Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
from the no-monkeys-this-time dept
I guess if you’re already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark “Bitcoin,” despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi’s reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.
That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn’t happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his “copyrighted works” that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he’s claiming copyright over isn’t actually hosted on our, or our web host’s, servers — a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:
I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings…
And what are these “offending works?” Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm’s legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don’t recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi’s “client,” in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi’s “evidence” for Magellan’s use of “Bitcoin” in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying “the works” here:

Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi’s somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I’m wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law — and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.
Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the “works” in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there’s a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi’s attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don’t suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what’s going on.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, michael pascazi, trademark
Companies: magellan capital advisors, pascazi law
Comments on “Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown”
Come on, Pascazi.....
Dare ya to post something now 🙂
Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him
If even half of this is true, and I don’t doubt that it all is, he sounds like the kinda guy you couldn’t convince the sky was blue.
That’s one of those shitty logos those who have no taste whatsoever put on their stationary. No surprise they can’t secure serious clients. To my observation absence of taste in logos comes together with overall unprofessionalism of an “enterprise”.
We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
The DMCA has a remedy for folks who have to deal with false DMCA takedowns. It doesn’t get used enough, I think. Damages plus attorney fees are nothing to sneeze at.
Re: We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees
Which makes Captn. Patent, wonder if he’s also versed in the dark art of bankruptcy law? …
Hmm. Sounds like somebody needs a good SLAPP in the face.
18 USC § 512(f)
18 USC ?512:
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
yeah, but nobody’s willing to sue for copyfraud, even though that’s what this is.
proof again that people expect others to just magically buckle with the slightest of legal threads.
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
*threats
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
“buckle with the slightest of legal threads”
I had this image there for a moment, of a 300 lbs judge in a speedo. shiver ….
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
Copyfraud actually is in the 506, the one showed here is the 512 were if abuse or error happens one can recoup damages(i.e. attorney fees and other expenses incurred).
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
The problem lies here:
This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.
so ignorance of the law is no excuse, but delusion is a valid defense?
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
It would appear that way.
Re: Re: Re:2 18 USC § 512(f)
one could spin that into insanity…
gets him off for the fraud … and into a nuthouse, if i remember rightly.
not sure if it applies to this sort of thing, but it’s an amusing thought.
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
The other part says “or by mistake”, if he put out that claim and it is found to be in error he will be liable for damages.
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
” was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification”
IANAL, but I dont think sect B really apply here since the content was never “removed or disabled”. If mike wants a bigger payout he’d need to turn those posts off.
It actually sounds like if the content provider disabled the wrong article/video/content then the content provider is liable for damages against that copyright holder.
Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
Were I in court with this idiot I would feel obliged to point out to the judge that this person passed the same bar examine he did – which would be considered an institutional requirement of knowledge. We don’t let doctors say ‘oops, I didn’t know you need oxygen to live’ so why should we let lawyers say ‘oops, I thought I knew the law.’
“My bad” isn’t a valid excuse for this kind of action.
Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
> Were I in court with this idiot I would feel
> obliged to point out to the judge that this
> person passed the same bar examine he did –
> which would be considered an institutional
> requirement of knowledge.
The ABA Canon of Ethics requires attorneys to verify all legal claims by researching the relevant law before sending demand letters, filing claims, arguing cases, etc.
It’s per se malpractice not to.
Re: 18 USC § 512(f)
So he is either committing a crime by falsely reporting Tech Dirt or he doesn’t understand the law he is trying to apply. Aren’t either of these grounds for disbarment in New York state?
An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
FYI
I’m by no means commenting on the merits of Pascazi’s claims or whether the logos themselves are actually copyrightable, but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn’t foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it appears the logo of the law firm comes from istockphoto: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9874330-lady-of-justice.php
Meaning it’s unlikely that he holds the copyright interest here.
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
As I said, I was not offering an opinion on whether the logos are actually copyrighted or copyrightable.
I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:
There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there’s clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.
Not trying to be snarky…just pointing out something that is somewhat of a popular misconception.
My favorite part about this guy is the fact that his law firm’s website has page devoted to “World Time Clocks” lol — http://www.pascazilaw.com/World_Time_Clocks.html
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Well, for what it’s worth, Magellan doesn’t have any valid trademarks associated with it, or for that matter, any copyright claim either as far as this search shows:
http://www.seravia.com/trademarks/world?r=1&q=o%3A%22magellan+capital+advisors+llc%22+magellan+capital+advisors+llc
Here’s more on the abandoned trademark (which has no ship in it):
http://www.trademarkia.com/magellan-capital-77155490.html
Re: Re: Re:2 An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Trademarks need not be registered to be valid. There are two types: registered and common law. (Plus a third, registration on the secondary register, but it operates like common law.)
