Nobody not associated with or being paid by Entrepreneur magazine would waste time defending them. As you know, a California appellate court recently ruled that their conduct is "unconscionable" etc.
As you also know, one of their latest scams is ripping off their 500k subscribers by not providing refunds or extensions for issues they couldn't afford to print because they've deservedly lost so many advertisers (as a result, a multi-million dollar complaint w/ the Attorney General of California is expected to be filed soon).
And one of their recent egregious acts of trademark bullying, is to have their gang of attorneys from the huge law firm of Latham & Watkins, threaten a former teacher for using the term "Teacherpreneur."
So, unless you admit who you are, I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to your anonymous, and blatantly biased and misleading outbursts.
Don (or whatever your real name is), of course Apple and Entrepreneur mag have different arguments. They have different so-called trademarks. So, are you claiming that they both don't use $1,000/hr+ attorneys from huge law firms to bully and sue small businesses who cannot afford to fight back?
And how (unless you're deceivingly trying to defend them because you're associated with them), could you possibly know that Entrepreneur mag has never claimed to own all versions of the word "entrepreneur"? Their trademark battles go back to at least 1980 when they sent UCLA a ridiculous cease-and-desist letter claiming UCLA's use of the phrase "Entrepreneur Association" was trademark infringement.
I know it's true they claim to own all versions of the word entrepreneur because I have it in writing from one of their attorneys. What proof do you have? None of course. And if I was falsely accusing them, they would've sued me for libel years ago. But I'm not falsely accusing them, so they instead have to hide behind faceless comments like yours (what are you afraid of and trying to hide?).
You don't care that Entrepreneur mag was founded by Chase Revel, a serial con artist and convicted bank robber that used one of his at least 8 fake names to hide his criminal history? Or that he and Entrepreneur mag got and maintain their so-called trademark by defrauding the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office? If I was making that up, then Entrepreneur mag's gang of attorneys would sue me for libel. But they won't dare, because it's true.
There should be significant statutory damages for companies such as Apple and Entrepreneur magazine that engage in blatant, and small business killing, trademark bullying. The statutory damages should also be against their attorneys (i.e. Latham & Watkins, Jones Day, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, etc).
Otherwise, the vast majority of small businesses get steamrolled by trademark bullies such as Apple and Entrepreneur magazine (Entrepreneur mag, which was founded by convicted bank robber Chase Revel, claims to own all rights to all versions of the word "entrepreneur" for all goods and services).
But general citizens are otherwise known as jurists, and they are responsible for determining the outcomes of very serious and complicated cases, including medical malpractice, class actions, and serial murder cases. So I think they could handle cases involving bad attorneys. :)
This is mostly about the failure and bias of the legal system than Liebowitz. A pro se litigant would be swiftly and severely sanctioned if they acted a fraction as badly as Liebowitz. Judges generally go out of their way to avoid sanctioning bad lawyers, especially white bad lawyers. But if courts/judges weren't so forgiving of bad lawyers, the Liebowitzs of the legal system would be greatly reduced. Judges like to complain about case backlog etc, but then simultaneously do very little to stop bad lawyers from wasting everyone's limited time and resources. It would be a lot different if bad lawyers were "judged" by regular citizens, instead of bar associations, and judges who are of course higher ranking lawyers that are often way too patient and sympathetic towards lawyers, while way too impatient and hostile towards pro se litigants.
AT&T also deceptively promoted a $15/mo prepaid cell phone plan "to help ease financial stress during these difficult times."
Changing cell phone carriers is of course often frustrating and time consuming.
Yet, on June 1st, only 2 weeks after the sign-up period for this promo ended on May 13th, AT&T sent out a text saying their $15/mo plan was doubling to $30/mo!
Do any trademark experts or lawyers know how a private entity like a concessions company could possibly have legal standing to register federal trademarks on the assets of a public entity and treasure like a National Park?
Did the NPS or Aramark ever allege lack of standing or bona fide ownership, or fraud against DNCY's trademarks? If not, their lawyers are apparently weak and incompetent, and/or they conceded that DNCY's trademarks were legit (and that Yosemite's lawyers must've really effed up the DNCY contract).
