
4chan.org creator sends a cease & desist letter to moot.it - tipiirai
Creator of the image board 4chan, Christopher Poole aka "m00t", sends a cease &#38; desist letter to Moot Inc., a company offering free discussion forums &#38; commenting for websites, claiming ownership for his pseudonym.<p>Definitions of the word "moot" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot:<p>1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion
8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case.
9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.<p>Moot's website: http://moot.it
======
tanami
This sounds more like a publicity stunt by moot.it than anything else.

------
lutusp
This is absurd -- "moot" is a common word, not a trademark or copyrightable
property.

[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_09_...](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_09_stim.html)

A quote: "Copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Such claims
are viewed with suspicion by the Copyright Office, whose circulars state that,
'... slogans, and other short phrases or expressions cannot be copyrighted.'"

~~~
bobsmith4219
Paris Hilton disagrees [http://gawker.com/5648787/paris-hilton-owns-the-
phrase-thats...](http://gawker.com/5648787/paris-hilton-owns-the-phrase-thats-
hot-and-other-revelations-that-could-ruin-the-weather-channel)

No matter how absurd, anything is possible. Welcome to 2012

~~~
lutusp
> Paris Hilton disagrees

That's not a good example. Consider "Sun Microsystems". Can "Sun" be
protected? No. Can "Microsystems" be protected? No again. Can both together be
protected? Yes, of course.

~~~
dangrossman
> Can "Sun" be protected?

Yes. Why do you think it can't?

Recall that Apple has successfully gained and defended its trademark on the
word "apple", easily as common a word as "sun", in the relevant industries it
operates. "Time" is trademarked by TIME Magazine, and "caterpillar" by
Caterpilllar Inc., the construction equipment company.

Feel free to check yourself. Federally registered trademarks are publicly
searchable on the USPTO website. You'll find not only the registration for the
word APPLE, but if you do a design mark search, you'll find quite a few
drawings of the sun are registered trademarks as well.

~~~
lutusp
>> Can "Sun" be protected?

> Yes. Why do you think it can't?

Because it cannot be protected, not that an agency won't issue a document to
that effect. A company that expects to use a common word as a trademark can
expect to have a public-relations nightmare on their their hands as they try
to keep people from using the "protected" word for any other purpose. Examples
abound -- even words that aren't everyday words lose protection over time. How
successful has Xerox been in getting people to say "dry electrostatic copy"?
How successful has Johnson & Johnson been in getting people to say "adhesive
compress" instead of "Band-Aid?

This isn't about law, it's about reality. Reality trumps law. The present
controversy over software patents shows the degree to which people in the
legal profession think they can prevail over reality. They can't -- not for
long, anyway.

~~~
dangrossman
I gave you three examples of single common word marks that are currently
protected and have been defended without courts declaring them generic words,
which is the danger you're hinting at. How can you seriously write this
response while ignoring three counterexamples already given?

Do you know of any companies successfully selling their products under the
Xerox and Band-Aid brands other than Xerox and J&J? In 'reality', as you put
it, both companies have successfully had law enforcement intercept, destroy
and file charges against counterfeiters of their products. A mark is effective
'in reality' as long as the courts are willing to defend it, and unlike those
few high-profile software patent cases, a totally different area of law, these
marks have all been upheld in court.

It's really non-constructive to compare trademarks to software patents, too.
There are no "trademark trolls", as a mark cannot exist without continual use
in commerce. There are no uses of trademarks as proxy wars for attaining
licensing agreements without running afoul of antitrust laws as the mobile
phone industry is doing with patents right now.

~~~
lutusp
> I gave you three examples

You're missing the point. The only way a party holding a trademarked word can
prevent its use for another purpose is if they can show that the use would
hinder the first party's ability to conduct his business. Clearly not true
here.

That, by the way, was why Apple Computer and Apple Music coexisted so long
without any kerfuffle -- different businesses, no chance for public confusion.

Your argument is that people have defended single words used as trademarks.
But that's a different issue. The present discussion is whether someone's
successful use of "moot" as a trademark (one apparently not registered) will
be interfered with by another party's use of the same word. A trademarked word
is only a starting point -- the plaintiff must then show that another use of
the trademarked term hurts his business and/or misleads the public. In a case
like this, the burden is most definitely on the plaintiff.

> How can you seriously write this response while ignoring three
> counterexamples already given?

Because you haven't thought your position through and your examples aren't
germane. The fact that single words have been defended as trademarks is not
the issue. The issue is why, and under what circumstances, and whether those
examples are germane to this case -- one in which the "plaintiff" hasn't even
bothered to register the word as fair warning to others of his proprietary
interest in it.

~~~
dangrossman
My examples were germane to the comment I was replying to, which was about
whether "sun" could be protected, which in turn was a reply to discussion of
Paris Hilton. We're far removed from the specifics of moot's claim... why you
thought that was the topic of my reply is beyond me.

------
courtneycouch0
[http://betabeat.com/2012/11/4chan-founder-moot-sends-
cease-d...](http://betabeat.com/2012/11/4chan-founder-moot-sends-cease-desist-
letter-to-startup-moot-it/)

------
tl2201
All due respect, how do you know this C&D is real? What law firm claims to
have issued it? What mailserver sent the headers? Is it an SPF match?

This sounds like something /b/ would do as a prank.

~~~
courtneycouch0
Well considering we got the notice via overnight courier from his law firm
(LEASON ELLIS) I think we can rule out /b/

~~~
tl2201
I'd be surprised if moot actually got a law firm to try to enforce a trademark
on moot as he has registered no trademark under moot or m00t with the USPTO.

Have you confirmed with the attorney listed on the letter that the address is
legitimate? Again, all due respect, but I've had fedex letters with a fake
return address before. Paying for overnight shipping is kind of stupid for a
prank, but could be done (in my case, a party was trying to get information
from me that I declined to give earlier, and tried to get me to give it under
false pretense).

If he did actually send that (it's legitimate), as per earlier comments, I'm
baffled because with no trademark over a dictionary word, I just don't see it
carrying any real weight.

~~~
courtneycouch0
It is a legitimate request. Honestly we were quite surprised/baffled to
receive it as well.

~~~
tl2201
That's utterly unenforceable (not a lawyer though).

The users on his site are asking him for comment (via email), usually
rowdiness about lawyers and him being greedy (or whatever) is floating around.
Curious to see if he acknowledges it.

Without a registered mark though it's really just kind of huffing and
puffing...making a case on moot being recognizable and moot.it hurting his
name is ludicrous (in my opinion).

Ludicrous stuff like this happens all the time, like the C&D against Zen
Magnets by Buckyballs a while back. Completely baseless but they sent it.

------
tipiirai
This is now on BBC: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20408037>

------
tamoorshafi
this is funny, Christopher Poole is wasting his time.... and wasting the time
of the guys at moot Inc

