Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Patents It's funny.  Laugh. News

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 "" (Steal This because the URL coincidentally contains the word "stealth". What's terrifying is that he's gotten as far as he has."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Owner of the Word Stealth 'Protecting' Rights

Comments Filter:
  • Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Colonoh ( 791964 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:52AM (#12977360)
    Does this mean we have to change the C&C "stealth" tank to "unobtrusive and hard to see" tank"?
  • Jesus Chrysler (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:53AM (#12977366)
    Dodge this [], scumbag.
  • July Fools??? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Given M. Sur ( 870067 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:54AM (#12977372)
    Talk about prior art. The word has existed since 1250 [].
    • Re:July Fools??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mattjb0010 ( 724744 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:56AM (#12977387) Homepage
      Talk about prior art.

      Trademark != patent.
    • And (Score:5, Informative)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris DOT travers AT gmail DOT com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:03AM (#12977686) Homepage Journal
      The summary is wrong. He only sent a C&D letter to The site is quite operational...

      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....
  • Misleading article (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bongo Bill ( 853669 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:56AM (#12977388) Homepage
    According to TFA, the guy owns a brand named "Stealth," and he's essentially doing this to prevent other people from making brands similarly named.
    • Well, you don't get to do that unless those brands compete with you. At least, that's the idea. I mean, if I make a window glass product called "ScrewMaster Windows" I wouldn't expect Microsoft to go after me, or to win, since I'm not competing in their market. Microsoft did win against Lindows to be sure, but only because Lindows is in direct competition to Microsoft. This guy is going after everyone, presumably in hopes of winning some out-of-court "buzz off" settlements. I'm surprised the judges don't th
      • by Fizzol ( 598030 )
        Sometimes even competing dosen't matter. Microware had been selling thier OS-9 operating system for years when Apple released OS 9. Microware sued and lost, due to "Fair use" laws (I don't claim to understand how that could possibly work).
        • "_Mac_ OS 9" (Score:5, Informative)

          by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige ( 807773 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:22AM (#12977760) Homepage Journal
          Apple was rather careful from the outset to inform everyone that it should be called "Mac OS 9" and not "OS 9".

          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.
  • He's taking on (Score:5, Informative)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:57AM (#12977393)
    Columbia Pictures as well. That may have been a mistake, see HERE []
  • by jokestress ( 837997 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:57AM (#12977398)
    This guy came after our production company Deep Stealth Productions [] a couple of years ago. It was a thick sheaf of papers, which I dismissed after reading about another small company who had received his form threat. Might have to blow the dust off the thing.
    • by Information Architec ( 866239 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @05:10AM (#12978286) Journal
      Yeah, I receievd the threatening package too, because of my web site .
      I ignored him but forwarded the dossier to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse> who are compiling dossiers on these sorts of guys.
      As a private individual, I'd be interested to see how the hell he thinks a character string in a DNS domain that can be parsed to extract the substring stealth infringes his right to....make money from the word Stealth: like that's a major contribution to society.
      I should have published my book by it's working title "XML by Stealth" - might have given this guy indigestion as you can't copyright book titles!
      • I should have published my book by it's working title "XML by Stealth" - might have given this guy indigestion as you can't copyright book titles!

        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.
  • Article text (Score:5, Informative)

    by Frodo Crockett ( 861942 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:58AM (#12977400)
    He Says He Owns the Word 'Stealth' (Actually, He Claims 'Chutzpah,' Too)

    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, 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
  • by XFilesFMDS1013 ( 830724 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:59AM (#12977406)
    What's terrifying is that he's gotten as far as he has.

    Not really, I'd just have to say that he's been very furtive and sneaky about it, indeed, he's acted quite surreptitiously about the whole thing.
  • What a nice guy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by senatorpjt ( 709879 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:04AM (#12977432)
    (From TFA) In 2002, the Illinois attorney general sued Leo Stoller after he used a Web site to solicit donations illegally on behalf of victims of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

    No, this guy's not a total fucking scumbag...

