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

No doubt she fucked up.

 

I haven't read all the papers, so there's that caveat. But the challenge to the trademark is before the TTAB, an administrative court in the USPTO. The Southern District of NY has no jurisdiction to do anything with that. Faleena asked the court to dismiss the cancellation, but doesn't have that power. That's probably what this is referring.

 

Yep.

 

I just guessed she gets a hundred a day. Given how many I’ve heard other hated figures get.

 

if it is revoked, then doesn't that mean that the whole trademarking office should be overhauled?

 

Isn't that also going to be part of the next court date in September? I think the FH lawyers are looking at it from the POV of Kevin having nothing to do with this because he's not affected by it in any way, however, from his POV, he's fighting it on behalf of everyone who can't, and also from the side of "what if?" What if he decided to write a romance, (Or any other genre, really) and wanted Cocky in the title? There is still massive scope for titles not yet used. The Cocky Liar, My Cocky Bit On The Side, My Cocky Life, The Cocky Principal, The Cocky Rules, Our Cocky Court ... etc. The list is practically endless of titles which could contain the word Cocky.

 

But the idea of "standing" is that people can't sue on behalf of someone else... they have to have some direct connection to the issue at bar (or be granted intervenor status - do they have that in the states?). So, yes, I assume he'll be arguing that he has standing because he may someday want to publish a romance with the word "Cocky" in the title, but I also assume that'll be challenged, because it's pretty damn remote.

 

Unless that's why Kevin was removed from this part of the case - FH is the one suing three of them - two for the titles and the Cocky anthology, one (Kevin) because he's petitioned the court to revoke FH's trademark - if she can't actually sue Kevin for that, then that could be why the judge sidelined it, because he's dealing with the two who could potentially be sued.

As Kevin hasn't actually done anything, he can't be sued. That's my understanding, but I could be totally wrong.

 

I think you're right that he can't be sued for challenging a trademark, and the court wasn't willing to issue a restraining order to stop someone from challenging a trademark. So I think that's why he was removed from the proceedings this time.

But in order for his challenge to go forward I think he will, at some point, have to prove standing, and I think he's going to have a tough time. (There may be special rules for trademark cases, but judging by how he went out of his way in his petition to establish his argument for having standing, I don't think there are)

 

So now they both have to go away and collect evidence to prove who's right and who's wrong ... There's an interesting timeline on Twitter which may have a huge bearing on all this - I'll see if I can find the link.

 

The petitioner can certainly point out what the judge said. It’s not binding on the TTAB. Might be persuasive, though. A court can also rule a trademark invalid, which I assume will be a defense raised in this case.

 

No. Cancellation proceedings are part of the process within the office.

 

Yes, standing is a threshold issue. He’s going to have to provide the court with a reasonable basis to believe he will be harmed by the registration.

 

unless - as he is a retired intellectual rights lawyer - he gets a bunch of romance authors together who have/could be harmed, and fights on their behalf ...?

 

Yes. But that wouldn’t help in this proceeding because he’s the plaintiff. I don’t know that you can add new parties in at this point so he’d have to start over. Apparently the TTAB is pretty lenient with standing so if he can give them any reasonable basis he may be ok.

 

timeline - of interest

 

or he's looking at the wider ramifications.

 

Possibly. I don’t know that would normally be enough for standing. Courts require an actual controversy and won’t usually wade in on matters that might happen in the future. Whether the TTAB will be more lenient, I don’t know. If they think you’re doing something just to manufacture standing, it usually doesn’t go well for the party seeking standing. If he’s never published any books in the genre and suddenly says he wants to just as he needs standing to file this petition, I’d see it as bullshit if I was the judge.