Owner of the Word Stealth 'Protecting' Rights 745
popo writes "Just when you thought ownership of intellectual property couldn't get any more absurd: The New York Times is reporting that the word 'Stealth' is being vigorously protected *in all uses* by a man who claims to exclusively own its rights. Not only has he gone head to head with Northrop Grumman, he has pursued it vigorously in the courts and has even managed to shut down "stealthisemail.com" (Steal This Email.com) because the URL coincidentally contains the word "stealth". What's terrifying is that he's gotten as far as he has."
Re:What happens when... (Score:4, Informative)
July Fools??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What happens when... (Score:3, Informative)
Misleading article (Score:3, Informative)
He's taking on (Score:5, Informative)
Article text (Score:5, Informative)
By COLIN MOYNIHAN
Can a man own a word? And can he sue to keep other people from using it?
Over the last few years, Leo Stoller has written dozens of letters to companies and organizations and individuals stating that he owns the trademark to "stealth." He has threatened to sue people who have used the word without his permission. In some cases, he has offered to drop objections in exchange for thousands of dollars. And in a few of those instances, people or companies have paid up.
"If a trademark owner doesn't go up to the plate each day and police his mark, he will be overrun by third-party infringers," Mr. Stoller, a 59-year-old entrepreneur, said in a telephone interview from his office in Chicago. "We sue a lot of companies."
Mr. Stoller owns and runs a company called Rentamark.com, which offers, among other things, advice on sending cease-and-desist letters and Mr. Stoller's services as an expert witness in trademark trials. Through Rentamark, Mr. Stoller offers licensing agreements for other words he says he owns and controls, such as bootlegger, hoax and chutzpah, and sells t-shirts and other merchandise through what the Web site calls its "stealth mall."
He is currently in a legal dispute with Sony's Columbia Pictures unit over a film that opens late this month. It is about elite Navy pilots and titled - what else? - "Stealth."
Mr. Stoller said he first registered "stealth" as a trademark in 1985 to cover an array of sporting goods. But in recent years, "stealth" has become widely used in marketing and branding circles to bestow a sense of the subliminal or the subversive or to convey an aura of lurking power.
Companies including the retailer Kmart and the consumer electronics maker JVC have stumbled into Mr. Stoller's territory and have removed "stealth" from their Web sites after hearing from him. Another electronics maker, Panasonic, omitted the word from a product called the "stealth wired remote zoom/pause control" after receiving one of Mr. Stoller's letters.
"If you can solve problems without going to court you're better off," said Russell J. Rotter, a lawyer for Panasonic, a division of Matsushita.
The best-known stealth brand may be the military's B2 stealth bomber, whose main contractor, Northrop Grumman, has fought Mr. Stoller to something of standoff. In 2001, the company paid Mr. Stoller $10 and agreed to abandon its trademark applications to use "stealth bomber" in spinoff products like model airplanes and video games. In return, Mr. Stoller agreed not to oppose Northrop's use of "stealth" in aircraft or defense equipment.
"We resolved it in a way that achieved our business purposes without in any way agreeing that Mr. Stoller's assertions were correct," said Tom Henson, a Northrop Grumman spokesman.
Trademark owners can obtain the right to use a word for commercial purposes and then to prevent others from seeking to use the same word for similar commercial purposes. For instance, the Delta Faucet Company, which has trademarked "Delta," could prevent another faucet company from adopting the name. But it cannot object to Delta Airlines because the two companies' products are not likely to be confused with one another.
A search of United States Patent and Trademark Office records found that Mr. Stoller and companies that share a Chicago post office box with him - Central Mfg., Stealth Industries, and S. Industries - hold at least two dozen registered trademarks for "stealth," covering such diverse products and services as crossbows, pool cues and insurance consultations.
Mr. Stoller said that he also held and administered as many as two dozen other "stealth" trademarks, and insisted that his close association with the word gave him special rights.
"We're entitled to own it with all goods and services," he said. "We were there first."