    • Re:What a nice guy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by deft ( 253558 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:27AM (#12977537) Homepage
      Wait. If you go back and read the article it said he did it the wrong way.

      I think this guy is a tool, but he very well could have just decided to try and make a pool of money for these charities and promoted it... but didnt know there was apperwork that needed to be done to do it "officially".

      He could very well have donated every penny as he probably stated he would.

      I dont think it's too far off that if i decided to go collect some money from my neighbors and take it to the red cross, that I may be breaking some law, as good intentioned as I may be.
      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:37AM (#12977814)
        It's safe to say he's a fucking sumbag. As the article noted, the purpose of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion. So if I created Sycraft Amplifiers you cannot also go create Sycraft Amplifiers, that are much cheaper and inferior quality, and snag consumers with brand confusion.

        I mean the guy sued Northrop for fuck sake. Nobody is going to confuse a B-2 Stealth bomber with anything this retard could make. He lacks the means to make military stealth aircraft, and the B-2 was first anyhow.

        It's pretty clear this guy is just a scumbag who wants to leech money while doning nothing of value. I'm quite sure every dollar he collected for "charity" would have gone right in to his pocket.
  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:04AM (#12977434) Homepage
    for stuff like this.

    Someone who's this greedy, self-centered and determined to make a mess of everyone's life, liberty and property for his own advancement would discretely get his ass kicked one day on his way home from work. Seriously, the courts are too civilized of a way of dealing with things like this sometimes. Not that I'd recommend doing it to him, but there was a long period in our history where being this much of a troll got your ass tore up by a few "concerned citizens" for wasting tax payers' money with frivilous cases that were all about greed and nothing about justice.
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:05AM (#12977441) Homepage Journal
    The most telling sentence in the article:

    For all his time in federal courtrooms - Mr. Stoller says his companies have been in court 60 times - there is no record within the Lexis database of a federal court decision on "stealth" in his favor.

    In other words, the man is a litigious idiot. The fact that he's occasionally managed to get people to license from him says more about the fact that people are terrified of lawsuits than that the law itself is unfair.

    People are terrified of the law. I know I am; at any moment I could be sued and even if I win, it'll cost me thousands, with no way to recapture it. (And before a bunch of non-lawyers start demanding "loser pays", remember that "loser pays" just introduces other unfairnesses when the poor can't sue the rich.)

    If programmers ran the world, the law would be clear, concise, and unambiguous. Or at least that's what they'd like to think. Anybody who's actually studied law knows that actual human interactions are full of corner cases, and ass-coverings easily outweigh the meat of most contracts.

    If there were no litigious idiots, the law would be a lot simpler. Just like email would be lovely if there weren't a mountain of fools who think that "free" means "mine mine mine". Sadly, neither is the case. The courts are another commons, like email, and this jackass is ensuring that no commons it without its tragedy.

    • by Anonymous Luddite ( 808273 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:36AM (#12977578)
      >> If programmers ran the world, the law would be clear, concise, and unambiguous

      Just like Perl.
    • by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:00AM (#12977668)
      If programmers ran the world, the law would be clear, concise, and unambiguous. Or at least that's what they'd like to think. Anybody who's actually studied law knows that actual human interactions are full of corner cases, and ass-coverings easily outweigh the meat of most contracts.

      Anyone who's ever spent any time programming has discovered something pretty similar.

      The law's actually almost exactly like what a programmer would create:

      1.0: Ten commandments. Look they're pretty obvious people. How the hell can you get them wrong.

      1.0.1: Yes, it's still stealing even if you do intend to give it back.

      1.5: Hmm. How did we miss rape? Technically you're not stealing anything physical. If she's unmarried, you're not coveting anything. OK, we'll add rape.

      2.0: The seventeen commandments really don't have the same cool ring the ten commandments once had. So we decided to release 2.0: The Magna Carter.

      2.7: OK, men can vote regardless of station in life. But they have to be over 21.

      3.0 (Forked) So we decided to fork the law. A bunch of us used to work for BritainCo. but we were totally bummed out by their management. So we formed US Inc. We're still going to support legacy laws under the British system because, frankly, it works well enough, it's really big and it'd cost a fortune to overhaul it.

