BigTimOBrien writes to mention the EFF is reporting that self-proclaimed cyberlawyer, Eric Menhart, has decided to trademark use of the term "cyberlaw" and is threatening other lawyers with legal action over the term. "I wish I could say I was surprised by this one, but such overreaching invocations of IP rights are all too common -- even where, as in this case, there are no actual "rights" to speak of. But an IP lawyer should know that courts (and trademark examiners, and many tech companies that might be potential clients) don't look kindly on efforts to abuse trademark law to control everyday language. Here's hoping Menhart figures that out fast."
I'll wish the fellow luck on his quest (nothing like taking on a hard problem) but I don't like his chances of succeeding in trademarking the term . . .
If trademarking stuff makes it go away, maybe we can get him to trademark "e-law", "weblaw", "nanolaw", "IANAL", "I-for-one-law" and "attorney-at-law." Especially attorney-at-law.
I would say that needlessly trademarking quick buzzwords like that is obiously not what trademark law was meant for,
but who really cares about "Cyber-____" ? That went out in like, the 80s.
If he truly is trapped in the 80s, may God have mercy on his soul.
At least, the first mention of "cyberlaw" I can find on Google Groups is this EFF newsletter from 1992-04-30
It doesn't matter. This is not a patent. Trademarks don't care about "prior art", but for registering and "continued usage" of the trademark. If the term can be proven to be generic, that can also disqualify a trademark registration. But if Donald Trump can trakemark "You're fired!" under a specific context, I'm pretty sure that "cyberlaw" can also be trademarked.
It doesn't matter. This is not a patent. Trademarks don't care about "prior art", but for registering and "continued usage" of the trademark.
The rules are different, but there is an analogous requirement. We got the Linux trademark back from the shit who tried to steal it because he knew Linus had been using it for trade first and continuously since.
We got the Linux trademark back from the shit who tried to steal it because he knew Linus had been using it for trade first and continuously since.
Exactly: using it for trade. Just saying "omgwtfbbq eff used it first on a obscure usenet post" does not equal to "using it for trade", which is what the law requires.
Exactly: using it for trade. Just saying "omgwtfbbq eff used it first on a obscure usenet post" does not equal to "using it for trade", which is what the law requires.
Amazon has fifty books for sale with Cyberlaw in their title. None of them refer to this scumbag lawyer. The term is used as a generic, not a trademark.
My own book has a Cyberlaw tag [amazon.com] on the Amazon cloud.
I think the reason the EFF is upset is that they suspect a lawyer who uses this type of scumbag tactics probably isn't a very good lawye
Most lawyers will be obsolete within 20 years. Why pay a lawyer to do shit that you can do yourself with a bit of research? Before the web, people couldn't easily do that research, so they ended up paying big bucks for what, in many cases, is filing paperwork and making the same arguments over and over.
Yes, in fact. If someone tries to trademark a word in its dictionary usage, the PTO is probably going to consider the use generic and thus not trademarkable.
CyberLaw (tm) is published solely as an educational service. The author may
be contacted at jr...@well.sf.ca.us; cyber...@aol.com; questions and comments
may be posted on America Online (go to keyword "CYBERLAW"). Copyright(c)
1993 Jonathan Rosenoer; All Rights Reserved. CyberLaw is a trademark of
Jonathan Rosenoer.
Isn't it just like a cheap soap opera? It's like watching the 512th episode of Dallas - the bad guy walks in, make some outrageous claim and uses all means to bully the good guys - again. Just like in episode 511, 510, 509,... The bottom line here is that the world is full of bullies, who who really know what real life is and who don't care because they just want everything RIGHT NOW!!!
Is it really wise to go after the one group most adequately prepared to sue back? Seriously, sue a bunch of lawyers? All you are going to end up with is a bunch of countersuits and years of legal wrangling. He should have picked a demographic to go after that couldn't arm themselves with infinite free legal representation. I mean, what, the RIAA has some sort of monopoly on suing the old and infirm?
1. Eric, who graduated law school around 2005, was one of the lawyers who was scammed [washingtoncitypaper.com] in a work-from-home scheme on craigslist.
2. He is currently suing the scammer, but apparently without success so far; his motion for discovery was denied [justia.com].
3. His client successes [washingtoncitypaper.com] page consists of, essentially:
(a) we won an anti-spam appeal... after we lost the initial case... in which we were the plaintiffs when we were in law school.