Some companies do recognize his rights to some uses of the word. Easton Spo
Re:Misleading article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Misleading article (Score:3, Informative)
The article doesn't say that (Score:5, Informative)
What the article actually says about "Stealthisemail.com" is that Mr. Stroller sent an e-mail to the website telling them to shut it down. Then the article says about InterActivist Network (who runs stealthisemail.com):
Eric Goldhagen, a member of the InterActivist Network, said that members of his group planned to talk to lawyers and others who have received letters from Mr. Stoller to discuss ways to deal with his "stealth" claims. "The fact that somebody, just by claiming to own a word, can intimidate large companies and powerful law firms shows the damage, to an extent, is already done," he said. "If people like Stoller are allowed to get away with this unchallenged, there could be ripple effects to every form of public mass media."
which if you look closely seems to imply to me that they have not taken it to court yet, therefore have not been forced to shutdown. This is easily verified by going to the actual website which is still up.
Though I do agree with the general sentiment of the submitter that this whole thing is ridiculous. -Patrick
Re:Northrop Grumman stalemate? (Score:5, Informative)
So when he applied "stealth" to sporting goods, it meant you couldn't come out with similar products with similar names. Again, "similar" is up to courts to decide. If you've got "stealth" bowling balls, are "stealth" skis too close? What about golf balls?
Clearly it doesn't apply to airplanes, and honestly I don't know why Northrop didn't just invite him to court. Except that court is expensive, even when you win, and the fact that they paid him $10 is a lot less than the retainer on their lawyers. It's disgusting, I know.
I don't know why they ceded any rights to him at all without knowing more facts about the case. They imply that they weren't seeking their own trademarks, but may have continued to use the name. But a news article isn't a legal brief, so it's hard to tell.
So to answer your question: the word "stealth" has been around forever, but trademarks don't apply only to made-up words. You can take a common word and trademark it for your application, which allows you to keep other people from muscling in on your good idea by confusing people with a similarly-named product. It's the sort of thing that would be accomplished by politeness if you could depend on that. For everything else, there are lawyers.
Re:Northrop Grumman stalemate? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I know what to do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
"how can he get the rights for a word that is in PUBLIC DOMAIN?"
In the same way that the names "Tide" and "Crest" are trademarked. Next time you're at the supermarket, take note of how many products take their names from words in the dictionary.
This isn't endemic to stuff you'll find at your grocer's. Computer companies have successfully trademarked the words "sun" and "apple," too.
Re:bittorrent is next (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, other "famous marks" owned by this outfit are "Sentra" (someone better tell Nissan to pony up some dough) and "Stradivarius".
"Stradivarius" IS indeed a trademark - but not belonging to this guy. The Vincent Bach Corporation has been using "Stradivarius" for its top-of-the-line trumpets and trombones since the 1930s.
I'm waiting for him to sue some nine year old over his alleged trademark of "tree house"!
Re:July Fools??? (Score:1, Informative)
Not sure why parent was modded redundant (maybe the sig? ;p)
I think the point here is that the word "Stealth" can't be used in certain ways, because of confusion regarding brand recognition. Yes, the word "Stealth" has existed for 750 years, but the word "Nike", for example, has existed 3-4 times that long, and you're still not allowed to use it to brand sportswear. You could probably name your graphics card the Nike Accel 2000. IANAL; anyone who is feel free to jump in here. That being said, this guy is clearly bringing frivolous lawsuits in order to extort money from people who actually make things.
Personal Experience (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, so my friend and I bought this domain, stealthisidea.com - as in Steal This Idea, and then never did anything with it.
Last summer, we get a packet, 1 inch thick, telling us we're in violation if his trademark on stealth, and that we were to cease all operations imediatly, and hand over the domain, and be prepared to pay damages.
Thinking this guy was just mistaken, I called him to clear up the matter. From moment 1 he was rude and abusive on the phone, demanding we meet his demands. After explaining the situation, he seemed to loose all grip with reality. He said we were violating his rights. He said he would have the police seize our computers and shut us down, all sorts of over the top crap. He took a very forceful tone, and quite frankly pissed me off. I told him in no uncertain terms that it was inappropriate to make those threats, and he just starting shouting loudly over me...