But there are more reasons why Trademark is not an issue. See my comment on the difference between trademarks and copyright below (or above, if viewing non-threaded comments).
Re: Re: Re:2 An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Neither copyrights nor trademarks need to be registered to be valid.
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
wow that site is just too much. The basic, i am still learning html style, frames. That fuzzy ass logo in the corner which looks like an out of focus picture from a 1 megapixel cell phone camera is great. Ugly ass background with too much contrast between the white center that bothers the eye. The picture of him with the american flag background is priceless. Do you think parcazi had his nephew design the site or was it like a 9th grade class project? I mean what kind of budget do you think he had for that site 3 dollars? He does seem to spend a pretty penny to get positive reviews posted on yahoo and the like.
I see the law firm has managed to submit 6 articles for publication in the last 5 years, so bravo on that.=
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
ROFLMAO
+2 Scammer rating right there!
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
“I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:
‘There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there’s clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.’ “
The sentence you quoted doesn’t actually say that things can’t be covered by both trademark and copyright. It simply says that this particular thing might be covered by trademark, but probably not copyright.
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Wow. Remind me not to use istockphoto. Those are terrible.
I mean, “My niece has an artistic flair” terrible.
Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Is it just me or is the cropping of
http://www.pascazilaw.com/sitebuilder/images/Courtroom_Photo-150×110.jpg
on the main page suspiciously close to the watermark on the original, stock, image?
http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78431481#Header
just thought I’d point out a little hypocrisy…
lets see how long it stays like that now:)
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
That is hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:2 An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
…priceless…
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Absolutely golden. Excellent catch.
Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
OMFG +5 ROFls …
I thought that looked like a SiteBuilder site design!
See: http://www.parallels.com/products/plesk/sitebuilder/
Demo here: http://sitebuilder.websitewelcome.com/Wizard
Or possibly: http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/index.php
He was too cheap to pay for site design & did it himself!?
Re: Re: Re:2 An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
Even if he was cheap that is no excuse he could have used Joomla then(or something like it. i.e.: Silverstripe, Frog CMS, Drupal, XOOPS, TYPO 3, WordPress and others) or any of the other hundreds of content managers available that have thousands of pre-made websites templates also available.
Although the price for a website today starts at $15 bucks.
I’m sure there are free ready made templates that would be better than what he got now LoL
http://community.joomla.org/showcase/sites/society/legal.html
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
You’re right, but copyright protection works in different ways than trademark protection. Disney has a trademark on the word Disney. However, I can write the word Disney all I want and it won’t violate trademark.
If I start trying to sell something using Disney to identify my business or product, then I run into problems. This is because trademark protects source identification, it doesn’t protect expression.
I’ve written about the unique nature of trademark law as the consumer’s IP law here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/07/the-consumers-ip-law-a-review-of-trademarks/
I’ve also written in-depth on the trademarking process in a TLDR post on the Bitcoin trademark issue here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/07/15/bitcoins-trademarks-and-a-roadmap-for-the-bitcoin-community/
Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn’t foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.
Generally speaking things that are snappy enough to be covered by trademark are regarded as too small for copyright – so, although technically things could be covered by both , in practice they are usually mutually exclusive – see for example this UK FAQ
Logos couldbe covered by both – but the logo here is a stock image.
Good on ya Mike for not backing down, and for posting this for everyone to see. When dealing with bullies, going public can be a great way to shut down their tactics.
Re: Re:
Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with “PfmL” (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.
Re: Re: Re:
You inadvertantly make a huge point against copyright here. Even if the claims are completely groundless it still takes money to fight them. Or are you suggesting that the standard practice when faced with abuse is to just roll over and take it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just another thing that is wrong with the current system. It can be incredibly expensive for the average person to defend themselves in court, so lawsuits can become a very powerful tool for lawyers or monied people/corporations to leverage against the average joe.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That is why if justice is about justice and fairness, all expenses should be calculate as a percentage of ones income and not fixed at a price point, so if it is hard for the little people it will be hard for the people with lots of money.