Trademark litigation is notoriously expensive, but not as costly as the $12 million Yosemite and Aramark forked out, including the nearly $4 million being paid by American taxpayers, but not including whatever they spent fighting over Yosemite's trademarks the last several years.
I feel badly for Kevin Rizer. He is finding out what I quickly found out when dealing with "trademark bully" Entrepreneur magazine: trademark bullies are not interested in amicable settlements. They want blood. Entrepreneur magazine even hired David J. Cook, an incredibly unethical San Francisco lawyer who trademarked and promotes himself as the "SqueezeBloodFromTurnip" attorney. No joke.
Yet another weak anti-SLAPP law that doesn't provide statutory damages awards to the actual victims of SLAPP suits. Surprise! The only ones who get paid are the attorneys.
Of course, their duped customers only get "refunds," and they're probably for far less than they were ripped off. Victims should get full refunds plus punitive damages. And the people who orchestrated this scheme should face criminal charges. How much did they profit? More than the $35 million fine? To be any kind of a deterrent, fine should be every dollar the scheme profited, plus treble punitive damages to the victims, and jail time for the purps.
Congratulations on being smarter than all the countless attorneys who know how to work with others and how to publicly advocate for their clients. Unlike you, some people don't have to hide behind a keyboard.
This post about the Thirsty Beasts case does a great job illustrating why "Trademark bullying works."
But I wonder how much Thirsty Beasts and other victims of Monster Energy worked together to share info and resources?
One of the main reasons why trademark bullying works is because so few victims or their attorneys share info and resources with others. This is largely the fault of attorneys because most are control freaks who show little interest or ability in sharing info and resources with others facing similar issues. Most also lack knowledge or interest in the court of public opinion, so their clients' cases receive little if any media coverage, and they pretty much battle and suffer in silence.
I think it borders on legal malpractice when attorneys refuse to work with others facing similar issues, or are clueless about the court of public opinion. Most doctors who have a client facing a unique life-threatening medical condition will reach out to others who may have helpful info or resources. But most attorneys won't lift a finger to work with others, even if their client's business is facing a potentially business-killing legal battle.
I repeat, "You should ask Tom Schlafly how much he had to spend (in hours, dollars, lost time with family and friends, lost business and personal opportunities, plus dealing with Schlafly family quarreling), and if after all that, he believes "this story happens to end well."
Your/my opinion doesn't matter. We likely don't know 99% of what he went through, regardless of how many resources he may have. And he still only has 24hrs a day. Only Tom can legitimately say whether or not his "story happens to end well." Let's not put words into his mouth.
You should ask Tom Schlafly how much he had to spend (in hours, dollars, lost time with family and friends, lost business and personal opportunities, plus dealing with Schlafly family quarreling), and if after all that, he believes "this story happens to end well."
Would you have agreed "this story happens to end well" if Phyllis Schlafly and her son had baselessly sued Tom Schlafly claiming they owned Tom's house, and he had to spend over 6 years and 100s of 1000s of dollars to prove he owns his house, and to top it off, he didn't get any of his money back?
I'm sure Timothy Geigner meant no harm. He's clearly strongly against trademark bullies. But it's wrong for others to say it "happens to end well" if a victim of a trademark bully is fortunate enough to possess the large amount of resources and tenacity necessary to "win" these types of cases. Unless of course their specifically quoting a victorious victim.
Just ask any of the relative few entrepreneurs who have survived bogus legal attacks by trademark bully Entrepreneur magazine if they believe their stories "happened to end well."
The only people who "win" in such battles are the attorneys.
Tom Schlafly might strongly disagree that "this story happens to end well." This case cost Tom over 6 years of unnecessary stress and distraction, plus thousands of dollars he will never get back. It would be helpful if Tom could say what he had to spend on this fight against a trademark bully. It's likely that it was enough to pay cash for a very large home near his brewery in St. Louis for what he had to spend.
"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. :)
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?