Received order to cease & Desist today for Trademark Infringement

It is good that you did some research and have now come to the conclusion the rest of held the entire time.

 

dude lol. I've worked for some of the best lawyers in the country and took a special interest in intellectual property. so, there is little to research especially concerning basic questions.
so, i would suggest instead of trying to know it all and competing with people on the forum for attention that you focus more on actually helping people. to an outsider law can be very complicated, especially
on the internet where these companies try to take advantage of the little guy. the thing that people need most is to know that they do have a leg to stand on and just, because someone is trying to take advantage of them, doesn't mean that person is right.

 

I like to help people on this forum understand the complicated aspects of the law as well. That was my reason for even replying to an old thread. You posted on an old thread where the OP is long gone after his 1 post months ago. You missed that the OP's use of "apples and oranges" was a mere example and not the actual term in question. Then, based on that mistake (which we all make), you went on to say how common names, such as apples and oranges, cannot be the subject of a trademark. I wanted to correct that since, in fact, common words can be trademarked. I merely corrected that misstatement of the law so as not to leave it out to mislead other people who might read this thread.

It seems we both agree on that fact now so I really have no idea what rest of the posts are for. Anyway, welcome to the forum.

 

I've already mentioned in a previous reply that I made that mistake. If I make a mistake I don't mind admitting it, because in my business you have to deal with facts. You see, you're still missing the point here and that is to help people. If you were more focused on helping people then you would have noticed the original poster came back and posted that they would pm me. As far as being mislead I don't think so I know more about the case now and I was correct.

And you responding that they can trademark a common word shows that you care more for big business than the little guy, because that is not how it plays out in the real world. I even went as far as to ask you about Apple going to court over people using the trademark Apple? because I know in reality it's something that won't hold up.

Heck, if I were apple I wouldn't even care as long as no one try's to claim my technology lol, because I would know even when someone is in the grocery store and thinks of an apple, there's a good chance that their going to think of my business as well.

 

No, the original poster did not come back, he did not PM you, so once again you totally missed the mark. If you slow down and pay attention you would realize that.

A different member, Party Las Vegas, has indicated he would PM you for help. Personally, I find that concerning since you do not seem to have a great grasp on law or the facts, but that is up to him if he chooses to get advice from you.

The original poster, AwakeButNapping78, made one post back in December of last year and has never come back to the forum, even to visit. So, once again, you totally missed the facts and yet have the audacity to keep telling me I am wrong. You have mixed up facts, posters, and the law. If I were Party Las Vegas I would be worried about taking shit advice from some kid playing lawyer online.

My commenting that trademark law allows for the trademarking of common words does not show that I care about "big business" it shows that I understand basic trademark law. Businesses both big and small have trademarks using common terms. The fact you keep arguing that well settled point shows a limited grasp of the law and how it operates in real life.

 

No, when someone gets a notice in the their email concerning trademark or copyright infringement and go into a panic, because they don't know the law and someone online tells them their wrong that's looking out for Big Business. And that's all I have seen these big businesses taking advantage of the little guy. Otherwise they wouldn't be hitting them the way they do. If someone is unaware you ask questions that's if you intend to educate them and resolve the issue, but if you aim to scare, and bully you hit them head on like I've seen happen with many sites like youtube. There's not even any logic to their methods, one person can upload a video and it sits there for years, another person uploads the same video and are penalized, while the person who uploads the same video after that person is ok.

And as far as trademark's it's not rocket science and if you would read any real law books you would know that and how to handle the case. Instead of some wikipedia lol I hope you aware that anyone can change wikipedia on the fly and it is not a legal source, nor were any of the sites you posted from. As far as knowing the law there's two sides there's the law and there's how the law is applied the actual cases.
You still haven't mentioned any cases where Apple went to court over their name, and you still shy away from the actual cases. As well as shy away from asking the people for more details. It seems you're more concerned with your own ego and being some type of authority figure than dealing with the issues. Most of the stuff I've read on digital point are concerning copyrights, trademarks etc people need to fight. because it's just plain old abuse.

 

It is all well and good to tell someone they should fight, but what about when they are in the wrong and fighting is likely to only cost them wasted time and money? Do you still give them the "fight at all costs" routine so you can feel good about yourself fighting the man even though it is shitty advice for the person you are advising?

Let's just look at the advice you gave on this thread:

Starting from your very first post on this thread, you missed the essential fact they provided, namely, that they did write about the very same topic the trademark covers while using the trademark in their domain name. You also missed that the actual term was not apples and oranges and, based on that mistake, made the wrongful statement that common words such as apples and oranges cannot be the subject of a trademark. In other words, everything you wrote in that post was wrong. You missed nearly all of the facts, advising someone to fight when not grasping that they gave you the information that they were writing about the subject of the trademark (a pretty big flag that they might be infringing and maybe should not fight "period"), and then going off on an irrelevant and legally incorrect tangent about terms that were just examples.

As for helping people, I have offered my help to hundreds of posters in these legal forums. Sometimes I can tell them they have little to worry about, sometimes I tell them they are pretty clearly infringing on someone else's trademark. Part of giving accurate and helpful advice is not coming at it with your own bias. You seem to think that every claim of trademark infringement made by a big company on a small company or person is wrong and should be opposed. Sometimes that is true, sometimes it is not. Your biggest error is simply not even seeming to acknowledge that the advice needs to match the unique facts of each situation. Sometimes, good advice means telling someone bad news.

