My word! I own it! Mine!

[Saydrah]

Since leaving retail I have few SCs, but I do write for a blog (not talking about the one in my signature) and had a short but amusing incident, which is not yet fully resolved, with a reader-- I think he counts as an SC, since in the web world, pageviews = $$$, so viewers = customers in a way.

Anyway, I used the word "pawrent" (yes, I know some of you do not like that word, but most of my readers prefer it) in a blog post. Months ago. I have also occasionally linked to that post in other posts.

Today, the owner of the site I write for received an email from someone claiming to own the copyright of the word "Pawrent," as well as all current and future derivatives of the word. He demanded to know if the website was selling any items or e-books including the word "pawrent," but, oddly, made no specific requests and offered absolutely no proof of his claim. His tone was very rude and demanding, but... there's no demand. He does not say "I want you to take that down" or "I want you to link to my website," or anything of that nature. He just wants us to know that he owns the word?

Now, interesting thing #2 (#1 being the lack of any proof that he owns the word): I did some searching and can't find any evidence that he has anything to do with the copyright or trademark owner for the word pawrent. That actual copyright owner, as far as I can tell, is not the person harrassing the site owner over the casual use of the word in a blog. It could be, of course, but he gave only his name, not the name of the company that seems to own the trademark. IANAL, but I have a feeling he isn't, either...

Site owner's response was to ask him to prove it, and tell him that if he would like a particular action taken, he would need to provide more than an email request with no proof that he holds said copyright + trademark. He did offer to add a link to the person's website to the post in question, if proof of copyright is duly produced.

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.

[Pedersen]

First: I am not a lawyer, do not even play one on tv. I am a software developer, and for that reason I have more incentive pay attention to trademark, copyright, and patent law than most, so have a bit more than lay knowledge of the three. Even still, taking this as legal advice will, undoubtedly, make life difficult for you. The best advice to give is to seek a lawyer.

Today, the owner of the site I write for received an email from someone claiming to own the copyright of the word "Pawrent," as well as all current and future derivatives of the word.

Interesting. If he wants to own the copyright, that's fine. Let him. He's going to have an awful lot of writing to do though, since copyright protects a fixed expression of an idea. As a result, he has to write down every possible use of the word pawrent before he can do anything useful.

What he meant to say is that he owns the trademark on the term pawrent. If he does, then such a mark would have to be registered with the USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office) before it would have an impact on you (assuming that your blog is hosted on servers in the US). Furthermore, he would have to send a cease and desist letter making a demand of you to stop using that term, showing that he does, in fact, own the mark.

Finally, he could be trying to issue a DMCA takedown notice. This would mean he is asserting he owns the copyrights, and doing so under penalty of perjury. Since he cannot own the copyright on the word pawrent, only its use in some fixed form, he cannot legally issue said notice. If he does, use this as a guide for how to file a counter notice, and do so.

Failure to follow all these conditions on his part can result in him having real issues pursuing any case in court. In fact, with the penalty of perjury one, he could find himself facing jail time.

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?"

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.

I hope that this made some sense, at least.

[Saydrah]

Thanks for the informative post, Pedersen! I'll pass that along to Canadian Bossman (the site is hosted on US servers AFAIK, but Bossman is Manitoban), who is rather bemused by the whole thing.

[rerant]

What's a "pawrent"?

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

What's a "pawrent"?

Pet parent of some sort?

[Saydrah]

Pet parent of some sort?

Ding ding ding!

Pawrent = pet owner/pet parent.

The blog I write for is mostly read by fairly "advanced level" pet owners for whom their pets' care is a central part of their lives, and many of them do not like to be referred to as their pets' owners, because they consider their pets family. Debate on the merits of that perspective is here, but that's the meaning.

[otakuneko]

Er, words are trademarked, not copyrighted. And mere usage of the word doesn't constitute a violation. Microsoft's not about to come after me for merely uttering their name. Naming my software company Mikro-sofT OTOH would raise some well-paid hackles in Redmond.

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

[rerant]

Pawrent = pet owner/pet parent.

Aaah, I was thinking it was a cutesy way of saying "parent" (not in relation to pets), in the same manner that a child who couldn't pronounce his/her "R"'s would.

[South Texan]

That reminds me of two guys who waddled (literally) into our office one day demanding that we sue a guy at a flea market who was using a name for his used comic book business that THEY had thought up. These two really and truly looked like the comic store guy from The Simpsons only without the goatee. They wore stretch shorts. It was kinda scary for a few female employees. (I felt a little nauseous too!)

They "preferred not to state the name" and knew just enough about law to know that there is a way of asserting ownership of a something original without registering it (this is a VERY narrow area). They were stereotypes of the obese nerd who thinks he knows everything. They talked down to everyone and belittled the attorney with whom they met because the attorney asked them for the name and what they had done to establish their ownership.

It was not hard to track down someone selling comic books from a fixed location at a flea market, and the name was hardly anything someone could not think up on their own.

We didn't take the case.

[PepperElf]

If that was true... then Disney would be suing every single blogger who ever talked about going to Disney or mentioned Mickey Mouse.

In fact I'd be sued for even saying that above....

the evil side of me says... blog about it just to piss him off and make his blood pressure go through the roof. Make liberal use of the word "pawrent"

[South Texan]

I just googled the word.
There is a whole website with Pawrent as its title.

[Primer]

heck, as far as I know, I coined the word "fwap" about 15 years ago, but I'm more than happy to let any/everybody else use it, too. BTW, a fwap is a slap, usually across the upper arm, meant more in play than in anger.

[Pedersen]

If that was true... then Disney would be suing every single blogger who ever talked about going to Disney or mentioned Mickey Mouse.

Actually, it is true. Infringing on a trademark is not as easy as just saying the word, or using it in a post. You have to use the mark in a possibly confusing manner.

For instance, with the Disney example: Preschools and nurseries have been sued (successfully) for decorating their walls with hand painted Disney characters. The reason? If Disney allowed those characters to remain on the wall, then it looks like Disney corporation is giving their stamp of approval to that particular institution.

Another example: Microsoft has a trademark on the term Windows in the computer software space. A programming toolkit had the name "wxWindows". Microsoft requested a name change, because wxWindows was confusingly similar to just plain Windows. The toolkit is now named wxWidgets.

Another example: A person who maintained his own list of what stores were in a mall was sued by the mall (which, btw, did not have a list of the stores that were in it available on the mall website). Reason? By allowing that list, it looked like the mall was condoning the use of their mark by that person. They had to go after him to avoid losing it.

I can go on pretty well indefinitely, if you like. Your not knowing these bits of law does not make them apply any less. And, if you think that I'm wrong, here's an experiment to perform: Make a website called something like "disneyisthebest.com", and paste pictures of Disney characters all over it. Then send the link to the Disney PR dept. I guarantee you will get a very thorough education in trademark law courtesy of their lawyers.

[BookstoreEscapee]

heck, as far as I know, I coined the word "fwap" about 15 years ago, but I'm more than happy to let any/everybody else use it, too. BTW, a fwap is a slap, usually across the upper arm, meant more in play than in anger.

not to be confused with "fap"...

[PepperElf]

oh i can see a disney website perhaps having issues

but just suing someone over talking about it online is quite stupid.

... cos... hmmm i wonder if disney will sue me not for mentioning them.... (am tempted to just type in disney disney disney disney ....etc..." )