      3.1 You know, let's stop calling these things version numbers. Let's call them "ammendments"

      3.1.1 Adding guns. Everyone should be allowed a gun. It makes perfect sense in this day and age. If times change, people in the future will totally have the sense to understand this was an ammendment, relevent to the time, and so can completely be ammended back out, right?


      We're up to at the moment. At which point a lot of programmers are starting to talk about how they'd do it far better if they were allowed to create a truly optimized system.

      At some point, no doubt, a Swedish guy will write a new system of basic laws and then others will build on it.

      At which point the US will nuke him out of existence for sounding far too much like the German guy (Marx) who did something pretty similar and came up with a system that was bad for the entertainment industry and thus bad for America.
    • People are terrified of the law.


      The answer is social opprobrium. The daughter of an acquaintance announced her intention to go to law school when she graduates college in a couple of years. I am afraid I was so scathing as to make her cry. But maybe she will reconsider going into such a low and deceitful and filthy "profession".


  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:09AM (#12977453)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:25AM (#12977530)
      Argh! My eyes! My retinas are *bleeding*!

      I wonder if he owns the trademark to utterly craptacular web design?

      And some of the words?

      Name of a period in history. A common word.

      Surname of a family of violin makers. Can you trademark someone else's name? And really expect them to licence it back from you?

      Hmm... I feel like going on one right now...

      This guy is a total and utter bastard (is that one of his?) and his trademarking of words *and then going after people in unrelated industries* is even less convincing as a business tactic than anything SCO ever came up with.

      Why Northrop Grumman caved in, I'll never know. They should have nailed his arse to the court documents and filed it under 'F' for ...
    • A.) "Terminator" is on that list. I hear someone in the California executive branch might have something to say about that.

      B.) The logos are the ugliest things I've ever seen (goatse included), and half of them don't even load.

      C.) Is "renting" your trademarks out actually a legitimate business strategy?

      I'm actually not sure that's quite what goes on. If I'm understanding this correctly, people pay $300 a year so that can "proclaiming to the world" that the phrase "tree house" "is famous, we
    • by pandich ( 165251 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:14AM (#12977727)
      His logos are genius. Simply put, the most profound use of the pixel since Pong. The colors are bold, never sassy, bright and in your face. The word "Sentra" becomes more than mere syllables or phonemes: it becomes a visual orgasm!
    • by fv ( 95460 ) * <> on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:47AM (#12977854) Homepage
      He doesn't seem to be going after open source software yet. Maybe he figures that we can't afford to pay him off. My Nmap (Stealth) Security Scanner [] comes up as result #4 in a Google search for "stealth" [], higher than the upcoming movie and some other sites he has sued/threatened. Yet I haven't received anything. Not that I feel disappointed and left out or anything ...

      -Fyodor [] (who is now resuming the search for SCO products or marketing messages talking about Stealth ;)

  • by Mister Impressive ( 875697 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:10AM (#12977456)
    ... I'm the owner of (Get your free pen from us) and I've received a few legal threats from several homosexually-oriented pornography websites (the url's of which I am not of liberty to disclose). This is an outrage, clearly all I am trying to do is provide the world with a service of free pens.

    (In case you didn't realise, I don't own the domain and this post was a joke >.>)
  • by blyloveranger ( 525451 ) <> on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:14AM (#12977476)
    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 "" (Steal This because the URL coincidentally contains the word "stealth".

    What the article actually says about "" 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

    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
  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:28AM (#12977544)
    Some idiot claimed to have a patent on the microprocessor long before anyone else took a patent out and he was suing everyone in sight. The funny thing about his patent application that it includes only football play diagrams. I never heard what happened to the idiot or how far he got in collecting money.
  • by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:36AM (#12977576) Homepage
    managed to shut down "" (Steal This because the URL coincidentally contains the word "stealth".

