Is Leo Stoller generic?
Following on TTABlog's coverage of Leo Stoller's opposition to Google's trademark registration (hat tip to the Trademark Blog) (see the opposition papers filed with the USPTO, including some hilarious correspondence, see e.g. pages 19-25 of the PDF, and other background of interest to Google fans/ trademark buffs)...
I wonder (in no particular seriousness) whether Leo Stoller(tm) has become generic. Much as Google(tm) is also a verb (and an adjective - or at least, people know what we mean by "to google," "I googled," "The googlesearch" (compare to Google(tm) search), googlehits, googlebots, etc.) - and indeed a robust and highly productive root word useful for compounding and otherwise verbing....
What is a Leo Stoller? He's an individual, the President of Central Manufacturing Company, and apparently the Trademark equivalent of a patent troll. Or possibly like a cybersquatter. Allegedly. As I've noted before, Mr. Stoller has in my opinion a bad habit of casting his net a bit wider than he perhaps ought. Some of his claims may be colorable, depending on whether he in fact has any rights to a trademark similar to the one at issue in any given situation (facts which I have no knowledge of). But his claims about the marks of others tend to the frivolous. Or even to the offensively ridiculous.
One allegation, as I hinted above, that's slightly less absurd is the argument that Google has become generic. Wrong, but not as astoundingly wrong as some of his other claims. It's not generic, as we see by the absence of numerous other googles functioning as search engines. There's only one Google for search. Or rather, a huge number (although probably not a googol of them), all emanating from the same source. That is, the world-'round, Google (.com, or .co.uk, or any of the other variations listed at the above link) indicates one company, and if you use it, people will certainly believe it's due to affiliation with them. Courts, particularly solicitous to famous marks, will probably bend over backwards to avoid a finding of genericness, which at a swoop robs a particularly successful and powerful mark of all its value, throwing the field wide open to any Tom, Dick, or Leo who might want to compete using that mark. The magic of a famous mark, of course, is that it can turn even a generic word or phrase into something protectible.
I think the converse ought to be true, too. If we can use the arbitrary (I just picked it out of a hat... a small hat...) string of letters l-e-o-s-t-o-l-l-e-r to designate trademark trolls, and use it in all kinds of contexts -
LS shouldn't think of it as losing protection in his name. He should think of it as giving something back to the commons, by contributing to the public domain.
I wonder (in no particular seriousness) whether Leo Stoller(tm) has become generic. Much as Google(tm) is also a verb (and an adjective - or at least, people know what we mean by "to google," "I googled," "The googlesearch" (compare to Google(tm) search), googlehits, googlebots, etc.) - and indeed a robust and highly productive root word useful for compounding and otherwise verbing....
What is a Leo Stoller? He's an individual, the President of Central Manufacturing Company, and apparently the Trademark equivalent of a patent troll. Or possibly like a cybersquatter. Allegedly. As I've noted before, Mr. Stoller has in my opinion a bad habit of casting his net a bit wider than he perhaps ought. Some of his claims may be colorable, depending on whether he in fact has any rights to a trademark similar to the one at issue in any given situation (facts which I have no knowledge of). But his claims about the marks of others tend to the frivolous. Or even to the offensively ridiculous.
One allegation, as I hinted above, that's slightly less absurd is the argument that Google has become generic. Wrong, but not as astoundingly wrong as some of his other claims. It's not generic, as we see by the absence of numerous other googles functioning as search engines. There's only one Google for search. Or rather, a huge number (although probably not a googol of them), all emanating from the same source. That is, the world-'round, Google (.com, or .co.uk, or any of the other variations listed at the above link) indicates one company, and if you use it, people will certainly believe it's due to affiliation with them. Courts, particularly solicitous to famous marks, will probably bend over backwards to avoid a finding of genericness, which at a swoop robs a particularly successful and powerful mark of all its value, throwing the field wide open to any Tom, Dick, or Leo who might want to compete using that mark. The magic of a famous mark, of course, is that it can turn even a generic word or phrase into something protectible.
I think the converse ought to be true, too. If we can use the arbitrary (I just picked it out of a hat... a small hat...) string of letters l-e-o-s-t-o-l-l-e-r to designate trademark trolls, and use it in all kinds of contexts -
- that dude totally leostollered that company - filed an opposition, and then sent a shakedown letter, even though he had no rights in the word Frangible
- I like to think of myself as a moral person. I'm not a bank-robber, a leostoller, or a hijacker
- This Company has no major imminent litigation threats, just some probably-frivolous securities claims, a leostoller sending letters to legal, and the fact that our CEO was discovered to be an axe-murderer
LS shouldn't think of it as losing protection in his name. He should think of it as giving something back to the commons, by contributing to the public domain.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Stoller alert! The troll has entered the blogosphere!
- Is Leo Stoller generic?