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

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Stupid Patent AND Trademark of the Month:

My Health ®

This month features not only a stupid patent, but also a stupid trademark to go along with it.

My Health, Inc. is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,612,985, which is entitled “Method and system for monitoring and treating a patient.” My Health also holds a trademark in the term “My Health.” My Health claims that it is “the only person or entity entitled to use... ‘My Health’ in commerce.”

Since getting patent and trademark rights, My Health has been pretty active in federal court. It has sued at least 30 companies for patent infringement and has been involved in another three lawsuits involving allegations of trademark infringement. But regardless of what type of case it is, we think both the patent and trademark are stupid.

First, My Health’s stupid patent. The patent is generally directed to “a method and system for monitoring and treating a patient who has one or more diagnosed conditions and is located at a remote location from a treatment processing system.” If that sounds mundane, that’s because it is.

Here is claim 1 of the patent, annotated for clarity:

1. A method for tracking compliance with treatment guidelines, the method comprising:

[a] determining a current assessment of one or more diagnosed conditions in a patient based on data about each of the diagnosed conditions from the patient who is at a remote location and on one or more assessment guidelines for each of the diagnosed conditions;

updating an existing treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions based on the existing treatment plan, the current assessment, and on one or more treatment guidelines for each of the diagnosed conditions to generate an updated treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions;

reviewing the updated treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions; [d] determining if one or more changes are needed to the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions; [e] changing the reviewed treatment plan if the one or more changes are determined to be needed; [f] providing the patient with the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions; and [g] generating and providing compliance data based on the updated treatment plan and the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions. This claim is essentially [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehealth']TeleHealth[/URL], with the addition of “generating and providing compliance data” at the end. This patent is almost surely invalid under the Supreme Court’s decision in [URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7784134755284986738'][I]Alice[/I][/URL], which held that abstract ideas are not patentable, absent something more. Here, My Health is claiming little more than the idea of remotely diagnosing and treating a medical patient. This is not a new idea, and the patent doesn’t even claim how to do it, but only the [I]idea[/I] of doing it (albeit with a bunch of patent-speak to make it look complicated). [URL='http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sound_of_Her_Voice_%28episode%29']This 1998 episode[/URL] of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine shows how the ideas in this patent are routine and conventional enough to be a plotline in a TV series. [IMG]https://www.eff.org/files/mytube/yt_dlAnINBkl4o.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://www.eff.org/sites/all/modules/mytube/play.png[/IMG] [URL='https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/embedded-video-and-your-privacy']Privacy info.[/URL] This embed will serve content from [I][URL='https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dlAnINBkl4o?rel=0&controls=0']youtube-nocookie.com[/URL][/I] We’re not the first to reach the conclusion the patent is invalid. In a lawsuit from last year, a defendant sued by My Health [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/lifescan_mtd_re_101.pdf']asked the court[/URL] to rule the patent invalid. Unfortunately, the court said it was [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/lifescan_order_denying_101.pdf']too early[/URL] in the case to decide that issue and the parties later settled. Along with being abstract, we doubt that this patent described anything new or nonobvious in 2001. In fact, the Patent and Trademark Office has [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/ipr_1.pdf']twice[/URL] [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/ipr_2.pdf']agreed[/URL] that there are serious problems with the patent’s validity in light of what people already knew and were doing in 2001. It instituted 2 different “inter partes” reviews, meaning on two different occasions someone was able to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that the claims were invalid. But on both occasions, the parties settled before the Patent and Trademark Office decided whether the patents should be cancelled. My Health recently sued again based on its stupid patent, and we wouldn’t be surprised if this case also settles. By settling quickly with various parties before a court can make a decision as to the merits of it claims, My Health can continue to collect on its stupid patent. But it’s not only a stupid patent that’s causing problems. My Health’s stupid trademark is prompting a whole other stream of litigation. Not surprisingly, plenty of other companies have used the term "My Health" to describe services that provide health information to their users. So My Health is going after them, too. In February 2015, My Health sued General Electric (GE), and alleged that GE’s use of the term “myHealth” in connection with its online employee portal infringed My Health’s trademark. My Health claimed that it “invested substantial time, money, and goodwill in advertising and promoting [My Health] in commerce and in the healthcare and technological services sectors.” My Health further claimed that “GE is attempting to use [myHealth]...in order to take advantage of and capitalize on My Health’s efforts to market and popularize My Health.” Given these statements, you might think My Health was an actual company with an actual business to protect. Indeed, My Health was required—under the penalty of perjury—to [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/my_health_declaration_re_use_in_commerce.pdf']claim[/URL] that it was using the term “My Health” in commerce in order to register it at the Patent and Trademark Office. However, in February of this year [URL='https://www.eff.org/files/2016/05/30/my_health_v_ge_-_ge_mot_for_sj.pdf']GE told[/URL] a very different story. According to GE's motion for summary judgment (i.e. where it asked the court to rule in its favor as a matter of law), My Health “did not [have] a single document showing the actual sale of any goods or services under the purported MY HEATLH mark.” That is, from the evidence GE was able to gather, “[My Health] simply obtained a patent, obtained a trademark registration, and proceeded to extract settlements based on threats of infringement litigation.” Beyond GE’s claims, this is a trademark that never should have issued. Using the term “my health” to describe products and services related to—you guessed it—your health, is something the entire world should be able to do without fear of a trademark lawsuit. In fact, GE presented evidence that it had been using the term “myHealth” to describe its employee portal at least [I]three years [/I]before My Health even applied for the trademark. ([URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20051208050237/http://www.ge.com/myhealth/']You can see[/URL] GE’s use yourself at the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine). It’s not surprising GE was using this term: it is a completely predictable way to describe GE’s service. From what we can tell, My Health didn’t oppose GE’s motion. Instead, My Health settled with GE and the court never determined whether My Health was even entitled to hold a trademark in the term “My Health.” This is unfortunate, because if My Health’s patent infringement activity is any indication, My Health will continue to assert its trademark despite the serious doubts about its validity raised by GE. My Health, armed with a stupid patent and a stupid trademark, has sued numerous companies, imposing costs on both those companies and the public at large. For that, it more than deserves this month’s award.

