BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets

[Empirical1.1]

Because our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?

Next time email the author instead of posting here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Brian is gone.

I would say the actual reason is more that we aren't paying anyone new to handle marketing & media.

I've commented on the article but I think it's relevant to question and highlight this issue here too so that it can start to be addressed.

We have Adam who is managing marketing and message and coordinated existing marketing efforts. This will take a few weeks to get up to speed.

We don't have a PR or press person, though. We should come up with some standard pitches for people to be able to reach out on their own.

I don't really see/notice Adam much yet.

Standard pitches are a good idea but I think we definitely need a professional, salaried PR/Media person who builds up & keeps good media relationships within & outside crypto.

Hpenvy was great at making contacts but he's been less inclined as he's not incentivised.
Method/Matt would be good too but as far as I know they're both working for practically free and their delegate income is almost exclusively a budget rather than a salary.

I've outlined who I'd personally vote for here, that kind of mix would make the marketing a lot better imo https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12730.msg167586#msg167586



 

[toast]

Because our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?

Next time email the author instead of posting here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Brian is gone.

I would say the actual reason is more that we aren't paying anyone new to handle marketing & media.

I've commented on the article but I think it's relevant to question and highlight this issue here too so that it can start to be addressed.

We have Adam who is managing marketing and message and coordinated existing marketing efforts. This will take a few weeks to get up to speed.

We don't have a PR or press person, though. We should come up with some standard pitches for people to be able to reach out on their own.

[Empirical1.1]

Because our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?

Next time email the author instead of posting here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Brian is gone.

I would say the actual reason is more that we aren't paying anyone new to handle marketing & media.

I've commented on the article but I think it's relevant to question and highlight this issue here too so that it can start to be addressed.

[sumantso]

Next time email the author instead of posting here.

... and comment.

[toast]

Because our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?

Next time email the author instead of posting here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[onceuponatime]

Bitreserve Lawsuit Rumor Untrue

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113251/bitreserve-lawsuit-rumor-untrue

How does BitShares always get left out the articles...

That is becoming a serious concern. You would think that "mike lorrey
New Hampshire resident. Libertarian/Republican. Entrepreneur" would at least add us as a "fourth" in "Of all three of these projects trying to use the term bitgold"

[sumantso]

I never thought they were facing lawsuit, just that they couldn't trademark it.

Good thing, it leaves BitGOLD free to be used. There was some worry that trademarking BitAssets would affect the companies using them.

[Empirical1.1]

Bitreserve Lawsuit Rumor Untrue

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113251/bitreserve-lawsuit-rumor-untrue

How does BitShares always get left out the articles...

[onceuponatime]

Bitreserve Lawsuit Rumor Untrue

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113251/bitreserve-lawsuit-rumor-untrue

[cass]

I think we need a pool of funds anyway so I suggested we could have 100% delegates who build up balances of BitGold and so increase the cap in the process.

I am against delegates to fund it. I am tired of all the enforced dilution borne out of greed in which I have no say (seeing as my holdings are puny and my vote means nothing).

If they want, the whales can pool their funds and do it.

 

[sumantso]

I think we need a pool of funds anyway so I suggested we could have 100% delegates who build up balances of BitGold and so increase the cap in the process.

I am against delegates to fund it. I am tired of all the enforced dilution borne out of greed in which I have no say (seeing as my holdings are puny and my vote means nothing).

If they want, the whales can pool their funds and do it.

[Empirical1.1]

I see that BitGOLD is now 30th on asset list of CMC with a cap of $11.5k. Once this BitGOLD gains traction and becomes known we don't have to worry, I think they can't then trademark it either.

Yes I've been advocating improving this. I think we need a pool of funds anyway so I suggested we could have 100% delegates who build up balances of BitGold and so increase the cap in the process.

It would also add daily liquidity at a small loss to kickstart their use which is needed as well.

[cass]

 

[sumantso]

I see that BitGOLD is now 30th on asset list of CMC with a cap of $11.5k. Once this BitGOLD gains traction and becomes known we don't have to worry, I think they can't then trademark it either.

[xeroc]

http://altcoinpress.com/2015/01/bitreserve-facing-potential-court-battle-over-alleged-trademark-theft/

Bitreserve Facing Potential Court Battle Over Alleged Trademark Theft

Well, that should now get us some name recognition 
Nice work Fire Brigade!

[onceuponatime]

http://altcoinpress.com/2015/01/bitreserve-facing-potential-court-battle-over-alleged-trademark-theft/

Bitreserve Facing Potential Court Battle Over Alleged Trademark Theft

Well, that should now get us some name recognition 
Nice work Fire Brigade!

[WildWex]

Good insight - thanks for sharing!

[Akado]

http://altcoinpress.com/2015/01/bitreserve-facing-potential-court-battle-over-alleged-trademark-theft/

Bitreserve Facing Potential Court Battle Over Alleged Trademark Theft

[mint chocolate chip]

Another positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked:  bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc.  I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.

The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.

If the only collision is bitgold then I suppose it isn't really much of an issue .. and bitgold would likely be their weakest case.  I'm not sure how trademarks are fought.. usually we read about patents.

