OctoMark

Mother of eight Nadya Suleman, claiming “also known as” status as the “Octomom”, has filed for two trademarks on “Octomom” to be used with diapers, dresses, pants, shirts, and textiles on an “intent to use basis” meaning that she is not yet using the intended trademark; and in connection with an intended TV variety show. The Buzz refuses to imagine how you turn reproductive excess into a variety show. So called “Intent to use” trademarks are supposed to avoid the old problem of manufacturing a commercial sale of something trademarked good just in order to file a registration application. It used to be that you had to actually use the mark in commerce before you could file a registration application. Now you get 6 months and a possible 5 additional 6 month extensions in order to actually start using a mark. We’ll see if “Octomom” diapers start showing up in the next 6 months. The strongest way to register a trademark is to use all capital letters in your application. This is to show that there is absolutely no stylized design or capitalization scheme associated with your mark. In other words, every single way of capitalizing or stylizing the mark is a potential infringement. Check this space for thoughts on building an IP portfolio next time.

-- Paul Marotta

www.Goldmansachs666.com

We loved reading a good conspiracy theory in our misspent youth, but never really believed any of them. But the way that all politicians of all stripes joined in lockstep in the fall of 2008 to send trillions of dollars of our money to AIG, Goldman, etc. and the expedience and prestidigitation with which Lehman (whose legal bill has passed $80 million already) was allowed to fail raised a few interesting questions for us. Now, with Goldman’s profit announcement, apparently built mostly on (i) non-recurring AIG unwinding, and (ii) relaxation of the same mark-to-market accounting rules that were so important after Enron’s collapse, but have now fallen out of favor, we wonder if the conspiracy buffs might be right. Surely the wrong people lost money in the fall of 2008 or the politicians would not have genuflected quite so low. Goldman has now tried to slam a critiquing website called www.goldmansachs666.com that is posting negative Goldman information. The site recently filed suit against Goldman in a preemptive strike seeking declaratory relief that it is not infringing the Goldman Sachs mark used in connection with financial services. Law firm Chadbourne & Parke, representing Goldman, had sent a nasty-gram demanding that the site close down. We guess Chadbourne was confused and tried to hire the site to manage its 401K.

-- Paul Marotta

Corporate Governmentance?

We have watched with interest (and some horror) the uncharted waters into which our economy is swimming (sinking?). We now have one of the recently largest companies in the world bowing at the alter of government (OK, it bowed a long time ago, but now is being sacrificed). We speak of General Motors. After Enron, intense focus on corporate governance was the watchword; Sarbanes-Oxley the bible. Let’s make sure that the system of running our corporations was free of undue influence, based on the independence of the caretakers, and that all persons with any influence be properly vetted and approved. Shareholders are being given new powers of proposition and Boards are supposed to respond to them, not the managers. Well, we guess all that changes when the government is involved. We watched with open mouths as the POTUS fired the GM CEO. Wasn’t that the Board’s job? Did the Board abdicate its responsibilities? Was that a fiduciary breach? Doesn’t the Board select the CEO? Don’t the shareholders control things? BTW, the latest SEC filing as of this writing is an order granting confidential treatment concerning the government loan agreement, so we may never know whatever is really going on. The Buzz says playing in that sandbox is no good for your company or the country.
-- Paul Marotta