Song will be performed and used far more often than it has been in the past. While there is no way to make a reliable estimate of the increase that will result, there can be no dispute that the increase will be substantial."

An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review.

But for now, the settlement provides a big final act to the class action lawsuit brought by film director Jennifer Nelson, who was making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and was asked to pay a $1,500 license fee. She sued to hinder Warners from ever forcing film and TV producers, or others, to pay again. The plaintiffs argued that a song appearing in early 20th-century children's textbooks had to be in the public domain because of general publication, abandonment or the length of the copyright term.

By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades. The music publisher also forgoes an appeal that it teased. The defendant continues to believe that a 1935 copyright registration should have entitled it to a presumption of copyright validity and that the song isn't in the public domain, but it has agreed to a judgment that states otherwise.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys led by Mark Rifkin, who according to the settlement terms will be seeking a $4.62 million fee, a third of the $14 million settlement fund. The rest would go to those who have paid to license "Happy Birthday" and meet the definition of the proposed class. Those folks are estimated to have spent more than $50 million on licensing fees on "Happy Birthday" over the years.

Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled in March.

next Year no Happy Birthday

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Panel rules Schwartz didn’t prove the domain was registered in bad faith.

Rick Schwartz has lost a UDRP he filed against the owner of DomainKing.biz.

Schwartz, who is known as the “Domain King” in domainer circles, filed the UDRP against a registrar operating as DomainKing in India, Nigeria, South Africa, Philippines and Kenya.

Hannu Internet Corp claims to have 11,000 clients in these countries.

Panelist Matthew Harris determined that Schwartz did not prove the domain was registered and used in bad faith. He wrote:

…there is insufficient evidence before the Panel for it to conclude that the Respondent was at that time aware that either Mr. Schwartz or the Complainant were using that term in a trade mark sense.

…Further, even if the Complainant was able to demonstrate that the Respondent most likely knew that the term “Domain King” was being used in a trade mark sense, that would not be the end of the matter. The question would still remain whether the Domain Name was registered to take some unfair advantage of the Complainant’s use of this term.

In this case the Panel has reached the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that it was with such potential advantage in mind that the Domain Name was registered. The Panel accepts that the term “Domain King”, although not necessarily a “natural” combination of words, is not itself an entirely unnatural name for the Respondent to have chosen for a domain registration and webhosting business and the Panel accepts that it at least plausible that this name was chosen because of its potential descriptive associations with that business, rather than the name’s possible association with Mr. Schwatz or the Complainant.

Schwartz was represented by his former business partner Howard Neu.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

The NFL’s Super Bowl Trademark Nonsense

By Steve Baird on January 27th, 2015 Posted in Advertising, Articles, Fair Use, First Amendment, Infringement, Marketing, SoapBox, Television, Trademark Bullying, Trademarks
It’s that time of year again. Time to tiptoe around and avoid use of or make any reference to the Super Bowl. Whoops. Anyway, we’ve discussed this phenomenon before:

• Insuring a Great Super Bowl Trademark Fight
• Fair Use of Super Bowl Trademark?
• Super (Bowl) Sunday, Ads Coming Soon

Advertisers — fearful of NFL legal action — strain and contort to avoid the two words that could make out a nominative fair use of the Super Bowl trademark, opting instead for pairs of other code words like “Super Sunday,” the “Big Game,” “Super Party,” or “Superb Owl” coverage.

Welcome to the advent of “Bowl Viewing Parties,” not Super ones, but Lavo and Tao ones:

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Green Bay Packers fail to take down fan site TotalPackers.com

Football team said domain name constitutes cybersquatting.

green-bay-packersThe Green Bay Packers NFL team has failed in its attempt to take over the TotalPackers.com domain name through a cybersquatting claim. The National Football League team filed the UDRP case with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

TotalPackers.com is a fan site with news and analysis of the team. According to the owner, it received about one million visits last year, nearly of third of which were type-ins.

The timing of the Packers’ cybersquatting complaint is curious because the team has been in contact with the site’s owner for a couple of years regarding various issues. The owner thinks that the team decided to file the cybersquatting complaint because TotalPackers.com added a section of the site about women that the team didn’t like.

A three-person WIPO panel determined that the site’s owner had a legitimate interest or rights in the domain name based on his continuous use.

The only remedy under UDRP is to transfer the domain name. In other words, had the owner of TotalPackers.com lost, he would have had to change domain names.

 

[ZapNano]

Warner Music Pays $14 Million to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit

Universal Pictures/ Courtesy: Everett Collection

The music publisher will also not stand in the way for a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain.
Sing the song, blow out the candles, eat the cake and unwrap the gifts.

