Scott S.’s Techdirt Profile


About Scott S.

Scott S.’s Comments comment rss

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Squarenuts

    "Anonymous" Dave:
    Who else is using Squarenuts for square donuts? You didn't say. But good for them. What about Apple's use of clearly descriptive / generic names such as "Pages," "Mail," or "Photos." Or Microsoft's use of "Word" and "Windows." Or the fraudsters at "trademark bully" Entrepreneur magazine using clearly generic word "entrepreneur" for title of a magazine for and about "entrepreneurs"? (and started by a serial con artist and convicted bank robber) None of these are "unique." "Dave" is also not at all "unique." But I guess that helps when you're desperate to be Anonymous. :)

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 11:25am


    Perhaps Family Express should up the zaniness by calling their "square donuts" something like Squarenuts.

  • Jan 21st, 2018 @ 11:21am

    Herb Kelleher vs Gary Kelly

    You could be right. Unfortunately, most large corporations seem to engage in some form of bullying. But you don't give any examples of Southwest having a history of bullying small businesses. My understanding is that Herb Kelleher is against and stood-up to corporate bullies. Either way, why is current CEO Gary Kelly allowing Southwest to behave this way under his watch?

  • Jan 20th, 2018 @ 11:56am

    Herb Kelleher

    From what I know of Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines, this would NOT be happening if he was still running the place.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 11:22am

    Re: other comic cons

    1) what specific knowledge or experience do you have with trademarks?

    2) do you disagree that "comic con" is a widely-used and generic phrase?

    3) could you afford the 100s of thousands of dollars it costs to litigate a trademark dispute through trial and possible appeals?

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 7:38pm

    Re: Saltcon?

    You're totally missing the point. They want, and should be able to legally use, a name that connects them with other "comic cons." Just like if they published "comic books" they wouldn't want to call them something "unique" like "Saltbooks." :)

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 10:10am

    Re: other comic cons

    I would NOT assume many of the numerous other comic cons will suddenly start helping Salt Lake Comic Con fight back. If these other comic cons (or their attorneys) were too apathetic or afraid before, they probably are even more so after a federal court has ruled against Salt Lake Comic Con.

    It doesn't even seem that any of the other comic cons are speaking out publicly about this issue. Are any of them even adding their two cents worth to Techdirt's articles? Did any of them offer to testify at the trial?

  • Sep 20th, 2017 @ 11:00am

    (untitled comment)

    The phrase "comic con" is clearly generic, and "'comic cons' are held in nearly every state of the United States." So why is San Diego Comic-Con betting the farm by going after far away Salt Lake City Comic Con? What greedy idiots. BTW, not to be sexist, but it sure seems like these ridiculous trademark cases always involve male egomaniacs.

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    Besides being a paranoid troll, you sure must have a lot of extra time on your hands. I have no idea who Thad is or what's up with his website, whatever it is. But I do know this thread is supposed to be about anti-SLAPP laws. And since you're making wild accusations about others, why won't you ever admit who you are or what your website is? I don't know about Thad, but I see no reason to waste anymore time on a troll who's too afraid to come out of the shadows.

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    BTW, I wonder if attorneys like Marc Randazza will ever start pushing for anti-SLAPP laws that do more than make sure the attorneys get paid. If an anti-SLAPP attorney truly cares about their clients, shouldn't they be advocating for compensation for the victims of SLAPP suits?

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    I second Thad's terrific point-by-point reply!

  • Sep 7th, 2017 @ 11:02am

    strong anti-SLAPP laws


    But anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees are WEAK, not strong or effective deterrents against deep-pocketed SLAPP suit filers.

    To be truly strong and effective deterrents, anti-SLAPP laws must also include significant punitive damages, including against the attorneys who filed the SLAPP suit.

    The only ones who really benefit from weak anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees, are the attorneys on BOTH sides.

    If anti-SLAPP laws include legal fees, plus significant punitive damages against the SLAPP suit filer and their unethical attorneys, SLAPP suits would likely drop by well over 90%.

    But that may never happen since attorneys and judges are so resistant to supporting laws that penalize bad attorneys.

  • Feb 18th, 2017 @ 10:48am

    anti-SLAPP laws (as Entrepreneurman)

    This case highlights how damn weak and nearly worthless our anti-SLAPP laws are. They're really just another way for attorneys on BOTH sides to profit from abusive litigation.

    California supposedly has one of the best anti-SLAPP laws in the country, but it's barely a deterrent because it only awards attorney's fees and costs, and provides zero damages to the actual victims of SLAPP suits (and no penalties against attorneys who file SLAPP suits!). What kind of deterrent or solution is zero compensation for the victims? As Mike points out, "the fight itself is incredibly distracting and burdensome."

    To be a truly effective deterrent, anti-SLAPP laws must include significant damages against SLAPP suit filers AND their unethical and predatory attorneys. Possibly having to pay attorney's fees and costs is just the cost of doing business for a deep-pocketed SLAPP suit filer. It also means that the SLAPP suit victim has to risk paying their attorneys upfront, or be able to find an attorney who is willing and able to take the case on contingency hoping to win and get paid sometime down the road.

    So once again only the attorneys win.

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 10:02am

    (untitled comment) (as Scott)

    Mike, very well stated. Passionate w/out being overly emotional. Thanks for writing it.

