Fine Brothers File For Trademark On Word "React" 204
DewDude writes: You've probably seen them on YouTube: Fine Brothers are the two behind the video series Teens React, Kids React, and Elders React. Well, the two seem to feel they somehow invented this whole thing and have now filed for a very broad trademark. The USPTO filing says the trademark will be published tomorrow and looking at the filing; it is literally for the word "react" and simply shows a screenshot of their YouTube page. They have also apparently gotten approval for "Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React"; as well as filed applications for things such as "Do They Know It," "Lyric Breakdown," "People v. Technology," and "Try Not To Smile Or Laugh."
I've got an idea for trademark. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately after the recent REACT fiasco, that phrase has entered common usage and is no longer trademarkable.
Re:I've got an idea for trademark. (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidently, enough people have said they are stupid dumb fucks that they have actually withdrawn the application and shut down their website where they were offering to license the use of this trademark to other people doing this. And are now also withdrawing takedown notices [I guess youtube content id, not DMCA].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I've got an idea for trademark. (Score:4, Funny)
I think you may have wanted to write /.*/ :)
Badges? (Score:5, Funny)
...They said "Parents React" twice. I guess they really like parents reacting.
Re:Badges? (Score:5, Funny)
"Parents React," "Celebrities React," and "Parents React";
Re: (Score:2)
That's where commas go in a list like this. I don't know why; I think...
"Parents React", "Celebrities React", and "Parents React"
...looks more right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK, in US English, the punctuation should be inside the quotation marks, while in British English (and Norwegian, yay) the punctuation should be outside.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, in US English, the punctuation should be inside the quotation marks, while in British English (and Norwegian, yay) the punctuation should be outside.
Also, all programming languages would put such commas outside the quotes, unless you want each quoted string to contain the comma as its final character, but then you'd need another comma after the quotes to have the correct syntax for a list of quoted strings that each end in commas.
Of course, programming languages are required to follow sensible and logical rules, unlike English, where the rules are just made up on the fly by anyone with access to a pen or keyboard (or touch screen, for the last couple
I don't know how to React to this news (Score:3, Funny)
"Mr. Express, I represent the Fine Brothers, and I'm filing a suit against you for copyright infringement..."
Re:I don't know how to React to this news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't know how to React to this news (Score:5, Informative)
Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already issuing DMCA take downs on videos using the word React. What's that stand for again? Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Huh, wonder where people get the phrase "Copyright takedown"? No idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already issuing DMCA take downs on videos using the word React.
Just wow. You really don't understand the issues involved. YouTube doesn't issue takedown notices - quite the opposite, they receive them from those claiming rights to content.
I believe the "they" in "they're issuing takedowns" referred to The Fine Bros.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to have had widely different readings of the GP's post.
Copyright != Trademark. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the issue.
Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already issuing DMCA take downs on videos using the word React. What's that stand for again? Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Huh, wonder where people get the phrase "Copyright takedown"? No idea.
I'm interpreting the latter to mean
Maybe copyright and trademark are indeed different things, but YouTube seems to be acting as if they aren't.
The unclear antecedent doesn't help matters...maybe it would work better if we replaced "issuing" with "acting on"?
Then someone better tell YouTube because they're already acting on DMCA take downs on videos using the word React.
Re: (Score:2)
For god sake someone upvote this parent post.
The amount of internet whining regarding this trivial issue is ridiculous. They have Trademarked "Reacts". That has nothing at all to do with copyright laws. Yet all the self-declared internet lawyers are out bitching about the imagined copyright issues this raises.
Now whether you think they should have been allowed this trademark is another matter. But it doesn't mean they claim copyright over other people's videos.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case they are doing it wrong, the DMCA notices are invalid and should be ignored/revoked.
Eagerly waiting for "Slashdot Reacts" to... (Score:2, Funny)
Screw them. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. It should be "Geeks React", and it should look like either goatse or an ASCII middle finger [ascii-middle-finger.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Damn you!
Re: (Score:2)
I like how Google Image search has a category on that search "Worse than Blue Waffles" LMAO. Clicking on that is also ill advised.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that telling me that has the opposite effect, right?
Oh. My. God.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:3)
Acronym for Radio Emergency Associated Communication Teams [reactintl.org]. Any other use would cause confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
easy... "Radio Emergency Associated Communication Teams React"
is react the acronym or the verb? (assuming a forced "Title Case" heading).
Done. Imagined. Now is it realistic...
Re: (Score:2)
Natural disaster? REACT reacts.
Needs a training video.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even think of a plausible video title that might be ambiguous.
I can't find any REACT emergency services videos online. Only crap by those comedy jackasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'd like a nuke dropped on them?