(b) A startup needed some startup forms. We drafted some startup forms.
(c) A journal needed some licensing forms. We drafted some licensing forms.
4. His "Attorneys" page talks about "the people in the organization", and then lists: Eric Menhart. His two "Appellate Advocacy" cases include (a) his own case, from 3(a), and (b) one other case, which appears to be a TCPA junk fax lawsuit.
5. His "Alliances" page starts by pointing out that he's only a few blocks from the White House, and "near" the Supreme Court and other courthouses - including being within 100 miles of other circuit courts. It then addresses the actual issue of alliances: They have "numerous strategic alliances with other lawyers and law firms around the nation." That's it.
6. Among his seven "Practice Areas" pages, the only page actually claiming any experience is the "Litigation" page, which states: "CyberLaw® offers substantial litigation experience. When you retain the firm, your matter will be handled by an attorney with state and federal trial and appellate experience. The firm is also experienced with alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as before the American Arbitration Association."
We know from #3 that Eric gained "state and federal trial and appellate experience" by... filing a lawsuit on his own behalf as a law student, losing it, appealing it, and winning on appeal. And one other case. We don't know if he has other experience in a courtroom. We don't know what he means by "substantial".
7. His "binary logo" - probably mandatory for any firm calling itself CyberLaw - is "11010101011010100101000". That's 23 bits.
But whatever the hell could it mean? The only thing remotely valid I can think of is: 699-3192 might be his phone number, but since it clearly doesn't form a proper "byte" without some padding... it's an ignorant gibberish.
Not to defend the tool with the website, but... Assuming a binary number must align with an arbitrary byte length (nothing says a byte *has* to be a power of two in length; maybe the system designer had a fetish for prime numbers) is ignorant gibberish.
Solve this very quickly: Dilute his trademark by spelling it lower case and use the term in a link to an(other) attorney's site. He can't sue the attorney and can't sue you. If you recall, Google got upset when everyone was using "googling" and they tried in vain to stop it because it would dilute the trademark they had created, and that was Google, a company that actually is doing something worth trademarking not some half-wit attorney who thinks he knows cyberlaw [harvard.edu] or even cyberlaw [stanford.edu] or possibly cyberlaw [cyberlawenforcement.org] and
Unless this is just a publicity stunt (which I suspect it is, and is a bad one at that because it just shows how stupid he is,) this trademark will never get approved because it has no secondary meaning.
They can trademark cyber-dork, use it in place of his name in every legal document he's involved in, and sue him for trademark infringement if he tries to use it in a defamation suit to get them to stop using it.
That likely depends on the context. For example, the name 'McDonald' was around for centuries before the hamburger-slingers got a hold of it, but their use in the field of cheap, cloggy restaurant food was novel and defensible. The term 'Apple' was around for a long time before it got applied to computers (or, separately, records). But both uses were recognizably unique. This is different, though. This would be like Microsoft rechristening their office software as 'Word Processor(TM)', then sending "a po
Advertisement for nothin ... (Score:2)
CC.
Google reports 340,000 hits for "cyberlaw" (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Predicting life in a trailer park reeeeeaaaaaaal soon for him.
I support his efforts entirely (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:I support his efforts entirely (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, cybershut-up® this is a cyberhorrible® and cyberchildish® form of cybernagging®
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want to remove next?
Re:I support his efforts entirely (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Also Bush Law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Side note: IANAL always makes me think of iAnal. I'm not sure what it would be, but I bet it'd be awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous, but unimportant (Score:1)
EFF invented "CyberLaw" (Score:4, Informative)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.org.eff.talk/msg/bc39f25662095d9a >
linkfix (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Matrix
Cyberlaw
NetTech
Networlds
Wetware
FutureNets
TechnoRisks
Homesteading
How can you take terms like these, and the people who use them, seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier than things like "necessary losses", "intellectual property", and "fresh frozen".
Re:EFF invented "CyberLaw" (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are different, but there is an analogous requirement. We got the Linux trademark back from the shit who tried to steal it because he knew Linus had been using it for trade first and continuously since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazon has fifty books for sale with Cyberlaw in their title. None of them refer to this scumbag lawyer. The term is used as a generic, not a trademark.
My own book has a Cyberlaw tag [amazon.com] on the Amazon cloud.
