Topic: OGNASTY now Guilty of trademark infringement.. When will this punk stop? - page 2. (Read 925 times)

This post should not be construed as legal advice.

Based upon my review of relivant law, and the facts surrounding the sale of OgNasty’s “bitcoin NastyPenny” I would say the case for trademark infringement is far from an open and shut case.

The standard for infringement appears to be if the use of a trademark (or something very similar to a trademark) is likely to cause confusion to a consumer.  One important fact is that OgNasty was in fact selling a product named in the trademark with additional “features”.

Although not pertinent to the legal evualation of the situation, bitcoinpenny did post that OgNasty’s sale of the coins were seen positively by what is essentially a portion of his customer base. I would suggest that he at least make an evualation as to if OgNasty’s specific use of bitcoin and penny have a net positive impact on his business— if so he should consent to the limited use of his trademark, making the question of infringement moot.

"International" is a common word. "Business" is a common word. "Machines" is a common word. Try starting a computer company called "International Business Machines," and see how that works out for you.

Regards,
Chris

The answer is no because bitcoin and penney are common words now.  Also, a trademark can be invalid even if it was issued a while back.  If the term becomes common, anyone in dispute could file a petition to cancel that trademark.

It's a good question, Wendigo. "The Chinese" is a broad statement. I assure you that Nokia, RedBull, and Starbucks all pursue trademark infringement lawsuits with the companies who infringe. (Usually, all it takes is a letter from Nokia's legal department.) However, as soon as one company is court-ordered to stop production or simply shut-down for illegal operations without permits, another pops up in its place. There isn't just a single "Chinese" manufacturer doing all the infringing with knock-off products. Counterfeiting is big business. Often, it's worth the hassle to sell a few knock-offs, pay a few fines, close-up shop, then re-open somewhere on the next block.

Regards,
Chris

How are the Chinese getting away with their similarly sounding copycat branding? They are legally selling copycat products in direct competition with the companies they are copying from. What's the difference between BitcoinPenny/BitcoinNastyPenny and, for example, Nokia/Nokla or RedBull/RidBull or StarBucks/StarFucks?

OgNasty claims that Bitcoin NastyPenny™ is a registered trademark?

Where is his trademark registration?

Also, to avoid misunderstoods, whether you write it like this Bitcoin NastyPenny™ or like this BitcoinNastyPenny™ or even like this Bitcoin Nasty Penny™ does not play any role.

As far as I can tell, that's more than just using the word "penny".

True, sort of. You're right that no person/company can trademark the individual words "bitcoin" or "penny." However, they can trademark the combination of those words, as in "Bitcoin Penny™." It's the same as the words "home" and "depot." Individually, they are non-trademarkable. Together, they are 100% trademarked.

Additionally, it's not just the words themselves that carry trademark weight. It's the category of product or service where that trademark is used. I am totally within my rights to create a hand-knit woolen doll that looks like a snow monster and call it the "Yeti" doll. However, I can not create a new beer cooler and call it the "Yeti" cooler without infringing upon an established trademark.


It's trademark infringement "because someone uses both and added Nasty between it."

In court, the question would be asked, "Would the average, reasonable consumer expect that the 'Bitcoin NastyPenny™' was affiliated with 'Bitcoin Penny™'?" If the answer is "yes," then it's trademark infringement. That's the whole reason for trademark law--to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing a service or product from one person/business while thinking it was affiliated with a different person/business. That's why they invented trademarks, to differentiate the service or product of one business from the service or product from another business. It's really very simple.

In this particular case, it boils down to the above question: "Would the average, reasonable consumer expect that the 'Bitcoin NastyPenny™' was affiliated with 'Bitcoin Penny™'?"

If the answer is "yes," then it's trademark infringement. If the answer is "no," then it's not trademark infringement.

Personally, I believe the answer is "yes." However, since we're not taking this to court, then it's really a moot point.

Regards,
Me

PS -- To play devil's advocate (because I find doing so exercises the mind), one might attempt to argue on OgNasty's behalf that the use of "Bitcoin NastyPenny™" should be allowable via protected parody laws. It may be a stretch to consider the product as a legally-defined parody, but it's worth considering as a possible exemption from trademark infringement.

As far as I can tell, the only part of the trademark used was the word “penny”. (Someone can correct me if I missed something).

Do you mean if someone uses "BtcoinPenny" = trademark infringement and if someone uses "Bitcoin Penny" = no trademark infringement?

Does he claim copyright because someone uses "bitcoin" or "penny" or does he claim copyright because someone uses both and added Nasty between it?

However it doesn't work like that. First of all you can't claim to have copyrights on the word ''bitcoin'' nor the word ''penny'' They only have copyrights on  ''BitcoinPenny'' as a whole, not separate. You can't claim copyright if someone decides to use ''bitcoin'' or ''penny'' just like ''wholefoods'' would not be able to claim copyright if someone uses the word food.

Correct!

Trademark: "Mercedes Benz"

Trademark infringement: "Mercedes Nasty Benz"  

What an insult!

I don’t think you understand what trademark infringement is.

I'm not an IP lawyer either but doing a minor change doesn't get you a free pass. Like I can't be like Quick Bestseller, as I did very little changes, even the courts/juries are not dumb otherwise we'd have a metric ton of "technically" not infringement names, trademarks, say Hungry Games, A Ballad of Ice and Fire, etc

But again the actual results depends on the actual litigation the extent of the damage done (AKA how much has the guilty person made off the item), what the licenses were there on the product, was there a contract between the parties which implied consent, etc.

by not making it?? you provide 0 value

No. I am not sure how I could have been more clear in my post..

He did use a bitcoinpenny coin - so you agree that is trademark infringement

I am no expert on IP law, however I don’t think this would be an infringement. The infringement, if one exists would be from the use of “in code we trust” on the backside of the coin (he didn’t use your actual coin, did he? If so then I don’t think there is any grounds to argue infringement) where it said “in code we trust” and similar.

As I mentioned previously, additional research needs to be done on IP law to give an opinion one way or another.

Cases of trademark infringement are rarely open and shut and as such these types of disputes can result in litigation, the outcome of which is often unclear until a ruling has been made.

Thank you for making it crystal clear the type of person you are for those who may not have been aware.  This line of thinking is so anti-Bitcoin community, I'm just going to let it speak for itself.

No OG I and many others dislike you and your draconian attitude to everything.. You being Treasurer when you say you are better than multi sig is an insult to Bitcoin, your bullying from your DT-1 Position is also a centralized kick in the bollocks of Bitcoin..

Many people despise you but are scared to speak out for fear of the revenge red paint you give..

I also like to point out that you are far from a law abiding citizen..