Author has trademarked common word; threatening other authors over its use

Has she trademarked "brothers" yet?

 

Update from the RWA https://www.rwa.org/p/bl/et/blogid=20&blogaid=2213

 

I think a bunch of cocker spaniels should do it.

Or since dogs technically can't trademark things
(<<<<----------------much to my chagrin), a bunch of cocker spaniel owners should...

 

I wonder how she is financing this. An action in federal court and a cancellation proceeding? This will costs tens of thousands of dollars over the short term and hundreds of thousands if the proceedings go all the way through to completion.

 

That's exactly what I had been wondering in a previous post: who's behind it and why? I had theorized it was a young attorney trying to make a name for himself by turning everything on its head, doing it pro bono. The PR has been lousy, so it can't be a major full service agency or management firm, because they'd only work with the best. That ain't Ken Sunshine doing that PR!

Thoughts, @Steerpike ?

 

She's in for a big shock if she loses. The RWA are firmly behind Tara Crescent, they are funding her fight AND they have the lawyers on their side.

If I have my maths (and memory) correct, FH's website has had around 2million hits since she posted that letter to herself on her blog. And there are STILL NO comments in the comment section.

Either everyone's speechless, or scared that she'll sue the pants off anyone who does say anything.

Who was it who said "only someone who represents themselves in court has an idiot for a client!"? (or words to that effect.)

 

It was Sir William Osler who said "A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient".

 

I never thought of that! you could be right because all the comments following her on twitter are not exactly in her favour.

That's the one - knew it was something like that

 

I guess there could be one for most professions

 

but did he trademark it ...

 

Has anyone checked to see if Bill Clinton had trademarked Cocky already... because he was one Cocky Son of a Bitch .

Also, on another note, I was thinking of writing a story about my dog (See Avatar), I was thinking of calling it

the Adventures of the Cocky Bitch,

It's set in a world inspired by a Youtube Video I watched about what would happen if humans disappear, where my Dog explores this world having adventures, mating, etc.

 

She'd probably make you change the title to Arrogant Bitch.

You know, she allegedly got one author to change her title from Cocky to Arrogant but in my mind, cocky and arrogant are actually very different from each other.

 

Agreed. They're not the same thing.

 

I can't imagine that the courts won't see the danger of allowing trademarks on single preexisting words. If she wins, Disney'll get a copy of the OED for their legal team and start paying overtime...

 

And so will a number of well off authors which will send the literary world into a frenzy and many, many authors will stop writing altogether and take their books down for fear of receiving multiple C&D letters that they won't be able to fight or pay up for.

And that will be a sad sad day.

I am really praying that Hell freezes over first. And I am sooooo not religious.

 

For the ones of us who understand legalese (definitely not me) - here's a link you might like - grab a coffee!

http://www.courtneymilan.com/cockydocs/plreplytotro.pdf

 

WTF did I just read, I sort of skimmed through it but WTF... it was just incoherent as Ms. Hopkins, also the name Chris Cardillo brings up a Film Score Producer. Did she just grab a name and run with it?

Okay so there is a Cardillo Law, but it brings up Termite damage, injuries, Worker's Comp and an office that prepares legal documents for people. Wait wait... it says Peter Cardillo. Not this Chris guy.

 

People get trademarks on single preexisting words all the time—Apple, Nike, Blackberry, Lush, United, etc. That’s not a problem. The problem is her particular mark with respect to the goods and how she is seeking to enforce it.

 

Not an attorney, but the entire first part (ETA: pages 7-11) is of interest to those of us who use pen names....They're trying to say that if you post personal photos and videos of yourself and your life under your pen name (which is done all the time as part of marketing and PR), you lose the right to be anonymous. They're trying to out Tara Crescent's identity (ETA: not just hers. They're trying to out everyone who used a pen name in the documents).

ETA: My interpretation, again, not an attorney, is that they're also saying that using a pen name to file the legal documents is perjury.

 

but her identity is not what's on trial here - or it shouldn't be.

 

And another thing, could you imagine the poor judge that has to deal with this none sense, I wonder how many times Cocky will be brought up in the courtroom. I wonder if the audience can keep from chuckling through it.