I think the reason the EFF is upset is that they suspect a lawyer who uses this type of scumbag tactics probably isn't a very good lawye
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- He's a lawyer
- Lawyers are people (well, sort of).
- Many people can be dumb as sacks of shit.
- Ergo, many lawyers are dumb sacks of shit.
Most lawyers will be obsolete within 20 years. Why pay a lawyer to do shit that you can do yourself with a bit of research? Before the web, people couldn't easily do that research, so they ended up paying big bucks for what, in many cases, is filing paperwork and making the same arguments over and over.Re: (Score:2)
Your story sounds interesting. Maybe we can post it here [theconsumeronline.com]. Read this [theconsumeronline.com] for more info. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cyberlaw [reference.com]
Maybe we can add his picture to TWO definitions
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in fact. If someone tries to trademark a word in its dictionary usage, the PTO is probably going to consider the use generic and thus not trademarkable.
Re: (Score:2)
Soap opera (Score:2)
Quick! (Score:2, Funny)
Not Guilty (Score:3, Funny)
The real culprit here is the idiot who approved the claim.
Everyday language? (Score:2)
Wikipedia. (Score:3)
Wikipedia has something new to add to their article on Cyberlaw [wikipedia.org], which dates back to January, 2003.
Can anyone say... (Score:2)
This is a sign of a rabid lawyer.... (Score:2)
Stupid strategy (Score:2)
Related information (Score:5, Informative)
2. He is currently suing the scammer, but apparently without success so far; his motion for discovery was denied [justia.com].
3. His client successes [washingtoncitypaper.com] page consists of, essentially:
(a) we won an anti-spam appeal... after we lost the initial case... in which we were the plaintiffs when we were in law school.
(b) A startup needed some startup forms. We drafted some startup forms.
(c) A journal needed some licensing forms. We drafted some licensing forms.
4. His "Attorneys" page talks about "the people in the organization", and then lists: Eric Menhart. His two "Appellate Advocacy" cases include (a) his own case, from 3(a), and (b) one other case, which appears to be a TCPA junk fax lawsuit.
5. His "Alliances" page starts by pointing out that he's only a few blocks from the White House, and "near" the Supreme Court and other courthouses - including being within 100 miles of other circuit courts. It then addresses the actual issue of alliances: They have "numerous strategic alliances with other lawyers and law firms around the nation." That's it.
6. Among his seven "Practice Areas" pages, the only page actually claiming any experience is the "Litigation" page, which states: "CyberLaw® offers substantial litigation experience. When you retain the firm, your matter will be handled by an attorney with state and federal trial and appellate experience. The firm is also experienced with alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as before the American Arbitration Association."
We know from #3 that Eric gained "state and federal trial and appellate experience" by... filing a lawsuit on his own behalf as a law student, losing it, appealing it, and winning on appeal. And one other case. We don't know if he has other experience in a courtroom. We don't know what he means by "substantial".
7. His "binary logo" - probably mandatory for any firm calling itself CyberLaw - is "11010101011010100101000". That's 23 bits.
Re: (Score:2)
7. His "binary logo" - probably mandatory for any firm calling itself CyberLaw - is "11010101011010100101000". That's 23 bits.
11010101011010100101000 is a valid base-2 number.
Re: (Score:2)
But whatever the hell could it mean? The only thing remotely valid I can think of is: 699-3192 might be his phone number, but since it clearly doesn't form a proper "byte" without some padding ... it's an ignorant gibberish.
Not to defend the tool with the website, but... Assuming a binary number must align with an arbitrary byte length (nothing says a byte *has* to be a power of two in length; maybe the system designer had a fetish for prime numbers) is ignorant gibberish.
I'm going to assume you've n
Solve this quickly (Score:2)
Shyster whores himself for attention (Score:2)
Thats ok... (Score:2)
For a lawyer, he's pretty stupid.... (Score:2)
Stupid Stupid Word (Score:3, Informative)
I never use it, even though it seems I'm sometimes surrounded by people that do.
I prefer Electronic Crime or eCrime to Cybercrime, for example.
Internet Cafe or Net Cafe to CyberCafe and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Many companies have done similar things (Score:3, Informative)
Its pointless (Score:2)
Cyberlaw? Fuck him, I'll trademark e-law! (Score:2)
The rest of the lawyers should fight back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is different, though. This would be like Microsoft rechristening their office software as 'Word Processor(TM)', then sending "a po