Sarah, Bristol Palin Seek To Trademark Names

By BananaFamine on February 9, 2011 in News 14

Sarah Palin is attempting to trademark her name ahead of a possible 2012 presidential run.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate filed paperwork with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in November to register the trademark.

The federal office is seeking more information and examples of usage. The office is also seeking additional details for the application submitted in September by Palin’s daughter, Bristol, a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” last year.

Palin’s attorney, John J. Tiemessen, said Friday that he has six months to provide the information. “We are preparing to respond to all their questions for both,” he told The Associated Press by telephone from his office in Fairbanks. He said he couldn’t disclose the reasons why both applied for trademarks because of attorney-client privilege.

But Seattle lawyer Marshall J. Nelson, with the firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, says it’s not that unusual for entertainers to trademark their names.

“Everybody’s name is sort of their brand, and once it gets associated with goods or services, then it functions as a trademark,” Nelson said. Once a name is trademarked, he said, it gives the holder additional remedies to recover profits and damages if someone uses the name inappropriately.

For more information, see original article.

Branding, Bristol Palin, Marketing, Politics, Sarah Palin, Trademarks, WTF

Oh Cupcake, Where Art Thou?: The Search for America’s Next Sweetheart

Robots May Get Their Own Internet

http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Soon…watch the lawsuits against satirists begin to flow…this time under brand protection instead of defamation of character. You can’t sue comedians for satire against a person…but switching it to a civil claim for damages caused to a brand and compensation for theoretical losses…and its a whole different story. In the era of enhanced copyright privilege thats been creeping steadily upon us, “nuisance lawsuits” have already been fired like machine gun bullets…haphazardly with the vague hope that if a million are fired…one will hit and bring home the bacon. Trust…its gonna happen.
- Liam_McGonagle
  
  Could be right there. But I suspect that this is one of the very few cases where free market solutions might actually work.
  
  Because, beyond the inevitably unwieldy volume of lawsuits that would be required to protect the “integrity” of such a copyright action, there are some pretty heavy hitters with countervaling interests. I ask myself:
  
  “Is Fox News ™ really gonna want to pay a fee on top of the already free advertising it gives her with its ‘news’ coverage?”
  
  Thank God Bill O’Reilly’s in “my corner”, “watchin’ out for the little guy”.
  - Gutshort
    
    Fox would only have to pay a fee if the holder of the TradeMark asked them to do so or stop their use of it. Something tells me the Palins (tm pending) won’t muzzle their biggest P.R. firm.
    - Liam_McGonagle
      
      That scenario would trigger Fox having to report the use of the trademark without consideration as “other income” on line 10 within tax form 1120–analogous to the way individuals are SUPPOSED to (but usually don’t) report below-market loans under 26,7872 or forgiveness of debt under 26,108.
      
      So if there is any significant monetary value associated with the trademark’s use, Fox should get stung either for actually having to make a cash payment, having to report taxable income, or getting sued for using it without permission.
      
      Now failing to explicitly authorize Fox’s use of the trademark in a half-assed attempt to play a cherry-picking version of “see no evil” would likely trigger estoppel in any case where she did try to assert her right over the trademark. You can’t enforce these things selectively: either everyone pays (or reports taxes for free use) or there is no enforceable trade mark.
      
      Of course the whole thing is laughably moot. There is no possible scenario where her “trademark” could conceivably valued at anywhere near the cost to file an action to enforce it. I’m not exactly ready to predict the day and hour her public career will be over, but there are signs that it is coming up shortly . . .
      
      http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/02/sarah_palin_colorado_springs_speech_canceled.php
      
      Come on! Palin, the Great Bear Hunter, cancelling a public speaking engagement because of “threats”? “Threats” that she’s unable to substantiate and that were so “bad” that she didn’t even bother to notify the local police before cancelling and disappointing all her fans? Coincidentally a couple days after she announced a 50% off discount on ticket prices?
      