A slightly different spelling is still trademark infringement since the average consumer would not know the difference...not an expert but if they get bitdollar or biteuro etc. they can claim most variations are infringing...especially if they are even remotely in the same industry. 

[sumantso]

Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?

It's worth a try.

Our best approach is to try get more BitAssets on the front page of CMC & publicly own our brand in our market imo.

While BitCNY broke into top 100, BitUSD market cap went down.

Would be incredible if we can get something like BitGOLD or BitOIL in the top 20 - that will put all the debate to rest, even legally I guess.

[nz]

CEO of bitreserve, Halsey Minor .. owes over 10 million in taxes to California.

"As of 2012 the state of California listed Halsey as the #1 on the list of the state's Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers"

I would not risk trusting this guy as the counterparty for my investment with this kind of liability hanging over his head.

....just a small issue of being THE biggest delinquent taxpayer in the 8th largest economy in the world.

Has anyone done a background check on Bytemaster? Oh thats right, my BitAssets dont have any counterparty risk 

[lovejoy]

Here's the wikipedia on the CEO of bitreserve, Halsey Minor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsey_Minor

Apparently he's into filing lawsuits. He currently has a number of outstanding cases as well as cases against him. Also, he filed chapter 7 bankruptcy less than 2 years ago (May 2013).... looks like he supposedly owes over 10 million in taxes to California.

"As of 2012 the state of California listed Halsey as the #1 on the list of the state's Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers"

I would not risk trusting this guy as the counterparty for my investment with this kind of liability hanging over his head.

LOL, wow! this guy...  If you read the Wikipedia entry you see a pretty clear pattern to his public life thus far.  --> Plays big, wins, loses bigger... repeat.  He has left a wake of unfinished projects, mansions in disrepair, hotels stuck in limbo, expensive artwork unpaid for, and on and on... what are the odds this will end any differently?

On the other hand, the guy is ultra litigious and volatile.  So, the wise money is on slow and steady wins the race.  IMO we avoid direct confrontation of any kind and just let him act out, what might very well be his final epic implosion.  It's just a shame it will harm those who are lured in and spit out.

Great detective work on the trademarks!  We do need to cover our ass to the extent necessary / possible.

[gamey]

Another positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked:  bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc.  I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.

The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.

If the only collision is bitgold then I suppose it isn't really much of an issue .. and bitgold would likely be their weakest case.  I'm not sure how trademarks are fought.. usually we read about patents.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Another positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked:  bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc.  I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.

The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.

Agreed. The 3 letter all caps forex versions sound much more "official"

[CryptoPrometheus]

Here's the wikipedia on the CEO of bitreserve, Halsey Minor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsey_Minor

Apparently he's into filing lawsuits. He currently has a number of outstanding cases as well as cases against him. Also, he filed chapter 7 bankruptcy less than 2 years ago (May 2013).... looks like he supposedly owes over 10 million in taxes to California.

"As of 2012 the state of California listed Halsey as the #1 on the list of the state's Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers"

I would not risk trusting this guy as the counterparty for my investment with this kind of liability hanging over his head.

[toast]

Another positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked:  bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc.  I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.

The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.

[gamey]

Meh this needs to be addressed.  This could cause a huge headache if they start suing merchants who use certain bitassets they happen to get a trademark on.  The blockchain can operate outside jurisdictions but websites still do not.

There really are 2 issues.  Making the Bitcoin community aware of things and then the trademark issue. I think it'll become known sooner than later so it'd be nice to figure out if we can do anything about the trademark issue.

[Empirical1.1]

Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?

It's worth a try.

Our best approach is to try get more BitAssets on the front page of CMC & publicly own our brand in our market imo.

[liondani]

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.

[gamey]

Any crypto journalists who like scoops we could contact or bloggers who do this sort of thing..  I can't think of any offhand that do investigative work.  I'm at least familiar with a lot of crypto outlets and I can't think of anyone specifically.  Anyone else have thoughts on the matter ?

[toast]

Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?

[nz]

Obviously if we failed to trademark BitAssets when they were in fact trademarkable that would be a sizeable mistake on our part.

  Let try and trademark BitAssets if possible

[gamey]

Jesus.  Thats some hustle....

[Empirical1.1]

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

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.

[liondani]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[toast]

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

[Empirical1.1]

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

[toast]

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.

[gamey]

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.

[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.

[gamey]

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.

[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"...)

[Rune]

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.

[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!

[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.

[sschechter]

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?

[Akado]

crate a new assed "bitsuckers". let them trademark it 

[NewMine]

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.

[mike623317]

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.

[mike623317]

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

[WildWex]

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.
 

[mike623317]

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

[toast]

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.

[NewMine]

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.

[mike623317]

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.

[Rune]

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.

[mike623317]

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.

[NewMine]

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.

[toast]

We were the first to use them, and Greg has been watching those patent applications intently and so far he doesn't seem worried.

[vlight]

How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.

[Rune]

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)"

[speedy]

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.

[nomoreheroes7]

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...