Topic: Reminder: Mt Gox owns the Bitcoin trademark - page 2. (Read 24920 times)

Trademarks are enforced territory by territory.

If everyone infringes on the trademark around the world, whoever buys the trademark would be in court for years to come. They would go bankrupt themselves.

Just like he is protecting Bitcoin?

there could be a conspiracy here. there are a group of people who want bitcoin to stay and remain as something to be fooled around with for hobbyists.

it's like them saying 'ok newbs, step aside, it's time for the pros to come in', then they get their own crypto-currency out there.

And he has a really cool sword.

a niche in the circular file, most of them

This is good, that Mark protects the trademark.

Funny, there is a law with trademark registration...

If it has been in the "public domain" for more than a year, it can not be trademarked. That trademark is completely null and void. Anyone can prove it was out for over a year, prior to registration. (Somewhere in the application, you had to agree that "this is an original trademark, outside the use of public domain".)

Also, "if the trademark applied for is your own creation"... Which it is not, and the creators have not "given permission to use", so again, that makes the trademark null and void. (Somewhere in the filed application they had to claim that they had rights to use, or were the original creators.)

With those two primary failures, Gox could not actually win any lawsuits with those blatant lies, which are apparently signed and dated lies, on record. (Might even be a form of trademark violation in itself. Applying for property rights with fraudulent information.)

That is why you can not trademark a drawing of a "heart", or the word "heart". That is also why you can't patent a "spoon", or copyright "a bible". (You can get design patents, or translation patents, but those are useless.)

Well, you can apply for a patent on something like a spoon, and you might get it, if the office workers were lazy that day. However, it would not actually hold-up in court, if one person simply proves that it was an invalid patent. (Like, by showing the judge a spoon in a photograph from the 1920's, if the patent was filed in 2010. Or, by showing the code and program with the logo and name "bitcoin", prior to a year before the patent was applied for. Or if they claimed proof of ownership, by getting rights from the creator... all they need to do is provide the creator, to confirm that he gave them the rights. Which is impossible, because he did not, and even if he did, it had been in public domain, with open-source rights, for more than a year prior to the application date.)

some german asshole was faster than gox, though:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wiederspruch-gegen-mtgox-bitcoin-trademark-113520

dude even whipped up a nice logo to register (from the application):



however, it turns out this is irrelevant at least regarding European trademark regulations according to this post by bitcoin.de: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1367553

What about the run up to $32  

essentially nothing happened from year 1 to year 3, then suddenly in year 4 it blossoms in a magnificent way going from double to triple digits, to quad-D,  but that was so 2013, it's now 2014 when btc is seen negotiating a slalom-like trip from a summit of $1200 down to $500 on one leg and $91 on another -- a bifurcated disappointment. 

don't try to spin it, the facts are already dizzy 

drown in tears mark karpeles

Because a 20x (+) price increase YoY means that it is dying.

The are not apt to defend it based on infringment but would likely defend against any claim of ownership, and I suspect that matter would get folded into some larger action (bankruptcy, receivership, etc).

 

As a practical problem, you can image their assets/free cash being tied up in litigation or in compensating customers.

If they are reducing their office footprint, I can't imagine them expending resources to defend a trademark a financial priority.

They would have to retain a US lawyer who would no doubt want their fee up front.

"World" is having issues accepting Bitcoin, how do u think they will accept one of 1654561657468 other alt coins ?
I don't think so. Bitcoin now only needs stabilized rate and will take over the "World"

maxcoin 


 (just kidding, dont buy that shit)

I made it about a year ago, just search it, haven't taken the draft copy off, but no one suggested changes so its the final copy now

have got a few digital copy's plus a framed one on the wall like it came out of an old Spanish galleon

on top of this I'm planning the Cryptocurrency Banking act though that's going to be some piece of work and will take a few months yet

No, we definitely should not.

Under the Crytocurrency Consitution, Crypto trademarks cannot be claimed by any individual or entity.

Actually internet is trademarked since the 1980s:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73801226&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch