A Very Stealthy Misunderstanding Of Trademarks

from the first-thing,-let's-kill-all-the... dept

In an age when we're continuously told about the importance of intellectual property, it's amazing how few people understand the differences between the various types of intellectual property protection -- and how some use that ignorance to scare people into giving them all sorts of money. We recently noted that even politicians voting on the issue often don't know the difference between copyrights and patents, and how that could lead to more problems. However, it often seems like trademarks are the most misunderstood element of intellectual property protection -- leading to all sorts of wasted time and money in court. No wonder the lawyers love trademarks. The NY Times is running an article discussing how some guy claims to own the trademarks on a bunch of words, including "stealth," for "all goods and services." That's complete hogwash, of course. Like any other trademark, he only has the right to protect his brand against others using it in ways confusingly similar to ways that he is using it. Yet, he insists that no one else can use the word and sues any company that has a product with the word "stealth" in it -- including Northrup Grumman who tried to register a trademark on "the stealth bomber," an airplane they make. Can anyone seriously say that they would see a stealth bomber model set from Northrup Grumman and be confused that it was too similar to something made by this guy? The problem, though, is that even as he loses many of the cases that actually go to court, it's still too expensive (or too time consuming) for many of those he goes after to deal with. So they just pay him off -- and he continues to sue others. Basically, this guy has figured out ways to use the legal system to bully plenty of people and companies when he simply has no legal standing whatsoever. It's a pure misuse of intellectual property law to simply bully others to make money.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Griffon, 5 Jul 2005 @ 11:36am

    dtv

    Funny I wa thinking that should apply to Direct TV and their frivolous cases against anyone who owns technology they don't like.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.