REACT: Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting System [wikipedia.org]
And I think that Facebook will not be happy either [wikipedia.org]....
Never mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
That the trademark office had 300+ applications for the word "react" on file. Eli the Computer Guy did a fine a video on this controversy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byy8e37spOg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
well he is just lucky he didn't do a "react" video to it, so didn't get dmca'd.
Your ignorance of trademark and copyright law is overwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine? More like idiotic. I watched about 10 seconds, then hit thumbs down and closed that stupid video.
In short, you couldn't get past his melodramatic intro that summed up the reaction to the Fine Brother's announcement. It probably struck a nerve for you.
This trademark BS has gone to far! (Score:2)
This trademark BS has gone to far!
And with bad laws like the TPTA and others any can say if you don't pay for my trademark we can shut you down.
Makes me want to trademark the letter E online (Score:2)
Makes me want to trademark the letter E online and I be a nice guy only $0.0002 per use.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me want to trademark the letter E online and I be a nice guy only $0.0002 per use.
I put forth an opinion such that this will annoy many but is not fool proof, as workarounds for no cost, though not trivial, I (and my cohabitants of this world) can action to avoid such costs.
Ok fine (Score:3)
It's already spoken for (Score:2)
will be used for automated takedowns (Score:3)
they have only one reason to get these: automated takedown notices on youtube. what they are trying to do is not make money off the trademark but rather prevent anyone else from using them in their video title by using automated enforcement. the ideal result is that anyone searching youtube for a reactionary video will only get results of videos they have posted. they are in effect trademarking search terms.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it's worse than that. They want to pay a license fee for use of their trademark, otherwise they'll see to it that the video is taken down. They're basically looking to extort people for using something that is utterly generic ("X reacts to Y").
the other side of the story (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right but since YouTube aka Google can do whatever the fuck they want their site and it's the biggest one on the internet that effectively means stomping on a bunch of people's freedom.
As long as they're serving these bullshit automated DCMA takedowns and providing basically 0 recourse for those effected they're not much better than any other despotism.
Thought Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Intellectual Property, translated from Latinate words to Anglo-Saxon ones, is Thought Ownership. Then the absurdity is clear.
Of all the I.P. laws --- patent, copyright, and trademark --- trademark to me made the most sense. I don't want another company calling itself Apple Computer. Trademark, then, is just like namespacing, just common sense.
But here I see that even that can be abused. It just goes to show that any law in the category of intellectual property should be sharply restricted, dealt with as if it had a big radioactivity symbol on it.
As for patents, they should just be completely obliterated. I have never seen a patent where I said, if we didn't grant this patent, we would never have got this thing invented. The inventor would have been too scared.
As for copyright, I can't yet say it should be obliterated. But the current terms are way too long. 30 years tops.
As for trademark, like I said, it just helps fight confusion, but still it should be dealt with with the utmost contempt for the requester. It would be better to hold off on granting one, and see what happens, than to grant too many. This is nothing but abuse by the Fine Brothers to unfairly stomp out competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents were introduced so that people would publish the idea rather then keep it secret for ever - It does not do this
Copyright was introduced so that people could make money out of an idea they had to reveal in order to use - It does not do this in most cases
Trademarks were to stop people passing off an inferior copy and damaging an established brand - It still does this but not when it is not established or a known brand
Calling Dr Howard (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53KcqITIPlA
Stupid Youtube (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem is that these guys have millions of subscribers so their a big revenue stream for Youtube so they have of course sided with the Fine Brothers.
The Fine Brothers didn't create this kind of content. They are nowhere near the first to use it but they are still basically taking ownership of other people's ideas.
I've subscribed to uploaders who've had these problems and Youtube is notoriously difficult to deal with because you have to prove you're not stealing, instead of the accuser having to make a proper case.
Just today I saw a video of a quad-copter being attacked by a hawk, and it was uploaded by the original owner but the video was flagged by some Korean news agency as theirs even though they had no relation to the video aside from using it in their broadcast. The big stinker is that the uploader was donating the ad revenue to a charity and so they've lost out on a couple grand already.
The system Youtube is using is very flawed but they don't seem to care about the grief and frustration they are causing users.
The most satisfying thing is a live stream of the Fine Bros current number of subscribers and the number just kept plummeting by 20-30 every few seconds.
Schadenfreude.
Re:Stupid Youtube (Score:5, Interesting)
You are so right. I am a volunteer fire fighter and posted a training video of my team putting out a fire at a training facility. I was contacted by youtube and informed that the music in the video was a violation and the video was removed.
The only sound in the video? The roar of the fire and the spray of the water being made by, you guessed it, the live fire and then water coming out of the hose nozzle!
