Slashdot Log In
Lawyer Trademarks "Cyberlaw"
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Jan 19, 2008 05:31 AM
from the race-to-the-trademark-office dept.
from the race-to-the-trademark-office dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Groklaw Explains the Cyberlaw "Trademark" 37 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "PJ of Groklaw has written in more detail about the lawyer trying to get a servicemark on the term 'cyberlaw'. (We discussed this here a few days back.) First, she notes that it's only a trademark application at this point. Furthermore, 'cyberlaw' is a generic term with 300,000+ hits on Google and an entry in some dictionaries and reference sites. In other words, while it's silly for a law firm that should know better to file a trademark application, it shouldn't and probably won't be granted if the law is followed. The article is interesting because it spells out the difference between trademarks and servicemarks, as well as explaining the law surrounding them — a law that differs significantly from copyright law."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Advertisement for nothin ... (Score:2)
CC.
Google reports 340,000 hits for "cyberlaw" (Score:2, Informative)
I support his efforts entirely (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:I support his efforts entirely (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want to remove next?
Re:I support his efforts entirely (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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: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: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)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cyberlaw [reference.com]
Maybe we can add his picture to TWO definitions
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.
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.
Many companies have done similar things (Score:3, Informative)