 

[ZapNano]

"My health" & "Thank You" trademarked=

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Who own the @ ?

 

[ZapNano]

I think the trademark people should be getting some attention for doing this.

 

[ZapNano]

Free for used

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

EFF’s stupid patent of the month, predicted by a 1998 Star Trek spinoff
My Health Inc. files lawsuits over a trademark it apparently doesn't use.
Joe Mullin - 6/3/2016, 11:47 PM

EFF / Paramount


Have you ever read a patent and thought, "I feel like I've seen that in a Star Trek episode?"

Well, this month the Electronic Frontier Foundation's patent sharpshooters have found a patent that quite literally had all of its key claim elements described by Star Trek—specifically, a 1998 episode of Deep Space Nine.

Earlier this week, EFF lawyer Vera Ranieri described the latest "Stupid Patent of the Month." US Patent No. 6,612,985 is a "method and system for monitoring and treating a patient" and is owned by My Health Inc. That company appears to be a non-practicing entity, and it has filed at least 30 lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, a well-known patent troll haven.

The patent pretty much describes figuring out how to treat a patient but "at a remote location" before updating their treatment plan and "generating compliance data."

"This is not a new idea, and the patent doesn’t even claim how to do it, but only the idea of doing it (albeit with a bunch of patent-speak to make it look complicated)," writes Ranieri. She goes on to point out that this is an actual plot for a Deep Space Nine episode. Check out the edited scene below, annotated to correspond with the patent claims.

The simple idea of a doctor treating patients from afar seems like it must be as old as the idea of medicine itself, but that hasn't stopped My Health from getting a patent.

But My Health has a special place in EFF's long pantheon of Stupid Patents. My Health also has a stupid trademark for MY HEALTH. In at least three instances, the company has actually filed trademark lawsuits, including one against General Electric last year. Since 2005, GE has maintained a website called "myHealth" to serve its employees, retirees, and dependents who get their healthcare through the company.

Unlike a patent, you're supposed to actually use a trademark in commerce if you want to sue someone for infringing it. GE lawyers did some poking, around, and found out that My Health really doesn't have any business outside of litigation.

"Plaintiff My Health, Inc. (MHI) has sold neither goods nor services under its claimed MY HEALTH trademark," GE lawyers told (PDF) the Wisconsin judge who oversaw the trademark lawsuit. They continued:

Instead, discovery in this case has confirmed that MHI's revenue-generating activity apparently is litigation and, specifically, collecting settlements for claims of infringement of its business method patent. In this case, MHI has failed to produce in discovery a single shred of evidence of any bona fide sale of goods or services using the purported mark.

GE lawyers asked for the case to be thrown out. My Health didn't oppose the motion, rather the company reached a quick settlement with GE.

So, My Health got a patent, got a trademark—and has been able to threaten companies and collect settlement cash ever since. It's a sad state of affairs, and the company certainly seems to have earned the EFF's latest award.

Ars attempted to contact My Health, hoping to get founder and CEO Michael Eiffert, MD on the phone. The company's phone number is disconnected, and Eiffert didn't respond to e-mailed requests for a comment.