After the phone call, I dug into my records. I'd signed up for some pay-per-month legal service, including the added protection for my business, and yet had never used it. After finding the contact info, I got ahold of 'my lawyer' (actually just a lawyer at the firm asigned to my account) and explained the situation. He had me fax over a copy of the complaint.
In conversations with the lawyer, he agreed it was a frivilous complaint. You can walk into any hobby store and see models on the shelf for stealth airplanes, no TM symbol to be found next to the word stealth, let alone on the websites of companies that make these planes.
He spoke with the gentleman (if you can call him that), and asked for the registration numbers of the marks in question - none were ever produced. He told the gentleman that if he got a lawyer to bring a suit agianst us for such a rediculous claim, that he'd request sanctions against that lawyer.
We never heard from the guy again.
In the original packet were photocopies of letters to various companies, including JVC, asking them to cease production of various products with Stealth in the name.
I don't know if this guy actualy owns these marks (we never did get proof, but the fact that I produced a lawyer so fast may have been a deterent), but I do know he is an agressive, rude, and harassing individual.
The whole thing made me want to go trademark the common term 'sneak' as an alternative - after all, if someone (supposedly) let him register stealth, sneak should be just as valid.
Re:I know what to do (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you like me
a bill of attainder [techlawjournal.com] is
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
Conducting Your Own TESS Search (Score:4, Informative)
If nothing else, this guy is trying to make a fast buck by playing fast and loose with the trademark laws.
Re:July Fools??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Infringement!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not infringement. This page [harvard.edu] explains the concepts of fair use and nominative use as they apply to trademark law.
Another Link (Score:3, Informative)
And (Score:5, Informative)
I liked the bit about Northrop Grummond paying him $10 to go away.
BTW, IANAL, but I believe there is such a thing in trademark law as prior commercial use. And I think it would be very difficult to trademark a common English word and then sue everyone who uses it in any commercial context which is what he is doing.
I mean, that would be like Microsoft suing Windex because they make a cleaner for windows or Apple suing a bakery because they make apple strudels....
Thats not the worst of it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:July Fools??? (Score:5, Informative)
"_Mac_ OS 9" (Score:5, Informative)
Microware's point of view was that they didn't need a win, just needed a legal basis to show that they hadn't abandond their trademark.
Essentially, the ruling was exactly that, and, IIRC, left the door open to revisit the issue if Apple were to drop the "Mac" part or attempt to use Mac OS 9 to enter the real-time domain.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Informative)
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=saf
Interestly enough, this search [uspto.gov] leads to several other Stealth trademarks. I checked for torrent [uspto.gov] but couldn't find registered to this individual...though I didn't try looking too hard. However, it is obvious that the faster a knowledgeable judge can issue a smack down to this guy, the better.
Trademark in Question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:July Fools??? (Score:1, Informative)
IAAL, but not an American one, I'll jump in anyway. Your point was that trademarks only cover stipulated categories of goods. This used to be one of the basic principles of trademark law. Unfortunately this is no longer so as the TRIPS agreement (which is annexed to the WTO agreement) mandates special protection for 'famous marks.' Since the US is a WTO signiatory, my guess is that it has already been incorporated into US municipal law. The idea of this is to stop you freeloading off the reputation of Nike in selling your graphics cards. This sounds fair enough, until you realise that it this seriously detracts from the principle of equality before the law.
Re:Studies Confirm: The World is Full of Idiots (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:5, Informative)
http://trademarks.gusmanolaw.com/2003/06/from-tta
Re:July Fools??? (Score:4, Informative)
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work - this dildo is apparently attempting to prove me wrong, and show that he can prevent anyone from ever using the word "stealth".
Re:July Fools??? (Score:5, Informative)
I have a US trademark on my band name Highland Sun registered in 3 classes - live performance, musical recordings, and clothing, because I sell T-shirts and stuff with my band logo on it. If I didn't have the mark registered on clothing, then 3rd parties could sell such swag without my permission, and they could interfere with my own sales of such items. (Obviously I'm not in any great danger of losing sales for this. But it happens to larger bands all the time, when they don't have savvy managers.)
In a lot of industries, not just entertainment, peripheral merchandising is just as important as the main product. So you'll find lots of companies registering trademarks in a wide range of classes, to cover the main product and anything else they can use to aid in their marketing.