    I had an acquaintance who worked at a company called Via Grafix in Pryor, OK. The company has been around at least since early nineties. Their website is He complained to me that they would get all this email about people asking about viagra. He said those people thought it said ViagraFix not ViaGrafix. I guess it was lucky they got the domain long before viagra came along.

    They made a piece of software called DesignCAD, which is a stupid name, because CAD means Computer Aided Design.
  • Personal Experience (Score:5, Informative)

    by Coventry ( 3779 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:38AM (#12977585) Journal
    Oddly enough, I had a run in with this guy last year, and almost submited a story about it.

    Ok, so my friend and I bought this domain, - 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.
  • by blckbllr ( 242654 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:45AM (#12977608)
    If you're curious and want to know about other "stealth" trademarks, head over to the USPTO database at: =embs7e.1.1 [] and use "stealth[bi] & `RN > 0 & live[ld]" as your search term. You'll pull up lots of live (i.e. enforceable) trademarks still in use using the word "stealth."

    If nothing else, this guy is trying to make a fast buck by playing fast and loose with the trademark laws.
  • Easy Solution. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:50AM (#12977628)
    This guy needs a good swift kick in the balls.


  • Another Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thnikkaman ( 818752 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:02AM (#12977677) Homepage
    The story should contain another link to the guy's site so we could slashdot the asshole. []
  • Just WOW (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GraZZ ( 9716 ) <<jack> <at> <>> on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:15AM (#12977739) Homepage Journal
    From's Cease & Desist Section []:

    There are no well-known trademarks, service marks, trade names and/or domain names that have not already been adopted by some other company first; as in the case at bar. In the same manner that there is not any real property in the 21st Century that can be acquired for free or homesteaded. There is no free well-known intellectual property left in the 21st Century. No free rides!

    I don't even know where to begin with this guy...
  • by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:23AM (#12977968) []

    And remember to hold down the "Shift" key when you hit "refresh"
  • by toby ( 759 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:39AM (#12978018) Homepage Journal
    The guy claims to own "chutzpah" as well. What a putz.
  • by Winkhorst ( 743546 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:41AM (#12978849)
    As legal representative of the Cease & Desist Corporation and its owner, Mr Bernard Dickman, I must remind you that "cease and desist" is a legally registered trademark of said corporation and that your use of the term creates a serious danger of confusion of your company with said corporation in that their business operations are essentially identical to yours, that is, the badgering of companies large and small into paying money for the use of plain English words that have been trademarked. Kindly cease and desist (TM) immediately and we will forego any legal action against you and your company.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Emily Flywheel
    Flywheel, Shyster, Flywheel and Camshaft, Attorneys at Law
  • The guy's a genius (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @09:45AM (#12979125) Homepage
    Sure he's completely immoral, but he definitely knows how the trademark system REALLY works.

    First, from the article it's clear that he puts the "stealth" mark on nearly everything, including air conditioners. That at the very least gives him a legal basis to sue.

    Second, he's more than willing to settle for what would be considered nominal amount. While a few grand might be nothing to K-Mart, if he gets enough of them they add up quickly.

    The fourth and last is that he's never actually WON a lawsuit! He's had this great settlement record even though he gets his butt kicked everything he enters a court room. That takes a lot of balls.

    I'm not saying I like the guy, or even respect him. In fact, if I could get away with it, I'd ensure he got a slow and painful death. I'm just saying he knows all the flaws in our system and he's taking good advantage of them. And maybe if enough people start doing this, our system will change for the better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2005 @09:46AM (#12979134)
    From his site [] Did a quick google. This guy is a big slimeball. Apparently he tried to collect $$ for 20 some odd charities for 9/11 with out thier consent.

    He also offers to license to you such phrases as: Adult Entertainment,Big Screen,Blue Collar, and Back Country.

  • by Captain Chaos ( 13688 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @10:59AM (#12979548)
    I found this when I googled his name: in-chicago-lawsuit-charge.html []
    There is a picture of his alleged office on that page too.

    Also from the same site a post on the Columbia Pictures suit: ctures-takes-on-leo-stoller.html []
    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."

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.