Apropos Stpehan Kinsella’s earlier post on the trademarking of a book title, here’s an item from the March 24 edition of The Hook, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville, Virginia:
Jenny Gardiner was pretty excited when she inked a deal with a Simon & Schuster imprint to publish her memoir, Parrothood: Twenty Years of Caring for a Vengeful Bird Determined to Kill Me.
That euphoria evaporated, however when she got a letter from Patricia Barth, a Shokan, New York, resident who claims that Gardiner’s book title infringes Barth’s trademark on “Planned Parrothood.” Barth registered the term in 1983 for mail order and retail services for exotic birds and supplies, according to the U.S. Patent Office website.On January 28 of this year, Barth re-filed for the trademark, this time to provide “on-line information via the Internet in the fields of animals and pets, relating to breeding, selection of the animals and pets, grooming, feeding and nutrition,” according to the Patent Office.
The Patent Office records indicate that the trademark lapsed in 1989. Should Barth really fight the author of Sleeping with Ward Cleaver?
“It’s an exclusive trademark,” says Barth, claiming that during the 20 years that her mark had elapsed she still had the right to “common-law use.”
Indeed, according to Barth’s interpretation of the law, it’s illegal for any of us to even talk about the term “parrothood” without her consent:
“I am going after everyone,” she vows. And she tells the Hook that it could be liable for writing about the issue and giving Gardiner pre-publication publicity, which is “almost a double violation,” she contends.
“Please immediately remove the word ‘parrothood’ wherever it appears in this online publication,” she writes. “It is a violation of my trademark rights that I own exclusively.”
Barth says she too has written a book, but declines to provide the title and suggests the Hook look it up. (The U.S. Copyright Office lists a 1987 title, Bird of 1001 unique bird names.) She also has written articles and says she’s compiling material for future books.
Barth owns about 20 parrots and after devoting her life to parrothood, she’s aggrieved that Gardiner refuses to change her title. “It’s disgusting,” fumes Barth. “She knows it’s an exclusive trademark.”
The phrase “almost a double violation” is what really sells this story for me. It’s almost like the Hook — and I guess me, since I’m re-posting this without Barth’s permission — thinks that somehow individuals have a right to free speech that somehow overrules her personal, emotional attachment to the “exclusive” use of a particular term. Crazy, right?
{ 12 comments }
“almost” is a fudge word–Parrothood, parrothood, parrothood! Her trademark is only for “Planned Parrothood”, not parrothood. Planned Parrothood, Planned Parrothood, Planned Parrothood. How can it be a trademark violation to mention the trademarked name in an internet blog?
- This is simply insane® !!! LOL!!
BTW, for example, I suppose “The New York Times” is a registered trademark of the referred newspaper’s owners; thus, according to the same rationale, everytime I mention the words “The New York Times” I should pay them a certain fee?
Hey Guys, it looks like the old “Land of the Liberty” [(TM)???] is beginning to get a hard place to live in…
Will you Americans please do something about it, so that the transformation into the USSofA occurs at least a bit slower ??
Best regards from Brazil,
Halevy.
“Barth says she too has written a book, but declines to provide the title and suggests the Hook look it up.”
Hilarious!
A friend in the publishing industry writes —
“I had the misfortune of dealing with the USPTO last year for the title of a new book. There is no reasoning with the group, let alone the individual copyright holders.”
What a bird-brain!
In the comments to my Against Monopoly cross-post, someone wrote,
“This reminds me of the Larry David episode where his buddy Richard Lewis is trying to get recognition for coining the phrase “the ________ from Hell!”
“He didn’t go so far as to assert copyright or trademark protection, but I doubt Ms. Jeffers or her lawyers really want to be thought of as an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”"
It sounds crazy and funny, but speaking as someone who is friends with another woman who has been harassed by Barth, it’s awful. This woman is completely nuts, and will stop at nothing to ruin other peoples’ lives.
Usually titles to books, plays, movies, etc. are only a few words in length. At some point, isn’t it possible that almost all likely combinations of words for titles will be copyright/trademarked?
What then? Pig Latin for titles?
I’d stick her.
Let’s roll!
Years ago, if memory serves, Jerry Tuccille wrote about a fellow who went around claiming that he had an IP interest in everything he said or wrote, and that by rights he was owed *money* when people listened to him or read his words (I’m thinking this was mentioned in “It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand”).
Maybe the lady in question is a descendant?
There’s a “debate” about copyright at Economist.com.
Comments on this entry are closed.