Re:Article text = Infringing copy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He came after me, too (Score:3, Informative)
The guy has a trademark claim, not a copyright claim. You can't copyright short phrases, title or not. You CAN, however, trademark them.
Just FYI.
Re:Studies Confirm: The World is Full of Idiots (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Made up words? (Score:3, Informative)
What would stop someone starting a totally different business of the same name are anti-dilution laws (which are new, and widely considered a bad idea).
Here's a list of other trademarks he owns (Score:3, Informative)
He also offers to license to you such phrases as: Adult Entertainment,Big Screen,Blue Collar, and Back Country.
Suit was filed in April for his abuses (Score:4, Informative)
http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/defendants
There is a picture of his alleged office on that page too.
Also from the same site a post on the Columbia Pictures suit:
http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/columbia-p
The following qoute from the posting and the linked filing show that he hasn't been successful in enforcing his trademark like the NYT article leads you to believe.
Columbia's complaint includes a handy list of reported federal court cases involving Stoller and/or his companies. Columbia asserts that "No court in any reported opinion has ever found any infringement or dilution of any rights held by Stoller or his companies."
Re:July Fools??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diamond Stealth Video Cards (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of this may stem from troubles that Xerox and Kleenex had with regard to trademark dilution (or loss.) Both were finding that their tradenames were being used as standard terms. "Here, Xerox this for me" when in fact that copier might be a 3M model, or "hand me a Kleenex, will you?" when the tissues at hand weren't made by Kleenex at all. Neither went overboard on lawsuits, but Xerox did implement an awareness campaign to make people realize that "Xerox" was not a generic term for photocopier. It worked, and the Xerox name is still a trademark and they didn't need to sue any restaurants.
The problem with corporate IP lawyers is that they are a bit like the caged lions the ancient Romans kept on hand at the Coliseum to eat Christians and so forth. You have to let them out to feed now and then.
Ya I know of this jackass (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:1, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
- Sentra
- Intruder
- Stradivarius
- Turbojet
- Checkmate
- Airframe
Fable
- Torrent
- Aerospace
- Star Light
- Terminator
- Ambush
I bet they don't try to enforce "Ambush", though - military forces all over the world must have substantially more firepower than any vexatious litigator. Should be interesting watching him track down any number of terrorists (sorry, "freedom fighters") that "ambush" occupation forces and innocent civilians.BTW: the Famous Marks [rentamark.com] page looks like real crap. Some images don't load and the ones that do look like a four-year-old got loose with a paintbox
Re:this is because you dont run one (Score:3, Informative)
A small company should be represented by a lawyer that knows the ins and outs of your business and has a working relationship with your business, not by somebody who happens to have a law degree and is the one that happens to pick up the phone whenever you dial in with an issue. I'll only get in touch with my lawyer when it is absolutely required (expensive bugger, that man ;-) and most of that time it is just for legal advice -- by somebody who happens to know me and the company, the way we work and our full history.
Only once I had to actually let my lawyer pursuit, and only after I was convinced that:
- there was no other way to get the issue resolved
- the chance for a successful outcome was great enough to risk a lengthy litigation
(even then, my lawyer managed to resolve the case without official legal actions). If you would be running a small business, you would know that legal advice should come from someone who knows you and your company. You would also know that problematic situations should as much as possible be resolved directly with the other party, especially if they happen to be customers. Once both sides get lawyers involved, you can be pretty sure that a quick solution is off the table.Especially in a small business, any money that is a stake in a litigation case that could take years to unwind is money that you're not getting. I've seen a small company go down the drain because the manager refused to resolve a problematic situation with some of his customers amicably. Instead, he opted to threaten them with a lawsuit; after which each of the aforementioned customers got a lawyer of their own and all goodwill disappeared. Last thing I know, the liquidator of that company is still pursuing this in court.
Re:July Fools??? (Score:3, Informative)
(US def'n) The practice of instituting groundless judicial proceedings - a crime in a number of jurisdictions. In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise.
There are numerous limitations, to protect the the attorneys of the honestly litigatious.
--dave