Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rage Against the Farkingmachines
In the Orlando Weekly Jeffrey Billman profiles a porn webmaster and his lawyer who are trying, in vain, to patent the name "fuckingmachines." What seemed like a terrific, rolls-off-your-tongue name for a smut site butted up against patent laws that prevent "profanities" from becoming part of a trademark.
According to the office’s website, there have been 39 trademark petitions that include the word “fuck,” five that have “fucking” – including one attempt to trademark the word itself – one with “cunt” and at least 50 with “shit,” again including at least one person who tried to trademark the word itself. None have been approved, though a handful of cases, like “fuckingmachines,” are still pending. “Bitch,” by the way, has been allowed in most cases. There are at least 135 approved trademarks that include the word “ass.”
But Acworth was also denied a trademark for “whippedass,” though that decision was later reversed.
It's all happening in Florida (and California), of course.
|6.8.07 @ 10:01AM|#
Prior art. James Brown. Get up, get on up. Like a sex machine, movin' doin it, you know like a lovin' machine.
Raymund|6.8.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Sorry to put on my anal-retentive patent agent hat, but they're trying to trademark the word "fuckingmachines," not patent it.
Prior Trademark Examiner|6.8.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Not to be pedantic, but they are trying to trademark the term. I'm not sure what the big fuss is. The examiner is just doing his job. He's constrained by the case law and by Section 2a of the Lanham Act. He has no discretion when dealing with the big bad F-word - time and time again the federal courts, at all levels have determined it to be scandalous. It's silly to argue that it's vague - it requires just as much analysis as some of the other sections of the Lanham Act, such as 2(e)(1) descriptiveness. The proper way to get rid of 2(a) refusals is through Congess amending the Lanham Act. Finally, this is purely anecdotal, but I don't think there is much, if any, pressure from the Bush administration to increase 2(a) refusals. The other attorney, Kuczma, is right - there has been a huge increase in filings, particularly by non-lawyers who don't realize that you can't trademark scandalous material.
Prior Trademark Examiner|6.8.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Ah, raymond pointed out the patent/trademark thing first
|6.8.07 @ 10:51AM|#
"...tongue ... butted up ...."
Funny, Dave, funny! Please ignore all those cheap shots I've taken
on you in the past.
|6.8.07 @ 10:53AM|#
For Zog's sake David. Mistaking trademark for patent? What a
poser.
I don't think he should get TM for FuckingMachines. I don't have a
problem with TMing profanity. But you can't TM an ordinary word
that enjoys common usage.
|6.8.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Hm. He seems to run a lot of fascinatingly perverse sites. Whippedass? Wiredpussy? I'm somewhat shocked Gonzalez & homies haven't destroyed him yet.
|6.8.07 @ 11:12AM|#
This is a good thing, right? It would be a violation of my liberty if the government used men with guns to prevent me from marketing a product with a name just because somebody else had already thought of it.
|6.8.07 @ 11:26AM|#
It would be a violation of my liberty if the government used
men with guns to prevent me from marketing a product with a
name moving into someone;s house just
because somebody else had already thought of
itacquired title to it.
Prior Trademark Examiner|6.8.07 @ 11:27AM|#
This is a good thing, right? It would be a violation of my
liberty if the government used men with guns to prevent me from
marketing a product with a name just because somebody else had
already thought of it.
1) Are trademarks really necessary? I do think that in general they
provide a useful function - identifying the source of goods and
services. When I buy a Pepsi, it's because I trust the Pepsi Cola
company to provide a safe, consistent product. It would be unfair
to allow some other random company to exploit that built up
goodwill to sell their soda under the same name. What if that soda
is a lot cheaper because the random company uses unsafe products.
There is something to be said for being able to trust
identifiers.
2) The more interesting question is: to what extent should the
government be involved. As a quasi-libertarian employed by the
Trademark Office, I thought a lot about this. I ended up deciding
that it make sense to have a central system for registering marks,
so that consumers can have confidence that when they see the (R),
that the use means something. Still I wonder if that function could
be performed by competing firms, i.e., the Acme Trademark
Association uses (A) and the Widget Coalitioon for Marks uses (W).