Joe Mullin Joe has covered the intersection of law and technology, including the world's biggest copyright and patent battles, since 2007.
Email [email protected] // Twitter @joemullin

 

[ZapNano]

® & ™

..

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

new trademark processing system is stupid



In recent times I've been inundated with utterly stupid trademark issues. Two of the most idiotic trademark requests files which stopped my ads from showing.



Instant Access - this is a widely used and effective ad superlative used by online membership sites, databases and other web based "instant access" systems. Someone ones the work instant access - which almost certainly would be only within their sector as it's such a common phrase. In fact when I checked - 5+ companies had Tms to Instant Access insignias, one (HSBC) had it for the word. But HSBC (banking) was entirely different to our sector.



Buy & Sell - Yes someone ones the TM to that - I have trouble grasping how someone could own TM to thast, I did a tm search and only found one that has buy & sell inside their word mark here



uspto.gov search reveales that the closest TM owner is buy & sell for free and is limited to automotbile sales - my client is a property broker - so I don't know how the TM rights could make that leap across to an entirely different sector. I'm not sure if Google staff even verify trademark claims before granting them.



There is no way that TM warrants having exclusive use of the words "buy & sell" in ad copy.



I don't know for sure if the TM system has changed - it seems it has because I'm getting stupid TM requests all the time and I'm spending the better part of a whole day trying to fix this.



There is no quick and easy way to fix it either - you need the help of a Adwords rep to fix this and they are utterly useless and slow to respond most of the time - my recent frustrations here



Recently I had one client who had a TM violation reported against his own trademark. All his ads were disapproved.



E.g. say client is called Christopher Watches



Christopher is a common name and may be owned by Christopher handbags, Christopher Jewellry etc. Well Someone else who uses Christopher in their brand name filed a TM for exclusive use for Christopher. Now my Client who has the TM for Christopher Watches got all ads disapproved that contained Christopher.



It's utter bullcrap - Google needs to spend more resources on hiring support staff who can vet these TM requests and approve/reject accordingly. But instead I get the feeling that they're leaving all this administrative stuff at the hands of advertisers whop have to deal with stupid TM violations that are invalid.



Often they will grant TMs to advertisers that are beyond the remit of the TM granted. E.g. they may have a TM granted for a certain sector only, or the TM may only be used as a phrase or the TM may only be for the company insignia. But these Advertisers with limited rights over the TM and getting far reaching TM use.



1 Expert replyverified_user

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Stupid trademarks


Did anyone else hear about how someplace in England apparently trademarked the word sky?
Because thats just stupid how you can trademark a word you didnt even create, seriously, how stupid can people and the legal system that allows you to trademark a word you didnt even make can get. Possibly a reason NMS took so long to get here, im not going to reply to this, just wanted to see if you guys know about this and how stupid it is.

Its not the whole reason for delay...but yea, its real. British telecom co. called Sky. They have been bustin chops for three years.

They also ♥♥♥♥♥ed about a couple of other companies because of the name... complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ IMO

What about the UK cel network '3'?
Yes they trademarked the number 3...

I'm gonna trademark the word "The" And sue everyone!!

Sorry..I just trademarked "sue" in both verb and proper noun...gonna be filthy rich..and, Sleepyz...sorry, gonna need a check

Its a joke because the law copyrighting a company name and yes its a company name, or in the cases of candy crush a games name, all copyrights apply specificly to what the name is applicable too. The british judges should never even here these cases because these suits are jokes and should fine anyone who files such suits. Clearly No Man's Sky and BskyB are not related and therefore not a violation of copyright.

 

[Kuffy]

I guess the background questions are -

Why did you buy the name?
What did you do with it once you had control?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

I guess the background questions are -

Why did you buy the name?
What did you do with it once you had control?

No

the Key Questions is:

Who has the right to give someone a Trademark ?

for what ?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

I guess the background questions are -

Why did you buy the name?
What did you do with it once you had control?

look very simple :

in America they use Miles
in Europe they use Kilometer

some Projects already failed

these people in charge are even not conform with that
so how they can be conform on TM,s ?

REVOLUTION

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Who owns the Question Mark ?

 

[Kenny]

Who owns the Question Mark ?

I think these guys do.

? and The MYSTERIANS

The first riff I learned on keyboards.

Peace,
Cy

 

[Kuffy]

Well just to confuse the issue even more

In English - a meter is a device for measuring flow, and a metre is a unit of measurement.
It's even more confusing, because if it involves government spending, then we use Imperial measure, ie Miles. If it involves business expense, then we use the European measure of Kilogrammes etc.

My point was that the use of the name may have triggered the action. Without knowing the background, it's not possible for me to make a constructive comment.

 

[ET76]

No

the Key Questions is:

Who has the right to give someone a Trademark ?

for what ?