Re: Re: Re:
An Industry that is flourishing without the protections of copyright.
Wait….What?
Is this a precedent?
Re: Re: Re:
one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with
Which is as convincing as AC’s weak attempts at trolling, LOL.
Re: Re: Re:
Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with “PfmL” (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.
Your wishful musings are somewhat revealing about you.
Thoughtful logic and common sense are the enemies of spin doctors everywhere. Is that why Mike and the popularity of this site scare you so much?
Oooh! He has a patent pending as well.
“System and Apparatus for the Transmission of Cell to Cell
Communications Utilizing the Internet”
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=pascazi&OS=pascazi&RS=pascazi
Is he looking to break in to patent trolling as well?
Re: Re:
Femtocell?
Re: Re: Re:
There is a lot of prior art covering this that dates back far earlier than femtocell technology.
This filing actually reminds me of the same type of shenanigans that’s going on with the Bitcoin trademark.
Re: Re:
Most likely. I wonder how Microsoft would appreciate him trying to patent troll on their turf with their newly aquired skype, or any of the other app/smart phones that provide voip from your phone….. hmmmm
Re: Re:
His patent attempt has been rejected three different times for obviousness. Rather than re-write the claim to get past the prior art, He (or his lawyer) argue that, and i quote, “no suggestion to combine the references.” What made that even more amusing beyond the incompetence of that argument is that the prior art cited actually disclosed that something similar to the second piece of cited prior art may be used.
While I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the patent process for several years now. His attempt to get his patent through is laughable and most likely futile. hmmm, just like his bitcoin gambit.
God it’s nice to see a company that doesn’t just back down when facing the threat of legal action. Mike is always posting about people settling because it is a lot easier than fighting. I’m glad that when he is faced with similar threats that he stands for what he believes in. Bravo!
Re: Re:
Music to my ears 🙂
TD’s looking at this from the wrong perspective. It’s now $1500 richer, right? This the statute awarded for false DMCA take-down notices.
Though, good luck trying to collect. Consider it a donation of education.
Re: Re:
Yeah Mike! Show us how it’s done!
“There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright”
Unfortunately, one is often wrong.
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, one is often wrong.
Again, I find it difficult to see how there’s a copyright interest there, especially as at least one logo is from a stock photo site (and is still available for licensing), and I wouldn’t be surprised to discover the other one is as well.
The point stands. I doubt there’s any copyright here.
Re: Re: Re:
It didn’t seem obvious to me which (or that any of) the images on the link you posted earlier were the same as the lady justice logo.
Anyway, he may or may not own a copyright in any of the material for one reason or another, but “trademark rather than copyright” certainly isn’t that reason.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s a good thing Intellectual Property laws aren’t confusing or else we would have a real mess on our hands.
Have you sent this to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ yet?? Also what is the other site of bogus DMCA takedowns?
Cyberbullying
I think this counts more as cyberbullying than the traditional type.
Mr Pascazi’s history is most interesting…
Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm’s alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.
Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit
So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6222.ars
Mike Masnick is clearly against America, and freedom.
Re: Re:
Agreed, lets get the digital pitchforks, animated gif torches, and lynch him digitally in the highest tree we can find in georgia on google street view … :p
Re: Re: Re:
*tips hat
Copyright?
This is the only thing I can find linked to Michael S. Pascazi:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pascazi%2C%20Michael%20Salvatore%2C%201960-&PID=JAoeuKW3J7MNolEfDWxmIpAjnI5p&BROWSE=1&HC=1&SID=6
It’s a market analyzer written in BASIC. From 1982.
I can’t find anything else under Pascazi Law or Magellan Capital Advisors. Magellan brings up the phone book and Pascazi Law draws a qualified blank.
The more he does, the more he makes a fool out of himself and shows how little he knows about the law. This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer.
Re: Re:
“This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer.”
I think thats a good reason for him not to go back to his hole
If he puts as much energy into his law firm as he does his website, he’s about 10 years behind the curve.
http://www.pascazilaw.com/
Re: Re:
OMG…that’s about the worst representation I’ve seen in terms of a professional’s website. I’d hazard a guess that it’s yahoo’s website builder…since it proudly displays “hosted by yahoo” at the bottom.
C’mon…my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn’t used their web builder.