Filled out their form explaining that there was no music in the video only the naturally occurring sound of fire and water. Guess what happened? I bet you did, youtube didn't care and never responded and my video never went back up!
So What? (Score:3)
Words that are merely descriptive may not be trade marked. 15 U.S. Code  1052 (e).
What about... (Score:2)
What about "Slash dot react"?
Caution here... "Let's get ready to fumble" next sunday.
Rescinding (Score:5, Informative)
The fine brothers were losing like 200k subscribers a day over this, it was very unpopular. It appears they are rescinding their attempt: their post about it [medium.com]
It is Over (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No good enough. They deserve to be run out of the business.
An action should have an equal opposite reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is Over (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot is not now nor has it ever been CNN. You want CNN, it's thataway--->
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot is not now nor has it ever been CNN. You want CNN, it's thataway--->
No. CNN is thataway <---.
It's Fox News that is thataway ---> (and I think you'll find it's actually more like thataway ----––-–-–-––-–-–-–-–-–-–-> )
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad when Americans think that CNN is anywhere at all to the left of, say, Benito Mussolini.
"But with research... there's hope for a cure."
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Mussolini was a leftest, that isn't saying much.
Late to the party. (Score:2)
Why are submissions reviewed and approved so incredibly slowly? This story is already practically over, [medium.com] except to see what the fallout is (that is, how many people accept the apology).
I'm not blaming the new owners, it has been like this for years. It's obviously not for dupe prevention, that's for damn sure.
Here's a suggestion to fix trademark laws (Score:2)
Whenever someone files a frivolous patent or trademark, you get to punch him in the face until his nose is inverted.
That should make the problem one that solves itself pretty fucking quickly.
Fine Borthers (Score:2)
I think Larry needs a slapping from Moe..
How does one fight youtube anyhow? (Score:2)
I uploaded a video to Youtube a decade ago. Now, it's being taken down due to a supposed copyright violation. However, Youtube won't tell me what it is I am infringing, the email claims I have to log into my "channel" to find out what the issue is.
I do not even have a "channel" -- and I can't even remember what name/password combination I used to upload the video, because it was a FREAKING decade ago!
I faxed them for more information and they basically sent back a letter that matches their original email. I
My Trademark: /[\w\s]+[\u2122\u2120\u00AE]/g (Score:2)
All your trademarks are belong to us...
Seriously though why doesn't someone just do some automation on the Oxford English dictionary to stop this stupid system.
Everything (Score:2)
Everything must be owned- every word, every phrase, every idea. Nothing can be unclaimed, everything must be owned.
Trademarks (Score:2)
Sue aggressively or loose your rights. Either they will sue people into the ground and lose any love of the public, or don't sue them and loose their trademark rights..
Oh no! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well of course unless you're using it to react to react videos.
it's crappy intellectual propertionism at it's finest..
backstory to this is that the bros are dmca cease & desisting competing videos on youtube. that's bad enough.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't software, though. Doubt there would be competition because nobody is going to confuse youtube videos for something you might put as a skill on a resume.
Re: (Score:2)
Would have worked if you'd not stuck in the superfluous comma.
(Would-be Grammar Nazis tend to look foolish if they don't pay attention to such things.)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see the Fine's C&D/sue over react.js. Facebook will crush them.
What does the Fine Brother videos have to do with Javascript library? The two may use the same name but they're not competing in the same market. There's no basis for an infringement lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about ReactOS and ReactX?
"Merely descriptive" not allowed. React will die (Score:2)
There's no chance this registration will go through. The "hearing" to prevent this registration will consist of walking into the room and chuckling.
Although the text of the statutory law says you can't trademark words that are "merely descriptive" of the product, USPTO regularly denies applications that are at all descriptive. Really they want to see evocative, not descriptive. So Ford can trademark Mustang because it doesn't describe the car at all, it merely evokes the general idea of fast and wild.
Both
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem is actually not that they're trying to trademark the word, it's that they're already cozy with YouTube and are using whatever influence they have there to issue DMCA take downs with impunity. And the beauty of YouTube is that it's a private entity and can take down content for whatever reason it wants, for instance when one of their cronies who brings in a shit load of viewers doesn't like something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to find someone who did some form of reaction video before these guys, and fund DMCA
Youtube has no discretion under DMCA, but provides (Score:2)
> cozy with YouTube and are using whatever influence they have there to issue DMCA
Any takedowns would either be under the DMCA process OR Youtube could choose what they host. The DMCA process leaves no room for Youtube to make a judgement; they just follow the process, they aren't the judge and jury. Once they receive a DMCA notice, they have to do the temporary takedown*. Here's the process mandated by DMCA:
Complainant notifies hoster (Youtube), providing specific information.
