Author Topic: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets  (Read 15209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?
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 nz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Obviously if we failed to trademark BitAssets when they were in fact trademarkable that would be a sizeable mistake on our part.

 +5% Let try and trademark BitAssets if possible
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose"

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector

Yeah they raised £6 million for like 10% on crowdcube.
https://www.crowdcube.com/investment/bitreserve-16565

So that values them at $100 million and they really haven't had to do anything for that.

I love in the article they say

Quote
Bitreserve's President of Global Strategy and Markets, responded that although the Bitreserve team “[doesn’t] need the crowd to raise money,” they wanted to “respect small investors.” Parsa drew a comparison between crowdfunding's disruption to normal venture capital, and Bitreserve's aimed disruption of international monetary transfer. He stated that they aim to support “innovation with social benefit wherever we can..

But of the £6 million they raised on crowdcube, £5.8 million was given by one investor it seems.
So it's more like just a PR stunt to say they're including many small investors.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 11:19:17 pm by Empirical1.1 »


Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Obviously if we failed to trademark BitAssets when they were in fact trademarkable that would be a sizeable mistake on our part.

Banks though are increasingly looking at integrating blockchain technology so if there is a market for blockchain sendable assets with centralised risk, BitReserve are going to have a world of competition soon so they might not even end up being that big.

Imo, the big market though is for a decentralised way to store value with centralised gateways for exiting to real gold, silver USD etc. when required. We are the market leader atm and Daniel is unmatched in this area. I think focus has been distracted these last few months from the core BitAsset business but it's still ours to lose regardless of any naming issues that have to be dealt with.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 11:06:19 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Well our "accepted here" buttons don't actually say "bitUSD", they have the "b" logo + "USD". "Bitshares USD" is always an OK backup plan.
But it's still shitty. Anxious to hear back from IP lawyers.

Also, +1 on trying to trademark "bitshares platform" or some other thing to make it specific enough to trademark.
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 Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • 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?

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

Yip

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai

Well we have to go with trademark trolls in this case but I like this a lot.


It definitely deserves a /r/bitcoin post too I would think.  Something fairly brief and keeping to facts.  Does the guy behind this service have a history of lawsuits by any chance ?

Honestly what is this service from the perspective of hardcore BTC fans?  It is basically a gateway that ENCOURAGES people to leave their BTC position instead of buying into BTC.

Yes, this guy has a history of being extremely litigious. You could play up the fact that they are trying to trademark "bitgold" and "bitelectrum" especially.
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 gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

Well we have to go with trademark trolls in this case but I like this a lot.


It definitely deserves a /r/bitcoin post too I would think.  Something fairly brief and keeping to facts.  Does the guy behind this service have a history of lawsuits by any chance ?

Honestly what is this service from the perspective of hardcore BTC fans?  It is basically a gateway that ENCOURAGES people to leave their BTC position instead of buying into BTC.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
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...

Put this on Bitcointalk and make it known that they are PATENT TROLLS. If they cared at all about the community they inherited they would not try to PATENT TROLL their way to profitability.


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

It would be nice if Bitcoiners despise this service since it basically takes capital out of BTC and parks it in fiat accounts until requested.  There really isn't much reason for them to get behind it.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
"BitShares" trademark events:
2014-01-06 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-01-15 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-01-16 NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED
2014-04-02 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
2014-04-08 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN
2014-04-08 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2014-04-08 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED
2014-09-17 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED
2014-09-17 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
2014-09-18 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED
2014-10-02 FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN
2014-10-02 FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED
2014-10-02 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED

"BitDollar" trademark events:
2014-03-17 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-03-27 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
2014-03-28 NOTICE OF DESIGN SEARCH CODE AND PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED
2014-05-23 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
2014-05-24 SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN
2014-05-24 LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED
2014-05-24 NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED
2014-09-03 AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP
2014-11-25 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER
2014-12-09 ASSIGNED TO LIE
2014-12-12 LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED

I'm not sure what exactly all these events mean, but it sounds like "BitDollar" by BitReserve is farther along than BTS' "BitShares" ever got...and if the USPTO is willing to give them BitDollar, I see no reason why they wouldn't allow the rest of their Bit* terms. I would hope that they stick to their precedent that Bit-anything is too descriptive, otherwise the entire system is a sham. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

(However, it looks like they resubmitted their application for BitDollar along with all the other terms on December 2nd under the ownership of "BITRESERVE GLOBAL FOUNDATION" instead of "BitReserve Ltd". Maybe this means something went wrong with their initial application back in March and they're trying again? So there's still a chance the USPTO could rule all their trademarks as being "too descriptive"...)

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Quote
Have any of you considered BitReserve's primary role might be:
AltCoin killer, targeting bitshares
A banker's replacement for USD

BitReserve isn't an altcoin killer. It's just a gateway.

They're probably not even fully aware of what bitshares is and how it works. One day we will benefit greatly from having their IOU's on our blockchain, and by then they'll have to call them reserveUSD, reserveGOLD and so on. Until they I'd say they can go ahead and call their IOU's bitgold as much as they want. There's gonna be more competition and companies trying to claim those words anyway, so we should just use them out of convenience inside our community, but use the more descriptive "market pegged assets" to outsiders.

Offline Thom


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

He didn't say "disruptive" it was descriptive, but that beside the point.

Why would anyone in this community have any confidence there stupid rules would be honored by bureaucrats consistently? The same argument against I3 application for "bitshares" certainly applies to bitgold or bitsilver.

Have any of you considered BitReserve's primary role might be:
  • AltCoin killer, targeting bitshares
  • A banker's replacement for USD


IMO we shouldn't worry about TM but should rather focus on our marketing efforts and make TM irrelevant.

It's the Blockchain Baby, live with it!
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html