Update on the PASCAZI’s situation and Bitcoin

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Mt.Gox_Alex on August 10, 2012, 02:53:00 AM

As you may recall, we at Mt.Gox/Tibanne started back in 2011 to use any resources at our disposal to keep “Bitcoin” out the reach of people interested in profiting for it without bringing back anything in compensation to the community.

like dark pools?

chrisrico

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Since this thread has already suffered the dark arts of necromancy...

Has there been any consideration of transferring ownership of the Bitcoin trademark(s) to the Bitcoin Foundation?

Advocat

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

Quote from: Mt.Gox_Alex on August 10, 2012, 02:53:00 AM

As you may recall, we at Mt.Gox/Tibanne started back in 2011 to use any resources at our disposal to keep “Bitcoin” out the reach of people interested in profiting for it without bringing back anything in compensation to the community.

While the battle seems to be over in the US, Europe in the other hand is another story all together.

Indeed and despite having successfully protected “Bitcoin” has a trademark in Europe in 2011, the PASCAZI team via Mrs Celine PASCAZI tired to register back in July 2011 in France the term BITCOIN as a trademark to counteract and diminish the value of the European Bitcoin trademark that was previously secure thanks to our action.

Thankfully, we are glad to report today to the Bitcoin community that the French Trademark Office granted our opposition against the BITCOIN trademark held by Ms Celine PASCAZI.

Although the applicant, here Mrs Celine PASCAZI, did not file observations in response, this decision is now final. However Mrs Celine PASCAZI can still make an appeal before the Court of Appeal of Paris within one month after today’s victory.

Of course and if this would ever happen, we will here as well use any resources at our disposal to fight this appeal.

Well then: There are now zero reasons why Mt Gox cannot begin issuing royalty free licenses to its trademark. None. Unless of course they do not want to! The owner of Linux does it.

I suspect that Mt Gox will not do it. They paid good money to fight for the mark. They make a small fortune off of Bitcoin users every day. They are a profit engine.

They will come up with all sorts of plausible bunko reasons why they cannot issue licenses, but none of it will be real. Have no illusions; they are in it for the bucks! These releases of theirs where they talk about others and the trademark are designed to distract from the fact, repeat the fact, that they have secured trademarks all over the world. They are the anointed ones. And anybody who gets in the way of their money machine better look out. Go ahead and ask them for those licenses; see what you get in return.
Jimmy.

SysRun

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Portland Bitcoin Group Organizer

Good Work.

BitBuster

member

Activity: 101

Merit: 10

No offence to Mt. Gox, but it is a (large and getting larger) profit making venture. The idea that anything could be "protected" for the good of community, expecially if Mt. Gox's raison d'être conflicts with that, is clearly folly. Mt. Gox will keep the IP dormant until the pressure to increase its profits puts it to use. But we shouldn't expect anything else or be angry if that happens.

Ultimately this is all a moot point. While technically people are able to register "Bitcoin" etc, it is a complete waste of money and one which surprises me considering the success of Mt. Gox. It may exist legally, but any claims of IP are easily disproven by previous and widespread usage. The community already owns the term "Bitcoin" because it has been using it.

BB.

aq

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Mike Hearn on August 11, 2012, 02:15:52 PM

Thanks to MtGox for this action. Mark is truly a friend of Bitcoin. We dodged a bullet there thanks to him.

+1

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TangibleCryptography on August 10, 2012, 08:43:38 AM

Quote from: MagicalTux on August 10, 2012, 08:20:30 AM

Unfortunately, handing over the trademark to the Bitcoin Foundation would make it mostly void.

Well I am no lawyer but that wouldn't surprise me. It is unfortunate there is no legal mechanism to make a trademark generic. The court can rule that a trademark is generic but an entity can't file to release their trademark as a generic trademark which would make it open and at the same time prevent any other entity from trying to restrict it. I think it probably is that trademarks predate open source projects by a couple hundred years.