According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You." Additionally, the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain. A memorandum in support of the settlement sings the praises of the deal as "truly, an historic result." U.S. District Judge George H. King will have to sign off on it.

The revelation of the settlement terms comes after King came to the conclusion this past September that Warner and its predecessor didn't hold any valid copyright to the song and never acquired the rights to the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. At the time, the judge stopped short of declaring that the song was in the public domain, and just before a trial was set to begin in December exploring the history of a song dating back to a 19th century schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill, the sides reached an agreement.

Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years.

"The judicial determination that 'Happy Birthday' is in the public domain also has substantial value," states the memorandum in support of the settlement. "Because Defendants have charged for use of the Song, untold thousands of people chose not to use the Song in their own performances and artistic works or to perform the Song in public. This has limited the number of times the Song was performed and used. After the Settlement is approved, that restraint will be removed and the Song will be performed and used far more often than it has been in the past. While there is no way to make a reliable estimate of the increase that will result, there can be no dispute that the increase will be substantial."

An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review.

But for now, the settlement provides a big final act to the class action lawsuit brought by film director Jennifer Nelson, who was making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and was asked to pay a $1,500 license fee. She sued to hinder Warners from ever forcing film and TV producers, or others, to pay again. The plaintiffs argued that a song appearing in early 20th-century children's textbooks had to be in the public domain because of general publication, abandonment or the length of the copyright term.

By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades. The music publisher also forgoes an appeal that it teased. The defendant continues to believe that a 1935 copyright registration should have entitled it to a presumption of copyright validity and that the song isn't in the public domain, but it has agreed to a judgment that states otherwise.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys led by Mark Rifkin, who according to the settlement terms will be seeking a $4.62 million fee, a third of the $14 million settlement fund. The rest would go to those who have paid to license "Happy Birthday" and meet the definition of the proposed class. Those folks are estimated to have spent more than $50 million on licensing fees on "Happy Birthday" over the years.

Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled in March.

next Year no Happy Birthday

Amazing....

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Stop Believing The NFL's Lies About Trademark Law And Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl

from the suck-it-up,-weenies dept

For years now, we've mocked how the NFL insists that no one can use the term "Super Bowl" in an advertisement unless they're an official sponsor of the event. That's why it's become so typical to see advertisers using "the big game" instead -- though, five years ago, the NFL even sought the trademark on "The Big Game" because so many advertisers were using it. However, Paul Levy rightly takes advertisers to task for being "weenies" and not standing up to the NFL on this. As he says: Of course, the NFL's position is nonsense -- this is a nominative use that is just as permissible as, for example, referring to the "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the two-time world champions" or "the professional basketball team from Chicago" (Judge Kozinski's example from a different era, when the Bulls mattered). Basically, the game is called the Super Bowl, and calling it that isn't trademark infringement, so long as you don't imply that you're an official sponsor or otherwise officially associated with the game. Of course, where it gets even more ridiculous is when news organizations heed the NFL's warnings over this -- such as the email Levy received from the Boston Globe (pdf) about the Super Bowl, where the term doesn't appear at all. Levy points out that it's simply ridiculous that a news organization (and a big one with plenty of lawyers who get this) would still not use "Super Bowl." Levy suggests we start calling such ridiculousness out: Instead of praising retailers who skate close to the edge, we should take a page from David Bollier’s excellent Brand Name Bullies and call them Brand Name Weenies. Indeed, it is disappointing that a major metropolitan newspaper that belongs to an 800 pound gorilla like the New York Times Company is unwilling to defy the NFL by using the term in in its advertising. The Times and the Globe certainly advertise their coverage of the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, also trademarked names. If big players like the Times don’t have the cojones to stand up for bullying from the NFL, they make it harder for everybody else.

In their recent book Reclaiming Fair Use, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi warn that when we refrain from exercising our fair use rights, and act as if those rights do not exist, we help create a culture in which fair use loses ground to overly aggressive copyright enforcement. The same is true in the trademark realm. We can only hope that when the next Superbowl rolls around, the Times and its brethren, and even the HDTV sellers, will have shed their timidity. It's the Super Bowl. Call it the Super Bowl. Just... uh... don't have too many friends over to watch it on a big screen. Because that's copyright infringement.