Ultimatetly it seems government would still be involved, becasue
the private trademark firms would need a way to deter/punish
companies using their marks illegitemately. Perhaps that could
work, relying on tort or contract law, and I'm open to arguments.
Still it seems that it's more effecient to have it done by one
entity.
|6.8.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Dan, don't remember what of it you've been around for, but once
every couple months or so we have a big blow-up over what sorts of
IP should be acceptable in a libertarian state. So we're not
unaware of the issue. :) Those of us (like me) who tend to be more
results-oriented are fine with it, at least in theory. The
natural-rights-ists tend to be offended by it, for the reasons you
mention. And the Objectivists tend to be strongly in favor of it,
because the ideas that inventors come up with are the important
thing.
That said, trademarks tend to be the least controversial of all
IP-type protections, because they're mostly designed to prevent
fraud. It doesn't keep me from selling a TiVo; it just keeps me
from claiming that my product is the one the TiVo company
puts out.
|6.8.07 @ 1:49PM|#
You can also have free market trademarks.
For example, Walmart and Costco could band together and set up a
trademark registry for people selling in their stores and use it to
both attract customers ("we guarantee no counterfeits") and keep
suppliers happy ("once you register with us, you'll be the only one
with your name selling in our store")
Customers who don't want to buy counterfeit products will give
their custom to stores that participate with the voluntary
trademark scheme.
Unlike patents, free market systems of copyright and trademark are
very feasible.
Additionally, someone who is tricked can sue for fraud. Under a
free market judicial system, they may have trouble collecting - on
the other hand someone who keeps skiving out on judgments will have
increasing trouble trading with people as his or her infamy
grows.
|6.8.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I would think the religious right would be all for this. Indeed, they should encourage someone to trademark the F-word itself. Then, if someone says it on TV or even on cable, they can be sued for trademark infringement AND fined by the FCC.
|6.8.07 @ 5:14PM|#
I would also like to point out that this man produces some excellent pornographic websites. There's usually some free porn, too!
GILMORE|6.8.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Warty | June 8, 2007, 11:15am | #
Jesus cocksucking Christ. Shut the fuck up, asshole.
Well said. I'm setting this phrase to an autotext button for future
use on Dan T, Dave W
Guy Montag|6.8.07 @ 10:00PM|#
and his lawyer who are trying, in vain, to patent the
name
Wouldn't that be Copyright, and/or as others have said,
trademark?
David Nieporent|6.9.07 @ 2:21AM|#
Customers who don't want to buy counterfeit products will
give their custom to stores that participate with the voluntary
trademark scheme.
Tarran, the problem with that theory is that trademarks aren't a
matter of mere contract. Let's say that you see your neighbor using
a... say, GE brand toaster, and then it catches fire and burns down
his house. You may be rather reluctant to buy a GE toaster in the
future, right? The fact that it was counterfeit doesn't help GE;
your neighbor might know that he bought the toaster at a
non-participating store, but you won't.
Of course, that's not to say that we need government registration
of trademarks; indeed, most trademarks are not registered with the
Trademark office now. But the idea that we can rely on 'caveat
emptor' is unrealistic.
|6.9.07 @ 11:25AM|#
But GE wasn't harmed. If I choose not to buy a GE toaster, I am
not harming GE - they continue to have all their property intact.
They do not have a property right to my custom.
The reasons I choose not to buy GE toasters are thus
irrelevant.
Now granted bad publicity can do a company in as happened with
McDonald Douglas (the perception that the DC-10 was defective arose
from the crash in Chicago of an aircraft that had been damagedwhen
the airline violated McDonald Douglass's maintenance procedures)
but that is not a injury.
David Nieporent|6.10.07 @ 8:21AM|#
Tarran, if I say, "Don't hire Tarran; he's a child molester,"
you probably won't get whatever job you're applying for. You do not
have a property right to get that job. Do you think that means you
weren't harmed?
If you don't think that reputational injuries are injuries, we'll
have to disagree.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245