You keep bringing up the fact I posted a link to wiki and also quoted it here for you. A fact, or restatement of the law, does not magically become false because it was from wikipedia. The facts I cited you are correct. I even included one cite from the US trademark office itself. I am happy to cite directly from US code though if that makes you feel better. The facts, however, do not change. If you think I have misstated the law please point it out and I would be happy to correct it if wrong. If your only gripe is that I used a wiki page (and that you can find nothing factual wrong with it) to try and help someone understand a complex area of the law then you are just bitching to bitch.

There are a lot of people who post in the forums, many who though years of business experience have a great understanding of the law and usually give excellent advice. On the other hand there are a lot of younger people who have have a simplistic or basic understanding of the law and yet they feel competent to offer advice to others, often telling them to fight the good fight, even though they have little understanding of the potential consequences or costs of that fight. I don't know what experience or knowledge you may have, but hope you consider the potential consequences of someone following your advice before just telling everyone to fight the big bad company who contacts them with a potential infringement concern.

 

You're not reading me, while a term like Apple can be tradmarked and tradenamed it really won't holdup unless it's directly related to the business, I didn't stutter nor do I change my view on that. I'm not concerned with reading some law on the net I'm more concerned with reality how the law is Applied. You seem to be in some type of pissing contest and after this post I'm done with this. you can file the paperwork on any tradename or trademark that you want whether that will hold up in court is another story.

As far as fighting I encourage anyone to put up a fight especially when it comes to trademarks, because it's based on usage and like I said earlier there wasn't enough information. If someone followed your advice they may not know that if they have been using a name for 10 years and don't have the paperwork for it against someone who recently filed paperwork that they still have the rights to that name.

As far as helping if your specialty is not intellectual property or shoot law period you shouldn't be giving legal advice at all or telling someone what's good and what isn't. I would never do that then to add more insult and injury you attack others who have a different opinion from your own.

When I posted to this thread I have little concern for what you or any others felt or thought, nor did I personally attack what anyone said. My sole purpose was to provide information from my own experiences and knowledge. And so far everyone that has pmed me seems to have a case and all were referred to consult with a attorney who is trained in this type of law and has access to more information than I do.

Wikipedia again is a source that can be edited on the fly to say what we want it to say, so it's not legal. And again you show complete ignorance of the law. If you go into a court room and give wikipedia as your source, no one would care if part or all the information is true or not it would be ignored. Shoot, you might as well come to court sourcing a comic book lol.

We're not talking about Facts we are talking about the law. The laws always change and in different cases sometimes the law is applied in different ways. So, things always change. As far as experience you respect none of that, you don't respect my experience, you don't respect the lawyer's experience who are trained to give a professional opinion, nor do you respect the forum users by handing them information
on what you think as if it's written in stone.

As far as my advice is concerned it's all sound. Someone approaches you with a trademark, trade name, or copyright issue you respond to them first. If it's a trademark issue and the person doesn't approach you and ask questions you fight it, gather your facts and legal documents and consult with an intellectual property attorney. Like I've said before it's basically not rocket science, which I'm sure you would like to make people believe that it is so you can be the Wikipedia expert. There's only one basic issue and that is who used it first, like I said earlier the poster didn't give enough information to know. Which, is amazing to me because for not having any real information there was a lot of talk in the thread.

As far as business is concerned try looking up Strategic Management and learn how businesses use tactics like this to shut down other businesses.

 

I'm done lol.
Anyone else who has questions just PM me.

 

This is not a court of law it is a webmaster forum, and as I already explained to you, I posted to help people understand the law. Wiki, along with the USPTO.gov pdf I linked to both provide a simple explanation of how common names can be used as trademarks. I am not sure why that bothers you unless you think the parts a quoted from wiki are somehow wrong.

So your advice is that if they come at you with legal threats then you should see a lawyer, but if they come at you with questions and a willingness to chat you should respond and chat with them? (There is a good reason not to just reply to an email or letter and to let a lawyer do it)

As for me, I have not offered anyone advice in this thread. I have, in great detail, corrected what I believe are misstatements of the law or the facts as presented in this thread. I did not suggest that the OP fight or not fight, there simply was not enough information to suggest either was the right course of action. I did say that I thought your advice that, "I would have fought them period" is not supported by the facts. That does not necessarily mean I would advice them to just give in. It simply means that the advice was not sound based on the facts we did know.

I am sorry if you feel personally attacked, that is not and was not my intention. I was trying to correct what I think were incorrect statements and that is hard to do without quoting and disagreeing with your statements. I read this thread when it was posted and did not think there was any advice that could easily be given beyond what mjewel has already posted:

He pointed to the problems that stood out from the OP and they explained carefully that if he thinks his mark is not infringing to speak to an IP attorney. Not much else to say, he pretty much nailed it.

When you joined this old thread and added your comment about common names it seemed to me to be incorrect and I posted to counter/correct that. Everything that followed was my reply to your posts. Read my first post again, it was very straight forward. It seemed like you responded that Apple could not have a defensible trademark even for computers. Maybe I misunderstood your point, but even going back and reading it, it still sounds like that is what you were initially saying.

See you around.

 

If they gave you contact information, contact them and try to see what copyright infringement you are breaking.