Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets  (Read 2637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomoreheroes7

BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:25:12 PM »

Looking at the BitReserve website again today (https://bitreserve.org/en/about-us/trademark-notice), and it looks like they're going on a trademark spree for all Bit* terms:

•BITRESERVE
•The BITRESERVE logo
•RESERVECHAIN
•RESERVELEDGER
•bitdollar
•bityuan
•bityen
•biteuro
•bitpound
•bitgold
•bitsilver
•bitpalladium
•bitelectrum
•bitmxpeso
•bitphpeso
•bitpeso

A Google search brings up trademark applications for each of these, filed 2014-12-02 (http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/bitdollar-86468934.html, http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/biteuro-86468938.html, http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/bitgold-86468612.html, etc). It looks like none have been reviewed though (and thus they haven't been granted the trademarks yet, I'd presume), as the status shows "New Application - Record Initialized Not Assigned To Examiner" for each.

An interesting trademark application for bitdollar appears to have been made on 2014-03-13, and was apparently granted on 2014-12-12 with the status "Publication/Issue Review Complete" (http://trademarks.justia.com/862/20/bitdollar-86220809.html)

Are we really gonna let a centralized POS company backed by the scam artist Halsey Minor steal our limelight? Do we have any options to debate these trademarks with the USPTO (as our product was first to market to something?)

Oh, and BitReserve apparently also just completed its second crowdfunding round, bringing its total raised to $14 million now and becoming the second best crowdfunded digital currency project after Ethereum's $18 million (http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector).

I feel a war brewing...
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:26:58 PM by nomoreheroes7 »

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2014, 03:30:07 PM »
If they try to enforce their trademarks against us, it will backfire and give us publicity. I say bring it on. You cant enforce trademarks against a blockchain.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2014, 03:32:44 PM »
If they try to enforce their trademarks against us, it will backfire and give us publicity. I say bring it on. You cant enforce trademarks against a blockchain.

This is what I hope will happen too.

These people think that language is controlled by the law. It's one of those things that really pisses off most people who are into cryptocurrency. Well guess what, with our giveaways and faucet there's going to always be a hundred times as many people using real bitassets, compared to "bitassets(tm)"

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BTS: vlight
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2014, 03:35:45 PM »
How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.

Offline toast

Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2014, 04:11:00 PM »
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.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2014, 04:12:07 PM »
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 mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2014, 04:20:36 PM »

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 Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2014, 04:21:55 PM »
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: 630
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2014, 04:31:59 PM »
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 NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2014, 04:34:33 PM »
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 toast

Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2014, 04:35:52 PM »
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 mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2014, 04:49:17 PM »

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 WildWex

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2014, 04:50:14 PM »
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: 630
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2014, 04:50:48 PM »

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 mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2014, 04:53:03 PM »

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.

 

Google+