Hoster notifies publisher
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Informative)
It's time for another example of "Slashdot Totally Misunderstands Trademarks".
Trademarks (in this context, word marks) are not "universal exclusive rights to a word". They're exclusive rights within a certain context. For any given common word, there's generally a dozen or two different companies with trademarks on it in different contexts. There's already 342 [uspto.gov] trademarks for the word "React", 139 of which are currently active. Indian Industries has it for "paddles used in ball games", while Horizon Hobby has it for "remote controlled hobby vehicles", while Fine Brothers Properties has it for webisodes, while Dekka Technologies, LLC has it for weapons simulators... and so forth. There are no restrictions on anyone using the same word in a different context. You can even trademark the word for your usage of it in a different context.
I wouldn't make a big deal of this, but it seems like not just slashdot but literally 99,99% of the general population seems to think that a trademark is a context-free concept, that if, say, a cell phone manufacturer trademarks the word "jump" then that means that you can't use the word "jump" anymore in regular conversations, or something like that. What it actually means is that you can't make a cell phone called "jump", or anything other cell phone name that would be readily confused for it, or something in the same category as cell phones called "jump". But you can still make a car called jump or a refrigerator called jump or whatnot.
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that's how it's going to be applied. Use the word react in your youtube title, tags, or description and it'll be yanked! (or FineBros will take your ad money) I understand the business necessity to trademark your work(s), but in the context of youtube, it's merely a means to bully everyone. Even if that's not their intent, it's going to be very hard not to.
Ask Devinsupertramp how that works.
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Informative)
They were already doing DMCA takedowns of any videos they happened across that contained "React" in the title for alleged copyright violation.
These guys are another set of Shkrelis. They are nothing more than rent-seeking scum trying to game the system for profit, while contributing nothing of value or substance in return (unless you think goading a little kid to have a meltdown while you're recording him provides "value").
Maybe we could bring back tarring and feathering?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not go overboard with this. They became popular and rich by creating content people enjoyed. It was not groundbreaking and they did some shady competition take-downs, they are no Shkrelis. They did create something I myself find well produced and entertaining (at times). They just got too greedy.
Let's just hope the internet learned the real lesson here - be vigilant. Next time somebody tries to usurp a big portion of youtube to themselves, they might do it covertly without blabering about it to the w
Re: (Score:2)
Fine the [not so] Fine bros.
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest someone trademark/copyright the term "the fine bros effect" and grant a license to anyone who would otherwise want to use "react" in some sort of public commons license.
Let's treat this with the dignity it deserves and mock the piss out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Links? Articles? Anything?
DMCA doesn't apply to Trademarks, so just challenge the ruling. Of course Google can take videos down unilaterally, they are generally transparent as to why things are removed. But once again, link to said disruptions please?
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark + DMCA => You need a lawyer to use the word on Youtube
Somehow I think you missed the context that this is all about creating barriers to entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, explain how the "Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act" applies to Trademark.
DMCA is for copyright violations. Reporting Trademark infringement is an incorrect use of the process.
the context is "react" in the title of an internet (Score:2)
the context is "react" in the title of an internet video.
slashdot did not misunderstand anything.
Maybe you think that the intent was merely to protect their video titles.. well, duh, that is the intent. the intent is to suppress anyone else making react(in the title) videos for youtube or other streaming sites.
if you think that is fair use of trademarks then.. well, good luck. but don't post your reaction to this online in a video.
yeah, so sure you can still make a book called Parents React to Slashdot, th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You have no clue what you're talking about. I wish people would take the time to be informed before posting to Slashdot.
The Fine Brothers didn't request the trademarks for webisodes. That's factually incorrect. They requested the trademark for "observing and interviewing groups of people." That's overly broad and encompasses a lot of things, including in science and psychology. A lot of news outlets interview people for their reactions to big news. That, too, was seemingly covered by the trademark applicati
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt if, in their original video, they weren't pushing the line of "we're going to change the world!"
That's some Prosperity Gospel line of bullshit thinking right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the company that makes velcro also made up the name "velcro", there's only one context for the word - ie: talking about the "velcro" they make.
More to the point, that's *why* they made up the name "velcro". Note, however, that we're perfectly within our rights to have this conversation using their word.
Re: Oh boy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. You could always put that question into a video and post it to YouTube asking people for their reaction and see what happens. You can even request that replies be tagged and titled with react somewhere in the title.
Re: (Score:2)
"React" is kinda rare. But if trademarking common words is okay, I'm going to trademark the word "the".
Re: (Score:2)
For the same name, sure. Just in different markets. Coca-Cola has like thousands of trademarks on the name Coca-Cola, covering it's use on soft drinks, attractions, games etc.