Another play at trademarking a community term

[Crinklz Kat]

Who all here remembers when Rearz tried to trademark "ABDL"?    Well, apparently another firm is attempting to trademark the term "babyfur".   I've seen multiple postings on twitter showing a screen shot from USPTO web site.   Given that anyone can go there to confirm/deny would crush fake news pretty quick.   This time it's Little For Big.

https://twitter.com/NachoHusky/status/1782919639766577462

 

[DailyDi]

Link is dead. 

[warpiper]

27 minutes ago, DailyDi said:

Link is dead. 

It worked for me? 

[Crinklz Kat]

Well, I'll just post the screen shot then.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Why would these companies try a stunt like that and risk bringing what is private into the public eye by bringing it into the court system to legally enforce the trademark, thus bringing the communities involved to the attention of wags and persons who try to cash in on chaos? Especially when there is nothing in it for them. In the case of Rearz. That power grab was so blatant that they would be publicly humiliated when someone whipped out a copy of the DPF NL that shows the term being used in 1985. Any share they had in the non-ABDL market would evaporate in many places because of their involvement in kink. Having brought this community into public scrutiny, such companies run the risk of having the community boycott them in retaliation. That is a lose-lose situation

[Elfy]

LittleForBig already have a reputation for being pretty scummy so I'm not entirely surprised.

It should be pointed out "Babyfur" is far from the only term they've tried copyrighting. Among several others they have also tried to copyright "Sissy"!

[ValentinesStuff]

1 hour ago, Elfy said:

LittleForBig already have a reputation for being pretty scummy so I'm not entirely surprised.

It should be pointed out "Babyfur" is far from the only term they've tried copyrighting. Among several others they have also tried to copyright "Sissy"!

I assume Ms. Spacek objected.

[DailyDi]

13 hours ago, warpiper said:

It worked for me? 

Works for me now too, must have been a short outage.

Pretty crappy.

[Little Sherri]

I agree this is a strange gambit to use on this chessboard - some people still speak in terms of Rearz being disreputable because of it, although if they'd shot someone instead, they'd be on parole by now, and evidently it hasn't hurt their business too much - they launch a new diaper every six weeks and they've expanded their headquarters again. 

But I wonder if this is also being misinterpreted - for example, ABU attempting to trademark the term BabyFur, or Rearz seeking to trademark ABDL, only really gives them dominion over the term as it applies to a specific product. So if ABU makes a diaper model called the BabyFur, then Bambino can't go produce the Bambino BabyFur, but they could still market, say, the Bambino BabyTail, and say "Attention, Babyfur's, we have the best diaper for you" in their material. They just couldn't name it the BabyFur. 

Chevrolet used to manufacture a model called the Baretta, way back at the dawn of time (the late 1980's), and there is an Italian gun manufacturer by that name that was founded in the 16th century. They got into a dispute over the use of the term, and the resolution ended up being that, basically, Chevrolet would only build cars, not firearms, using that name. 

Similarly, the name "Kodiak" is currently used by a trailer manufacturer, a boot company, a company that makes sheds, one that makes power equipment, one that makes pancake & waffle mix, and also a mining company. I could go start making Kodiak diapers, and if I sought to trademark that, it would only apply to diapers. 

[billyshpilkis]

And Apple Music? Took both companies a while to wrangle that one, from what I recall.

[warpiper]

Trademarking a term that's been around twice as long as the company asking for the trademark is absurd. They don't have any right to it at all. How do wet get this struck down?

[DailyDi]

16 minutes ago, warpiper said:

Trademarking a term that's been around twice as long as the company asking for the trademark is absurd. They don't have any right to it at all. How do wet get this struck down?

I think there is a comment period once its assigned to an examiner. In the previous cases, putting pressure on the company was enough.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

10 hours ago, ValentinesStuff said:

I assume Ms. Spacek objected.

As did Sissyphus, but that was like trying to roll a hughe boulder uphill

5 hours ago, Little Sherri said:

I agree this is a strange gambit to use on this chessboard - some people still speak in terms of Rearz being disreputable because of it, although if they'd shot someone instead, they'd be on parole by now, and evidently it hasn't hurt their business too much - they launch a new diaper every six weeks and they've expanded their headquarters again. 

But I wonder if this is also being misinterpreted - for example, ABU attempting to trademark the term BabyFur, or Rearz seeking to trademark ABDL, only really gives them dominion over the term as it applies to a specific product. So if ABU makes a diaper model called the BabyFur, then Bambino can't go produce the Bambino BabyFur, but they could still market, say, the Bambino BabyTail, and say "Attention, Babyfur's, we have the best diaper for you" in their material. They just couldn't name it the BabyFur. 

Chevrolet used to manufacture a model called the Baretta, way back at the dawn of time (the late 1980's), and there is an Italian gun manufacturer by that name that was founded in the 16th century. They got into a dispute over the use of the term, and the resolution ended up being that, basically, Chevrolet would only build cars, not firearms, using that name. 

Similarly, the name "Kodiak" is currently used by a trailer manufacturer, a boot company, a company that makes sheds, one that makes power equipment, one that makes pancake & waffle mix, and also a mining company. I could go start making Kodiak diapers, and if I sought to trademark that, it would only apply to diapers. 

