Author Topic: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets  (Read 9564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
Hi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:

http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/

Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked.  We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.

For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:
A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service.
 

Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.

Who are they going to sue?

every merchant who will use it and place the name on their webside.

Offline sschechter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
Hi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:

http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/

Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked.  We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.

For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:
A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service.
 

Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.

Who are they going to sue?
BTSX: sschechter
PTS: PvBUyPrDRkJLVXZfvWjdudRtQgv1Fcy5Qe

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
crate a new assed "bitsuckers". let them trademark it  :D
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Hi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:

http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/

Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked.  We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.

For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:
A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service.
 

Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile

We didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.

Too disruptive? Yet BitReserve successfully registered BitGold and BitSilver

Hang on, looks like we did register it.  Owned by: Invictus Innovations, Inc. - Serial Number: 86156522

Nope sorry, it was refused when you click the serial number.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile

We didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.

Too disruptive? Yet BitReserve successfully registered BitGold and BitSilver

Hang on, looks like we did register it.  Owned by: Invictus Innovations, Inc. - Serial Number: 86156522

Offline WildWex

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Hi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:

http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/

Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked.  We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.

For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:
A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service.
 

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile

We didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.

Too disruptive? Yet BitReserve successfully registered BitGold and BitSilver

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.

Thats a good point Rune. Even though the technology might be better it ticks me off a little to see someone else essentially try to own the phrase BitUSD. 

Did we not bother to try and register BitUSD for a reason when we registered BitShares? Anyone know.

We didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.

Bitdollar goes back to April 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20031.0

BitGold goes back to Nick Szabo and 1998. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo

BitShares was not the first to "use" any of these terms. BitShares is just the most successful so far. Looks like BitReserve will take it to a higher level.

You don't honestly think that trademarking something means "taking it to a higher level". Whoever "wins" these words, is whichever system is most widely used. A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.

Wtf are you talking about? I was talking about the terms, not trademarks. BitReserve is taking it to a higher level because they are marketing "their" product better regardless of trademark. The problem with Bitshares is that only you, me, some Chinese peeps, and this forum know about it. BitReserve is tooting their horn and people are listening and hearing it. To the tune if $14 million dollars. Which is $14 million more dollars than I3 has to develope and market further. Could BitReserve be a scam? Sure, it will most likely fail at some point. That doesn't mean it can't kill Bitshares in the meantime.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.

Thats a good point Rune. Even though the technology might be better it ticks me off a little to see someone else essentially try to own the phrase BitUSD. 

Did we not bother to try and register BitUSD for a reason when we registered BitShares? Anyone know.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.

Bitdollar goes back to April 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20031.0

BitGold goes back to Nick Szabo and 1998. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo

BitShares was not the first to "use" any of these terms. BitShares is just the most successful so far. Looks like BitReserve will take it to a higher level.

You don't honestly think that trademarking something means "taking it to a higher level". Whoever "wins" these words, is whichever system is most widely used. A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile

I have no legal expertise, but i find it mildly annoying that they copy us and then try to trademark it.

I think it just shows we need to keep our nose to the grindstone and get the our tasks finished as quickly as possible and not get sidetracked.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.

Bitdollar goes back to April 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20031.0

BitGold goes back to Nick Szabo and 1998. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo

BitShares was not the first to "use" any of these terms. BitShares is just the most successful so far. Looks like BitReserve will take it to a higher level.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
We were the first to use them, and Greg has been watching those patent applications intently and so far he doesn't seem worried.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.