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:

Yes, Pascazi appears to be threatening us with a copyright infringement claim for posting two documents on corporate stationery of firms he apparently controls, in which he claims copyright over the headers and (with his law firm) footer of that stationery. I do wonder if the content presented is even copyrightable at all, and whether or not Pascazi has bothered to register them. Most of the header and footer appears to be made up entirely of factual information for which there is no copyright. I certainly don’t see enough originality in the content or the presentation to establish a valid copyright. 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.

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: , , , ,
Companies: magellan capital advisors, pascazi law

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
102 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

18 USC § 512(f)

18 USC ?512:

(f) Misrepresentations.? Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section?

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys? fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner?s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

ComputerAddict (profile) says:

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.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

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.

btr1701 (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

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

John William Nelson (profile) says:

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).

HothMonster says:

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.=

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

ROFLMAO

Asset Protection – Offshore Activities

Pascazi Law Offices has a Special Interest in Asset Protection, Offshore Banking,
Offshore Entity Formation, U.S. Reporting Compliance, and Defense of IRS, and U.S.
Department of Justice Criminal & Civil Investigations and Prosecutions.

+2 Scammer rating right there!

nasch (profile) says:

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.

NotMyRealName (profile) says:

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:)

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

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!?

Nicedoggy says:

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

John William Nelson (profile) says:

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/

Richard (profile) says:

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.

Gwiz (profile) says:

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?

Paul L (profile) says:

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?

mantoast (profile) says:

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Paul L (profile) says:

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

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

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.

Gracey (user link) says:

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.

Richard (profile) says:

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!

dacoinminster says:

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

RickDC (profile) says:

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!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...