 

[ZapNano]

Getting sooo many issues on Trademark claims; this because most people that own a trademark name THINKS they own the entire universe letters and phrases after trademarking a single name. Then followed by trademark co. need to make money... so they allow to trademark words and phrases that create issue and mind bugging...
Keep in mind, there is a lot of ways to get a 1 answer.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

we should trade mark ( zuckerberg )

 

[ZapNano]

There are many of that name. But as usual, as a stereotype they go by who is famous and has cash. Leaving the other Zuckerberg worthless and broke.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Trade, or commerce, involves the transfer of the ownership of goods or services, from one person or entity to another, in exchange for money, goods or services. A network that allows trade is called a market.

lets trade mark

 

[ZapNano]

Many people always adored with people who's famous and wealthy. Hoping they can have some of that...
Famous and wealthy people gets a lots of "Yes" answers million times. While zero money people will have to earn a single "YES".

I have a surprise for you "Wealthy Man" if you tell me you have a million dollar for me if I say "Yes" you are "Right" even if You are "Wrong" my anwer will be "You Are Wrong"

 

[ZapNano]

Trade, or commerce, involves the transfer of the ownership of goods or services, from one person or entity to another, in exchange for money, goods or services. A network that allows trade is called a market.

lets trade mark

All names are created to fits its spefic needs; and its more likely derives from its roots.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Can Taylor Swift Really Trademark “This Sick Beat”?
Yes, and Here’s Why

Michael Stewart—WireImage Taylor Swift has also trademarked our hearts.
Taylor Swift just tried to trademark "This Sick Beat." Here's why she can, and why it makes a whole lot of financial sense.

The internet almost exploded Thursday over news that pop star (and freshly minted New Yorker) Taylor Swift has trademarked the phrases “This Sick Beat,” “Nice to Meet You. Where You Been?,” and “Party Like It’s 1989,” among others.

Actually, that’s not quite true. Contrary to many reports, Swift has not yet been granted any of these trademarks—she’s merely applied for them and is awaiting approval by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

But we still had a lot of questions, like “Can you really trademark a greeting?,” “Would Taylor actually sue me? We’re like besties…,” and “Can I trademark my own ridiculous catch phrases?”

For answers to these pressing issues, we called Christopher Sprigman, a professor at NYU Law School specializing in trademark law, and a man way too knowledgeable and respected to address this nonsense. But instead of hanging up the phone, the professor kindly took us on a magical tour through some of the basic rules of intellectual property.

Turns out, you can pretty much trademark anything you want as long as you follow a few guidelines. First, your trademark can’t be a “generic” term, i.e. the commonly used name of the product you’re trying to sell. An obvious example is that no one can get a trademark for the exclusive use of the word “salt” to sell salt shakers.

Next, your trademark can’t be something that’s entirely descriptive. So, to use Sprigman’s example, you can’t trademark “salty” to use on boxes of Saltine-style crackers. That wouldn’t be fair to someone else who wants to tell customers their snack is salty, too.

But if your trademark is “arbitrary” (meaning it has no connection with the good or service it’s being affixed to) or “fanciful” (meaning it has no inherent meaning at all, like Kodak) you’re generally in the clear.

That’s why, for example, Apple can trademark the word “Apple” to sell computers. (The company couldn’t, on the other hand, trademark Apple brand apples because that would probably be considered both generic and descriptive.)

Just as the word Apple is arbitrary when applied to a laptop, Taylor Swift’s lyrics are equally arbitrary when placed on a Christmas stocking or a “non-medicated preparation for the care of skin”—two of the products that T-Swift has applied for trademarks on.

“I don’t think ‘This Sick Beat’ is descriptive of Christmas stockings,'” Sprigman observes.

The professor also thinks Swift is ahead of the curve when it comes to trademarking random song lyrics. The rise of streaming makes it increasingly difficult for artists to monetize their music, leaving musicians to look for new ways to make money. “The music industry isn’t dying,” says Sprigman, “the music industry is changing. And different revenue sources are coming to the fore, and one of them is merchandise.”

That’s especially true for Taylor Swift, who recently removed her music from Spotify, the largest streaming music provider. “She’s no dummy,” Sprigman adds. “This strategy for her makes quite a bit of sense.”

So it looks like Swift is going to be fine here. But what about you and me? Can anyone just trademark random symbols and phrases?

The answer is probably yes, assuming you choose a phrase that’s distinctive enough. And as long as it’s not descriptive or generic and no one else has trademarked it or is already using it commercially, you probably will be in the clear. One Brooklyn artist even managed to trademark the pi symbol with a period after it.

Basically, all you need to do is pay an electronic filing fee ($225 to $325, plus maintenance fees), stay within the rules we’ve described, and you can be just like Taylor.

Except not famous or talented. But you both can at least sell Christmas stockings with a trademarked thing on them. And that’s something. Right?

 

[mr-x]

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

I bet you'd feel differently if you owned a TM and somebody else started using it.