GOP Threatens to Sue Cafe Press

[Knightskye]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/gop-threatening.html

Heh.

Ron Paul's not suing any websites. I'm sure he welcomes something that gets his name out there. Why does the GOP want to be so secretive?

 

[Eureeka]

They must not like my new additions, e.g.,

 

[revolutionary8]

Sean Cairncross, the party's chief counsel, wrote (.pdf) the Foster City, California online vendor that the GOP "takes infringements upon its trademarks seriously."

"Please cease and desist from allowing vendors to utilize the federally registered trademarks of the RNC or we will be forced to consider a legal remedy," Cairncross wrote CafePress.

CafePress attorney Paul Alan Levy, of Public Citizen, noted Thursday that some uses of the party's trademarks are critical of the GOP, but many are not.

"The majority of the images over which the RNC has threatened to sue reflect positive opinions about Republicans," he said. "Several designs simply put the elephant logo on a T-shirt, so that the wearer can walk around bragging about his or her adherence to Republicanism."

Others, Levy pointed out, "make highly favorable comments on Republicanism, such as a design portraying a larger elephant trailed by two smaller elephants and the words, 'I'm raising my children right.'"

Absolutely DISGUSTING.
Yet ANOTHER PLOY to usher in the Police State.
They won't stop.
Neither should we.
every single time "this happens" we should mail out info.
It'll happen A LOT I am guessing.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I'm sure they're doing this just to flush out the 'bad' T-shirts on Cafe' Press.

I didn't even know the RNC symbol was trademarked.....I guess they better prosecute who knows how many other people on the 'net for using it as well.

I'm for Trademarks in most cases, but it's pretty ridiculous for the RNC to do this, considering the type of symbol it is and how frequently it comes up.

 

[AdamT]

They must not like my new additions, e.g.,

HA!

 

[sidster]

A few favorites:

 

[Sally08]

Is CFL trademarked? Will it be?

I'm sure they're doing this just to flush out the 'bad' T-shirts on Cafe' Press.

I didn't even know the RNC symbol was trademarked.....I guess they better prosecute who knows how many other people on the 'net for using it as well.

I'm for Trademarks in most cases, but it's pretty ridiculous for the RNC to do this, considering the type of symbol it is and how frequently it comes up.

Either trademarks are legally enforceable or they're not. If they're not enforceable, they're worthless across the board.

Has CFL considered getting a trademark?

If not, look how easily CFL can be hijacked by the opposition/ridiculed by Cafe Press and anyone else with morphing software or Photoshop-

I'll bet the RP supporters would take "bomb" actions if the shoe were on the other foot-

Also, Cafe Press used to have Terms of Service against using trademarks/copyrights/proprietary property of others. So when did they start allowing customers to set up online stores for the purpose of selling such itmes?

The related stores should have been brought down immediately upon having received notice, as a violation of its TOS.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm against trdemarks...but I'd obtain them if I knew it was in my best interests. CFL should.

 

[Kludge]

They'll only be hurting themselves and if they do have copyrights on them, more power to 'em. (@ GOP, not CFL )

 

[noxagol]

I want one of those republicrat shirts!

 

[Sally08]

I'm against trdemarks...but I'd obtain them if I knew it was in my best interests. CFL should.

If you are against trademarks, are you against your name being yours? Is your picture yours?

When I temporarily used Sandra's avatar picture as mine, was that okay?

I strongly believe that creators of intellectual property should reap the benefits of their efforts. I have been surprised to see that many RP supporters apparently disagree with that concept-

Note a related lawsuit against LifeLock below. Which side are you on?

If I started sending out massive SPAM campaigns, with "Ron Paul" as the sender, would that be legal or illegal? On what grounds?

In fact, aren't RP supporters planning to do exactly that for CFL?

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55217
~Saturday/Sunday August 2/3 InfoSpam Weekend Bomb For Liberty~

Is the use of DailyPaul to publicly plan a SPAM ATTACK *in CFL's name* against the law?