I don't think you need to hand it over. By not vigorously defending the trademark, it pretty much becomes generic and available for use by anyone by default. The issue only really arises if MtGox wants to restrict someone else from using the trademark and the longer its use has been unrestricted the harder it would be for Mt Gox to prevail in any attempt to prevent a specific use.

Mike Hearn

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1134

Thanks to MtGox for this action. Mark is truly a friend of Bitcoin. We dodged a bullet there thanks to him.

sunnankar

legendary

Activity: 1031

Merit: 1000

Quote from: caveden on August 11, 2012, 07:30:52 AM

Quote from: sunnankar on August 10, 2012, 01:58:51 PM

Violating trademark would fall under the 'fraud' theory of natural law.

If that was really the case always, I'd have no problem with trademarks. But often that's not the case. ....
Trademark, as currently enforced in most places, is "property" over an image or phrase, what's absurd in itself.

Not saying there are not abuses of it.

Another case that comes to mind is one in China where an fraudulent seller manufactured laundry detergent which was dangerous and caused acid burns when the clothes were worn. They slapped a Tide logo on the box. The Chinese court held Tide liable for the injuries. Go figure .....

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Quote from: sunnankar on August 10, 2012, 01:58:51 PM

Violating trademark would fall under the 'fraud' theory of natural law.

If that was really the case always, I'd have no problem with trademarks. But often that's not the case. For example, if I make a site with an image mocking Coca-Cola's logo, even though I'm not selling anything that could be confused with Coca's products, I'd still be under the risk of getting sued and losing it (This is a real example).
Trademark, as currently enforced in most places, is "property" over an image or phrase, what's absurd in itself.

sunnankar

legendary

Activity: 1031

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TangibleCryptography on August 10, 2012, 08:43:38 AM

The court can rule that a trademark is generic but an entity can't file to release their trademark as a generic trademark which would make it open and at the same time prevent any other entity from trying to restrict it. I think it probably is that trademarks predate open source projects by a couple hundred years.

This is probably already a moot point and if it is not then it will be in another year or two because of generality. Trademarks exist mainly to communicate to potential customers the source or origin of goods. Violating trademark would fall under the 'fraud' theory of natural law. In the case of bitcoins, this is not really an issue and probably covered under the GPL anyways.

Of course, defending a trademark infringement lawsuit is what everyone is worried about because it can be expensive. But the longer Bitcoin continues to operate the way it currently is the weaker and weaker any trademark holder's claims become due to trademark erosion. Plenty of previously strong trademarks have lost their protection like Asprin, Escalator, Heroin, Kerosene, Linoleum, Yo-Yo, etc. and Bitcoin probably never had a strong trademark to begin with.

TangibleCryptography

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Tangible Cryptography LLC

Quote from: MagicalTux on August 10, 2012, 08:20:30 AM

Unfortunately, handing over the trademark to the Bitcoin Foundation would make it mostly void.

Well I am no lawyer but that wouldn't surprise me. It is unfortunate there is no legal mechanism to make a trademark generic. The court can rule that a trademark is generic but an entity can't file to release their trademark as a generic trademark which would make it open and at the same time prevent any other entity from trying to restrict it. I think it probably is that trademarks predate open source projects by a couple hundred years.

Quote

As for the conflict of interest part, it would be stupid for a company relying on other companies using bitcoin (ie. more bitcoin users = more trading) to decide to be a pain with people handling bitcoin.

I trust you Tux but you may not always be running MtGox. Hell MtGox might not always be MtGox it could be bought out by larger company as the legal and regulatory issues surrounding Bitcoin become solved.

As for companies being stupid and cutting their own throats. Two words: Sun Java.

That being said I don't think it is doomz for Bitcoin. Even if some future MtGox pulled a page out of "How to wipe out millions of dollars in brand equity being stupid by Sun Microsystems" Bitcoin would still survive.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

are you also fighting it in portugal?
because there is a trademark on the word bitcoin already valid in portugal.
I warned you about that when this pascazi deal started.