Re: Re: Re:
$sitebuilder version=”2.6″
That’s at the top of the source code.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeppers… see my post above…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110719/00513815159/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-threatens-techdirt-with-bogus-dmca-takedown.shtml#c1173
When I was in 3rd grade and I was getting picked on my father told me, “If someone pushes you, you push them back just hard enough that they won’t want to push you again.” After that I never had a problem with bullies again.
Glad you had your lawyer “explain” the potential implications of issuing a false notice.
Grammar nazi
Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but “stationery” and “stationary” are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective.
Re: Grammar nazi
So, is “my stationary stationery” is correct?
‘-P
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
No, “my stationery is stationary” would be correct (if you mean is my paper stable)
Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
it could be “my stationary stationery never moves”
the stationary stationmaster keeps my stationery stationary at his station.
Re: Re: Re:2 Grammar nazi
Stationary and stationery ARE essentially the same word. The use of stationery to denote paper products comes from the “London Company of Stationers” who sold paper (and later became printers and publishers) at fixed (stationary!) places in the vicinity of Old St Pauls Cathedral in the City of London.
They are also the people who we have to “thank” for copyright!
Re: Re: Re:3 Grammar nazi
Those stationaery bastards!
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
If you lay it down, and it lies there, then the stationery is stationary.
Re: Grammar nazi
The easy way to remember this: paper has an ‘er’ in it and stationery is the paper while stationary is the adjective for unmoving. Thus, ‘my stationary stationery’ is a valid phrase for your unmoving paper.
Re: Grammar nazi
Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but “stationery” and “stationary” are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective
Oops. Not so sure that’s grammar, rather than spelling, but fair ’nuff. Fixed.
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
You spelled it right, just chose the wrong word. I’d think that’s grammar. But again, further off-topic. I still love all the articles you write 😉
Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi
lexicon. not grammar.
Someone should sue him....
I can name at least ten nail salons that use that exact font!
Hmmm… IP lawyer vs Divorce lawyer… That should be as fun as Godzilla vs Mothra…
Gets Popcorn
So Mike, you’re going to be posting your lawyer’s letter to him? This is like textual thunderdome, two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves…
I am never more proud of being a Techdirt reader than when you personally stand up to legal bullies. Good on ya’, Mike.
Would be funny if...
This would be a lot funnier if he weren’t wasting people’s time and money with this crap in the middle of a financial crisis. I would be quite sad if he *ever* got another client. Caveat emptor, I guess.
I feel sorry for Michael Pascazi.
I just looked at his website.
He must be blind or mentally impaired.
Poor Michael.
Scroll all the way to the bottom ...
For this particular gem.
“Past performance is no guaranty of future success.”
A quick Google search shows other law firms that used the exact same template for their sites. My initial thought was that he used the Lady Justice logo from the template, but the istock photo is a closer match.
Sorry, been awhile since I’ve used HTML tags. Here’s the (hopefully working) Google link.
Post official complaints
His website says “Attorney Pascazi is a member of: The American Bar Association, The New York State
Bar Association, and The Dutchess County Bar Association.”
If you want to do something, try complaining to each of these organizations about his behavior:
http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Contact_Us
http://www.dutchesscountybar.org/contact
http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/contact.html
Re: Post official complaints
Why waste time complaining to the other crooks practicing law in NY? The best way to deal with attorney malfeasance is the Tony Soprano way. It always works. There is no appeals process. All outcomes are final. The cost is reasonable. The satisfaction is priceless.
iStockPhoto
I’ve just emailed iStockPhoto to ensure that Mr Pascazi has purchased the images in question – if you notice from the letterhead, the image has just been cutoff before the watermark.
My guess is, sorry, my opinion (before I get accused of libel!) is they were borrowed from istockphoto without their permission.
We’ll have to wait and see!
Re: iStockPhoto
Sure, because iStockPhoto must be the only possible source of that image.
Re: Re: iStockPhoto
Even then, I’m guessing they have commercial licenses. And seeing as running a law firm is a commercial enterprise…
I'm a Scammer
You forgot to mention that Jack Thompson was your hero.
After just reading these comments I would really like to know why he thought it would be a good idea to come at us, i mean really dude? A bunch of random people from the internet just took him down like 10 pegs. Got some serious butt hurt issues.
False DMCA takedowns can carry not only civil penalties, but also criminal ones. The notices are sent under penalty of perjury.
http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request
An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM
judging from the bad taste pert-tittied little justice goddess on his TM letterhead, it looks like he sculpted his own too, gawd! what awful art, his taste is worse than his knowledge of law….where did this guy go to school?