Trying to trademark or copyright ABDL was partiuclarly egregious since it could be readily demonstrated that they did not coin it and the term is so widepread as to describe a whole genre of kink well before they tried to do so. It was so blatant that it made made them look like unmitigated pond scum

[Dubious]

Rearz are still popular cause they have good diapers and sell directly, and they are easy to get from other sellers. 

Never tried Little for big, their site is hideous and not many (if any?) sell them. 

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

This might be permissible morally or legally if the company added another word to the one in use and copyrighted/trademarked the whole thing, like "The ABDL" for a specific model of diaper, or changed it in some easily recognizable way that deliminted its use, Like "BabyDoll". The generic term has three iterations "babydoll", "baby doll" and "baby-doll", any of which could be appended to a little girl's name. BabyDoll has two upper-case letters. Upper case letters are well known to make names of words. Now, if someone was willing to produce the items with that name as per my instructions, "BabyDoll" could probably be copyrighted or the image on the label as shown in the albums trademarked

The main point being made is that while a generic word is used, it is PART of a larger whole that is copyrighted/trademarked, not the word itself

[ValentinesStuff]

They could always trademark "Babyfir" or "Babyfyr" or "Babyfer" or "ABFur" or something like that. But I think they want furry cons and websites to pay them.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Well just as a copy of the DPF newsletter would have obliterated Rearz, the "Babyfur" selection in "I am a..." would put the tag in their toe or stuck the fork in them

[Cute_Kitten]

I'm not sure how well this would work out for Little For Big. I've only had samples of their diapers- specifically the Fantasy diapers. I've found them on Amazon and Wearing Clouds. They're nice but nothing to write home about IMO. Good diapers- not the best out there and not the worst. (Again just my opinion. Cute prints). 

Rearz had a huge backlash to the copyright thing. And marketing pink skull and bones diapers as raising cancer awareness? Anyone remember that one? I think there were a few other incidents as well? But they make a range of high quality diapers and I think that was their saving grace. 

Maybe enough backlash from the community would get Little For Big to back down? Pissing off the core customer base generally is not a good business tactic. 🤷‍♀️

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

The idea of "cancer awareness" activities seems to me like shouting "2+2=4" at the top of your voice or "It's a bright Sunny day" when there is not a cloud in the sky at noon

As far as "pissing on the customer base" being a bad thing. I would wager my tiara that it depends upon which part of that base you are pissing on

[ValentinesStuff]

3 hours ago, Little BabyDoll Christine said:

The idea of "cancer awareness" activities seems to me like shouting "2+2=4" at the top of your voice or "It's a bright Sunny day" when there is not a cloud in the sky at noon

As far as "pissing on the customer base" being a bad thing. I would wager my tiara that it depends upon which part of that base you are pissing on

Pink, the color for Breast Cancer Awareness, is a good thing. Skull and Crossbones associated with death. The two together aren't a good idea.

 

Ask Bud Light how that worked out.

[babizzy]

Do y’all think maybe the company is having money problems and that’s why they made this desperate move? I mean there is a chance they actually get the trademark which could help them. I’d hope it doesn’t happen but I don’t want to see people’s options get limited to so 😕… I don’t know much about these companies y’all talkin about, are they doing alright in this niche market? Are there some brands you avoid or have had a bad experience with?

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

How do you solve a money shortage by incurring the risk of heavy duty expensees? Every hear of "rain man"?

Then the risk of dragging the issue of kink into the "above ground" court system and focusing the media eye on that will not make that company well-loved if some persons get outed

As far as them getting the trademark. All that is necessary is some evidence that the term has been used for a decade at DD and that goes down the tubes. And, if there is evidence that it has been used in other places as well. So much the worse for them. Plus this ends up looking like a scummy move

There's an awful lot of risk for a minimal chance of reward

If they were trying to intimidate the community into knuckling under; one word "Rearz". And if this is an act of desperation; well, all I can say is "C'ya in bankruptcy court. Been fun knowing you while you were here". If your life were to depend on walking 10 miles. How does cutting off one of your feet help?

[DailyDi]

Looks like the site is Chinese owned, so they probably don't know about the past controversies and may not care about causing this one. We need to watch for the review period and all pipe-up when the time comes.

[Crinklz Kat]

While I wouldn't be surprised - but where did you see that the site is owned by the Chinese?

 

Anyway, I went to their twitter for the first time and what I saw was that they don't actually "retweet" but copy other people's posts.  Even though they're putting "@" references in, it still looks as if they posted, not the original content creator.  That alone is a disservice as it denies the original creator the click views/exposure.   @Elfy did say they were pretty scummy... that's definitely a sign of it.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Every Chinese company is an extension of the Chinese Communist Party by virtue of having a mandatory Poltical Officer to make shure they do as they are told. Youtube up "china uncensored zoom" and "china uncensored tiktok". Time to put the stake in this vampire's heart. They may be keeping files on account holders for bkackmail if the need arises. You are dealing with their equivalent of the KGB, now called FSB. One trait of the Left, with the Reds being the extreme example, is that they politicize everything. This brings it into the political sphere and therefore the purview of the governemnt