      It’s clear to me that Palin’s sell-by date is approaching. But she may yet be able to recover some $ from the lawyer who conned her into this trademark ploy. Ethical guidelines should tell him not to sell worthless services to a client.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Soon…watch the lawsuits against satirists begin to flow…this time under brand protection instead of defamation of character. You can’t sue comedians for satire against a person…but switching it to a civil claim for damages caused to a brand and compensation for theoretical losses…and its a whole different story. In the era of enhanced copyright privilege thats been creeping steadily upon us, “nuisance lawsuits” have already been fired like machine gun bullets…haphazardly with the vague hope that if a million are fired…one will hit and bring home the bacon. Trust…its gonna happen.
Liam_McGonagle

Could be right there. But I suspect that this is one of the very few cases where free market solutions might actually work.

Because, beyond the inevitably unwieldy volume of lawsuits that would be required to protect the “integrity” of such a copyright action, there are some pretty heavy hitters with countervaling interests. I ask myself:

“Is Fox News ™ really gonna want to pay a fee on top of the already free advertising it gives her with its ‘news’ coverage?”

Thank God Bill O’Reilly’s in “my corner”, “watchin’ out for the little guy”.
http://twitter.com/AnitaCigarette Anita Cigarette.

They’re just a couple of greedy bitches & I’m sure Sarah convinced her retarded whore of a daughter to jump on the bandwagon before it’s too late. Utterly Pathetic.
http://twitter.com/AnitaCigarette Anita Cigarette.

They’re just a couple of greedy bitches & I’m sure Sarah convinced her retarded whore of a daughter to jump on the bandwagon before it’s too late. Utterly Pathetic.
Hadrian999

now hustler will be forced to make another paylin movie
Hadrian999

now hustler will be forced to make another paylin movie
Gutshort

Fox would only have to pay a fee if the holder of the TradeMark asked them to do so or stop their use of it. Something tells me the Palins (tm pending) won’t muzzle their biggest P.R. firm.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=580380351 Potter Dee

I hope that works so no other kid is given such a terrible name as “Bristol”

Ok, but they have to do Trig, Trak and what ever other shitty names they use too!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=580380351 Potter Dee

I hope that works so no other kid is given such a terrible name as “Bristol”

Ok, but they have to do Trig, Trak and what ever other shitty names they use too!
Liam_McGonagle

That scenario would trigger Fox having to report the use of the trademark without consideration as “other income” on line 10 within tax form 1120–analogous to the way individuals are SUPPOSED to (but usually don’t) report below-market loans under 26,7872 or forgiveness of debt under 26,108.

So if there is any significant monetary value associated with the trademark’s use, Fox should get stung either for actually having to make a cash payment, having to report taxable income, or getting sued for using it without permission.

Now failing to explicitly authorize Fox’s use of the trademark in a half-assed attempt to play a cherry-picking version of “see no evil” would likely trigger estoppel in any case where she did try to assert her right over the trademark. You can’t enforce these things selectively: either everyone pays (or reports taxes for free use) or there is no enforceable trade mark.

Of course the whole thing is laughably moot. There is no possible scenario where her “trademark” could conceivably valued at anywhere near the cost to file an action to enforce it. I’m not exactly ready to predict the day and hour her public career will be over, but there are signs that it is coming up shortly . . .

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/02/sarah_palin_colorado_springs_speech_canceled.php

Come on! Palin, the Great Bear Hunter, cancelling a public speaking engagement because of “threats”? “Threats” that she’s unable to substantiate and that were so “bad” that she didn’t even bother to notify the local police before cancelling and disappointing all her fans? Coincidentally a couple days after she announced a 50% off discount on ticket prices?

It’s clear to me that Palin’s sell-by date is approaching. But she may yet be able to recover some $ from the lawyer who conned her into this trademark ploy. Ethical guidelines should tell him not to sell worthless services to a client.