Ye Can't Sell 'White Lives Matter' Shirts Because Two Black Men Own the Trademark

[underpants]

https://capitalbnews.org/kanye-west-white-lives-matter/

Ramses Ja and Quinton Ward, two Black radio hosts in Phoenix, Arizona, were gifted the trademark from a longtime, anonymous listener of their show, Civic Cipher. The listener procured ownership of the phrase early last month to ensure it didn’t fall into the wrong hands, and offered to transfer the trademark to Ja and Ward in September. It officially entered their possession on Oct. 28, giving them sole ownership over the phrase and the ability to sue anyone who uses the saying for financial gain.

“The way the law works is either you’re owning phrases, or it’s up for grabs for people to make money off them,” Ja told Capital B. “This person who first procured it didn’t really love owning it, because the purpose was not necessarily to get rich off of it; the purpose was to make sure that other people didn’t get rich off of that pain.”

The anonymous owner believed that the social-justice-oriented radio hosts, whose show is nationally syndicated, would be able to leverage the phrase for Black causes, such as helping to inject funding into local chapters of Black Lives Matter and the NAACP. Coincidentally, just as the trademark was transferred into Ja and Ward’s hands, Ye began his weeks-long tirade promoting anti-Black and antisemitic beliefs.

[louis-t]

1. Brilliant!

[Victor_c3]

2. Hilarious!! n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

3. That is just too cool!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

4. LOVE IT!!!!!

[MuseRider]

5. So satisfying

knowing this. Brilliant.

[irisblue]

6. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Effete Snob]

7. Complete Bullshit

There have been four applications incorporating the phrase "WHITE LIVES MATTER" with the USPTO.



Three of them have already been refused registration and the fourth remains pending.



It was filed in October (last month) as an "intent to use" application.

It has not been examined, and will not make it to examination for at least another six to nine months at best. It is not a registered mark and has zero legal effect on anyone's ability to do whatever the fuck they want.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97617868&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch



The amusing part is the purported "assignment" of a 1(b) (intent to use) application. This sort of application cannot be assigned, since it is based on "intent" and not actual use of the mark on goods. Because intent is personal to the entity having the intent, there is nothing to be assigned.

The story is bullshit written by people who don't know what they are talking about, for people who don't know any better.

[underpants]

9. I had no idea about that

I just posted the article as it was.

[Effete Snob]

11. Oh, I get that

The person who wrote it got rolled by a PR stunt and doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is the cheapest kind of dumb "lookit me" shit that relies on lazy journalism.

It comes up all of the time.

Some saying or slogan attracts popular attention. For $300, you can file whatever the fuck you want with the USPTO as a trademark application. Then, you put out a press release or contact journalists looking for a popular "hook" for a story, and tell them some bullshit nonsense about how you "own" that slogan or phrase.

It happens a lot. Look for it in the future and, like a car you never heard of before, you'll see it all over the place.

[underpants]

13. I will. Thanks again.

[Baggies]

15. Why am I not surprised.

A lot of people jump on this kind of BS because it fits their narrative. Then when it’s discovered to be false, they never come back and admit they were had. Point it out to them and they get all upset and lash out. Weird people.

[groundloop]

20. Furthermore, the law won't stop right wing crazies from doing what the hell ever they want.

[MichMan]

8. Trademarks become invalid if they are not used commercially

"Finally, trademark institutions were designed to be practical. That means “If you don’t use it, you lose it!”

Since trademark ownership is contingent upon active use, owners must submit proof of continued use to the USPTO between years five and six after registering.

Non-use of a trademark for three consecutive years is considered abandonment unless proven otherwise. Additionally, companies must be able to prove they are using the mark as originally intended. Obviously, this is more important in the U.S. (where intent of use is required during registration) than in the E.U.

While the government won’t likely be looking over your shoulder, another business might! Should someone else conclude your mark isn’t being used as filed, they can apply to have your mark revoked. As such, maintaining relevant records of use is paramount. "



https://corsearch.com/knowledge-base/article/six-frustrating-ways-lose-trademark-rights/

[Effete Snob]

12. For $300 anyone can file anything as a trademark application

...and then attract some press attention from a journalist who has no fucking clue how the trademark system works.

[2naSalit]

10. Great move!

[OMGWTF]

14. Bazinga!

[onecaliberal]

16. I love this.

[Joinfortmill]

17. Love this

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

18. Ummm, no. No ones owns that.

It's a three word phrase, NOT a trademark.

Here's a definition of trademark:

A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. It's how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors. The word “trademark” can refer to both trademarks and service marks

There's no goods or services involved in "White Lives Matter".

Just as book titles cannot be copyrighted, a simple phrase cannot be trademarked.

I wish people would use some sensible skepticism and check up on things before immediately posting something they wish were true.

[Angleae]

19. Your own example says it can be a phrase.

A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. It's how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors. The word “trademark” can refer to both trademarks and service marks

[MichMan]

21. It has to have a commercial application and used as such to qualify for trademark recognition

That is why there is a specific reference to "goods and services"

Since the OP indicated it was only to keep someone else from using it, that doesn't meet the criteria

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

22. So what good or service is pointed to by that phrase?

Exactly what product is "White Lives Matter" selling? Who are the competitors? And no it's not the "Black Lives Matter" slogan, because again, no good or service is involved.

Plus, i seriously doubt that any t-shirt maker would refuse to print such a t-shirt, unless they had morals and principles.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Isn't That The Point?

Since there is no good or service to promote, it can't be trademarked.
It's just a phrase with no connection to commerce.
That seemed the gist of MichMan's post. You can't trademark a phrase not connected to the promotion of an item of commerce.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

24. Exactly.

The OP says two Black Men have trademarked that phrase, and I'm pointing out it can't be trademarked. I was replying to the OP, not to MichMan.

Looks like we might have miscommunicated.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. My Fault

I leave it stand so your reply doesn't cause confusion.
I've made mistakes before. I'll make them again.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. No worries.

I've made my own share of such mistakes. It's very easy not to catch exactly what a specific response is to.

[Initech]

27. D'oh!!!!!!!!!!!!