MagicalTux

vip

Activity: 608

Merit: 501

-

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on August 10, 2012, 08:11:04 AM

Having a clear, open, and verifiable legal foundation removes barriers to entry. Major corporations don't make a move without legal department giving the all clear.

There is also the conflict of interest risk. Hypothetically in 20-30 years if Bitcoin has seen tremendous success MtGox is most likely a major publicly traded company and answerable to it's shareholders. Smart or not there will come a time when someone great idea to boost the stock price will be to "unlock value and monetize previously under developed resources".

Unfortunately, handing over the trademark to the Bitcoin Foundation would make it mostly void.

As for the conflict of interest part, it would be stupid for a company relying on other companies using bitcoin (ie. more bitcoin users = more trading) to decide to be a pain with people handling bitcoin. Hopefully within 20~30 years Bitcoin will be mainstream enough so the trademark would be unenforceable (ever tried to trademark US Dollar?) and no trademark-troll would be able to do anything that could damage Bitcoin's adoption worldwide.

This said, we are still considering options to make this better for the community.

By the way up to this date we received only one application for a license for the trademark, from none other than Pascazi himself.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: phedny on August 10, 2012, 04:13:57 AM

One question I have: does MtGox provide an official license to any party that does contribute to the community and uses the name "Bitcoin"? Preferably such a license is perpetual and can therefore never be undone by MtGox or another party.

This.

Having a clear, open, and verifiable legal foundation removes barriers to entry. Major corporations don't make a move without legal department giving the all clear.

There is also the conflict of interest risk. Hypothetically in 20-30 years if Bitcoin has seen tremendous success MtGox is most likely a major publicly traded company and answerable to it's shareholders. Smart or not there will come a time when someone great idea to boost the stock price will be to "unlock value and monetize previously under developed resources".

Bigpiggy01

hero member

Activity: 1138

Merit: 523

Kudos to Mt Gox Grin

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

I believe MtGox is doing the right thing here.

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

The simple fact that one can consider reserving "Bitcoin" as a trade mark shows hows screwed up this whole intellectual property thing is.

Thank you MtGox for making sure no "patent-troll" will gain control over the name Bitcoin.

phedny

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

While it's good to read that the name "Bitcoin" cannot be used by some party that doesn't contribute to the community.

One question I have: does MtGox provide an official license to any party that does contribute to the community and uses the name "Bitcoin"? Preferably such a license is perpetual and can therefore never be undone by MtGox or another party.

While I understand a centralized solution is the only option in trademark registrations, this situation does pose an unknown future risk for companies that want to offer Bitcoin related services if they have no official license to make use of the name.

Mt.Gox_Alex

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

As you may recall, we at Mt.Gox/Tibanne started back in 2011 to use any resources at our disposal to keep “Bitcoin” out the reach of people interested in profiting for it without bringing back anything in compensation to the community.

While the battle seems to be over in the US, Europe in the other hand is another story all together.

Indeed and despite having successfully protected “Bitcoin” has a trademark in Europe in 2011, the PASCAZI team via Mrs Celine PASCAZI tired to register back in July 2011 in France the term BITCOIN as a trademark to counteract and diminish the value of the European Bitcoin trademark that was previously secure thanks to our action.

Thankfully, we are glad to report today to the Bitcoin community that the French Trademark Office granted our opposition against the BITCOIN trademark held by Ms Celine PASCAZI.

Although the applicant, here Mrs Celine PASCAZI, did not file observations in response, this decision is now final. However Mrs Celine PASCAZI can still make an appeal before the Court of Appeal of Paris within one month after today’s victory.

Of course and if this would ever happen, we will here as well use any resources at our disposal to fight this appeal.

Topic: Update on the PASCAZI’s situation and Bitcoin (Read 3743 times)