  • Dec 28th, 2016 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Re: willful false statements (as Entrepreneurman)

    To be clear, this is a list of already APPROVED federal trademark applications that Entrepreneur magazine CEO Peter Shea has recently had his attorneys threaten at the USPTO.

  • Dec 28th, 2016 @ 5:23pm

    Re: willful false statements (as Entrepreneurman)

    Below is a list of some of Entrepreneur magazine's recent efforts to monopolize the word "entrepreneur" at the USPTO. But most, if not all, of these entrepreneur-related trademarks have already been REVIEWED and APPROVED by the USPTO's trademark examining attorneys (Note: over 95% of federally registered or pending entrepreneur-related trademarks are NOT owned by Entrepreneur magazine!):

    1. VENTUREPRENEUR (For: Providing business research and Educational services)
    2. PREDICTIVE ENTREPRENEUR (For: Education services)
    3. ENTREPRENEUR IN LOVE (For: Consulting in the field of personal relationships)
    4. THE PHILANTREPRENEUR (For: Educational and entertainment services)
    5. THE SMART ENTREPRENEUR (For: books, business seminars, MP3 files, etc)
    6. ENTERTAINEUR (For: blogs featuring information on entertainment, entrepreneurship, and law, etc)
    7. ENTREFEMMEUR (For: website featuring articles and discussions about women's careers and entrepreneurship)
    8. M ENTREPRENEURLAND (For: Business consulting services)
    9. EVOLVING ENTREPRENEUR (For: Business education and training services)
    10. ENTREPRENEURS' GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESS (For: Education and entertainment services)
    11. THE LONELY ENTREPRENEUR (For: series of books and written articles in field of entrepreneurism)
    12. CLUB ENTREPRENEUR (For: Incubation services)
    13. THE 10% ENTREPRENEUR (For: Education services, Books in field of entrepreneurship)
    14. ENTREPRENEUR'S PLANNER (For: daily, weekly, and monthly paper planners and diaries)

  • Dec 28th, 2016 @ 11:39am

    willful false statements (as Entrepreneurman)

    Not only is the USPTO too willing to grant federal trademarks on common generic terms (i.e. "entrepreneur"), the USPTO refuses to go after companies that make fraudulent statements to get or keep trademarks.

    The USPTO refuses to do anything even though companies submit declarations acknowledging that making willful false statements to the USPTO is "punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code."

    For example, the USPTO has known for years that trademark bully Entrepreneur magazine gets and keeps trademarks by making willful false statements (including using the alias of "Chase Revel" to hide extensive criminal history of the mag's founder, and also submitting false specimens).

    But the USPTO refuses to go after Entrepreneur magazine's fraudulently acquired and maintained trademarks.

    NOTE: Entrepreneur magazine is so fraudulent, that they have to continue their use of aliases to attack highly accurate comments about their fraudulent trademarks!

  • Oct 14th, 2016 @ 10:51am

    federal anti-SLAPP law (as Entrepreneurman)

    We definitely need a federal anti-SLAPP law.

    However, to be a truly effective deterrent, anti-SLAPP laws most do more than include attorneys fees and expenses. They must also include meaningful penalties, including significant monetary sanctions payable to the victims of SLAPP suits.

    Deep-pocketed people like Trump are not deterred by (maybe) having to pay attorneys fees and expenses. They consider that the cost of doing business.

    And while it's helpful that a SLAPP suit victim can get their attorneys fees and expenses paid, they still end up being uncompensated for all the time and stress caused by the SLAPP suit.

    Why should only the attorneys on both sides get paid in a SLAPP suit?

    In fact, anti-SLAPP laws should also include significant sanctions against attorneys who file SLAPP suits. That could be the best deterrent of all!

  • Oct 7th, 2016 @ 11:48am

    trademark bullying (as Entrepreneurman)

    Glad to see the FTC is continuing to report on and put pressure on patent trolls. However, why is the FTC (and other govt agencies such as the USPTO), largely ignoring the also massive problem of trademark bullying (i.e. Entrepreneur magazine's attacks against entrepreneurs that use the common and generic word "entrepreneur" - a word that predates the magazine by at least 150 yrs)?

    Businesses are probably more likely to get dragged into a trademark dispute than a patent dispute. Every business that uses its name or the name of its products or services in commerce, is at risk of being unfairly accused of trademark infringement by a trademark bully.

  • Sep 6th, 2014 @ 12:08pm

    (untitled comment) (as Entrepreneurman)

    RE: "Twitpic does not need a registered trademark in order to stay in business. It has no need to fight Twitter on this, and if its concern is the legal fees, why not just drop the whole trademark application. Registered trademarks have some uses, but common law trademarks are nearly as powerful for most important cases."

    Good points Mark, but possibly oversimplified. I agree that Twitpic's explanation is lacking. But Twitpic dropping its trademark application may not end this dispute. Since Twitter is fighting Twitpic's federal trademark application, Twitter is also probably against Twitpic's common law trademark rights/claims. As a result, Twitter could be threatening to file a trademark infringement lawsuit against Twitpic that seeks profits, damages and atty's fees. Such a legal battle could drag on for years, and would be hugely expensive and very risky for Twitpic, and could easily put Twitpic in a bet the farm position. So since it sounds like Twitpic's business is already headed south anyway, Twitpic may have decided screw all that legal crap, let's just close up shop now and move on.

More comments from Scott S. >>