I guess you're right Who has the right to give someone a Trademark ?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

I think these guys do.

? and The MYSTERIANS

The first riff I learned on keyboards.

Peace,
Cy

Old School ...

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

let,s go and trademark GOD
than finally we can close all Churches ?!

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

I bought the website Trump.org.
Then Donald Trump came after me.

Using the site to criticize Trump got me a nasty letter from his lawyer.

By Chris Puchowicz November 3
Chris Puchowicz has worked in corporate finance for 15 years.

Donald Trump doesn’t own the Internet site Trump.org. (Evan Vucci/AP)
One thousand, two hundred and seventy-two dollars. That’s how much money I spent to learn exactly how Donald J. Trump does business.

In August 2012, I purchased the domain name Trump.org for $1,272 in an online public auction. I had heard rumors that Trump was considering running for president one day. When I came across the auction, I thought it would be a great platform for me to put a message out there. To put it politely, I was not a fan. Many times, he had flipped his position on key topics. What he says today may not be where he stands tomorrow. His questionable business practices had been a subject of news over the years. But most important, I thought Donald Trump was a self-serving man. He had no experience putting others before himself. It is always about him. That wasn’t what I wanted in a potential president, and I said so in text I posted on Trump.org.

Less than a week later, I had a FedEx overnight courier package in my hands. It contained a letter that started out, “I am writing to you on behalf of Donald J. Trump, the well-known businessman, real estate developer, and star of the television show The Apprentice.”

The bright gold letterhead on the letter read “TRUMP: The Trump Organization” — clearly, this was a man who was proud of his name. I was surprised Trump and his company didn’t own this domain already. He owns thousands of domains — the majority of them, like DonaldTrumpSucks.com, probably purchased not so that he could use them, but rather so someone else couldn’t. Buying Trump.org would have made sense for him, too, but neither he nor his employees or attorneys participated in the auction and won. I had.

One of Trump’s attorneys, Alexis Robinson, told me in the letter that I was unauthorized to use this domain name and that I illegally registered the domain. “Your unauthorized use of such Domain Name constitutes willful trademark infringement and cyber piracy,” she wrote. She claimed I was liable to pay Trump $100,000 for buying the domain. “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt to your blatant and unauthorized use of his trademark,” Robinson wrote. “In the interest of avoiding what will certainly be a costly litigation process for you, we are prepared to offer you the one-time opportunity to rectify this matter.” All I had to do to avoid being sued was immediately transfer the domain I had just paid $1,272 for to Trump, for free.

Document
Zoom





«
Page 1 of 2
»

Instead of purchasing the domain at the public auction like anyone with a little foresight and common sense would do, Trump waited until I bought it, then tried to threaten and bully me to get the domain for free. This is precisely the type of guy that I was hoping to warn America about.

The legal threats were empty, because I never intended to use the site to profit from Trump’s name. Instead, my use of the domain was for a noncommercial opinionated “gripe site” about Trump. There’s legal precedent in favor of gripe-site owners over trademark holders. After John Berryhill, the lawyer I hired, sent a sharply worded letter back in reply, Trump and his legal team went away and never bothered me again. “Put simply,” Berryhill wrote, “your employer is a national laughingstock and disgrace, and any citizen of this great country of ours has the right to point that out.” (Trump representatives did not reply to a request from The Washington Post for comment on the domain name.)

Document
Zoom






«
Page 2 of 3
»

I’m sure they knew the law, as well, but that didn’t stop them from trying to strong-arm me into handing the domain over to them. When faced with public criticism, Trump resorted to lies, threats, intimidation and the prospect of legal action. He has done the same thing during this campaign.

Less than a year later, the domain name Trump.tv went up for sale via public auction, too. I also purchased that domain, this time for only $251, and redirected it to point to Trump.org. I guess Trump and his team fell asleep on the job yet again.

Some people might have balked at paying more than $1,500 for two domains, but I was able to reach people 365 days a year for four years — which works out to about $1 a day.

Trump's gamble: A failed bet in Atlantic City
Embed Share
Play Video5:59
In 1990, Donald Trump opened the largest and most lavish casino-hotel complex in Atlantic City. Unlike any other casino in America, the Trump Taj Mahal was expected to break every record in the books. But just several months later, it all fell apart. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)
I’ve had an anti-Trump message up on the domain since 2012. If Trump loses the election next week, I plan to put the results up on the site and leave them there for years to come as a reminder. If he wins, I’ll record every broken campaign promise, track every harmful action and display every single reason we should never reelect him if that time comes. Being our president requires honor, selfless dedication and morality. These are qualities that Trump has shown us time and time again he does not possess.

 

[disaac81]

The person abusing TM's that damages all of us is Mr Mann...