At a "minimum", isn't this "creative" marketing plan the best way to get Campaign For Liberty to be a SPAM filter phrase by ISPs?

I do know that if I suddenly got "Campaign For Liberty" from every activist/on every site/on every blog, I would be extremely *irritated*, kinda like "increase your size"! I certainly wouldn't use any link that was included!

=====================
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/lifelock-sued-f.html
trade practices.
LifeLock Sued for Corporate Identity Theft

According to papers filed in Tennessee, Namesafe claims that LifeLock stole its trademark and deceptively diverted traffic meant for Namesafe's web site to LifeLock's own web site.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If you are against trademarks, are you against your name being yours? Is your picture yours?

I don't own my name. If I did, I'd be making lawsuits left and right! haaaaaa

When I temporarily used Sandra's avatar picture as mine, was that okay?

Yeah.

I strongly believe that creators of intellectual property should reap the benefits of their efforts. I have been surprised to see that many RP supporters apparently disagree with that concept-

I disagree. I <3 warez. I'm not going to pay $170 for software when I can get it for free.

Note a related lawsuit against LifeLock below. Which side are you on?

If I started sending out massive SPAM campaigns, with "Ron Paul" as the sender, would that be legal or illegal? On what grounds?

Legal. You receive junk mail in your mailbox, yes? Same grounds.

In fact, aren't RP supporters planning to do exactly that for CFL?

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55217
~Saturday/Sunday August 2/3 InfoSpam Weekend Bomb For Liberty~

I don't care. Didn't they sign up for the newsletter in the first place?

Is the use of DailyPaul to publicly planning a SPAM ATTACK *in CFL's name* against the law?

Not against my law.

At a "minimum", isn't this "creative" marketing plan the best way to get Campaign For Liberty to be a SPAM filter phrase by ISPs?

I do know that if I suddenly got "Campaign For Liberty" from every activist/on every site/on every blog, I would be extremely *irritated*, kinda like "increase your size"! I certainly wouldn't use any link that was included!

=====================
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/lifelock-sued-f.html
trade practices.
LifeLock Sued for Corporate Identity Theft

According to papers filed in Tennessee, Namesafe claims that LifeLock stole its trademark and deceptively diverted traffic meant for Namesafe's web site to LifeLock's own web site.

hmm. you worry too much.

 

[Sandra]

If they switched the red and blue fields on the elephant... problem solved.

 

[luvfreedom]

How about turning the stars right side up?

 

[Sandra]

How about turning the stars right side up?

Ho about using swastikas instead of stars!

 

[RCA]

I just ordered these:

http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/mens-clothing/design/19253093

http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/stickers/design/28512954

 

[Sally08]

Not against my law.

Shrug.

You are a great example for the MSM news articles that constantly refer to RP's Libertarian beliefs that have harmed his credibility with conservatives.

I hope you're not running, now or in future, for any office in my local area, state, or country.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Wear a plain black T shirt. That's the anarchy flag.

Miniarchists could wear dark gray ones.

 

[acptulsa]

Hmmm... Libel and slander laws are specifically inapplicable to political speech. Trademark laws are not.

Yes, I can understand the G.O.P. wanting to avoid some of the ridicule they've earned. And trademark laws can do this for them. And there's a point there. Why should they go to the trouble to design a logo just to be abused with it?

But the free speech notion keeps coming back to my mind. I thought the primary purpose of the parties was to provide an organization to groom and provide those citizens who are capable of governance. I didn't know that licensing revenues were more important. This seems to indicate that the real purpose of the G.O.P. is to make not governance, but money.

I don't think they need to be prevented from protecting their trademark. I just think they're damned fools to do it.

 

[dannno]

Originally Posted by luvfreedom View Post
How about turning the stars right side up?

Ho about using swastikas instead of stars!

Heh, that's the spirit!