'White Lives Matter' is now a protected trademark
A wise, anonymous someone bought trademark rights to the phrase, protecting it from being used for monetary gain without the oky-dokey. Then, that person gave the rights to a pair of radio hosts in Phoenix, asking that any monetary gains they might make be shared with certain worthy organizations.
Now, anyone trying to sell a White Lives Matter shirt or use the phrase for monetary gain will be handed a cease-and-desist letter by two Black radio hosts who own the trademark.
Ramses Ja and Quinton Ward are the hosts of Civic Cipher, a radio show based in Phoenix. A listener of the show reached out to them and told the hosts that they had acquired the trademark to White Lives Matter but thought protection of the phrase was better left in the hands of Ja and Ward.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/04/1133390887/kanye-white-lives-matter-two-black-radio-host-trademark?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social
Thinking some big left leaning law firm with oodles of resources might look into helping Ramses Ja & Quinton Ward enforce their power over monetary use of the phrase. Pro Bono for the greater good and a helping of F-U to the white supremacists and pandering pols.
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is a bullshit story being bounced around by reporters who don't know how trademarks work.
Here's a link to the official record:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97617868&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
It is a pending application filed days ago, which has not even been examined, and was filed on a 1(b) (intent to use) basis:
For $300 you can do the same thing.
This type of story is a dumb media trope. File an intent-to-use application on some catchphrase, and then find a stupid reporter who doesn't check it out with a trademark attorney.
It is a surprisingly successful attention-getting strategy, but entirely legally meaningless.
No there is no "wise anonymous someone" since you can't file trademark applications anonymously. Knowing the owner is the entire POINT of the registration system.
The final piece of stupidity is the notion of assigning an intent-to-use application, which renders it invalid:
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/501_01_a.html
501.01(a) Assignability of Intent-to-Use Applications
In an application under §1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), the applicant cannot assign the application before the applicant files an allegation of use (i.e., either an amendment to allege use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d) ), except to a successor to the applicant’s business, or portion of the business to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. Section 10 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.16.
The primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that a mark may only be assigned along with some business or goodwill, and to prevent "trafficking" in marks.
So much stupid.
As dumb as this is, the idea that a trademark is a monopoly in words or phrases is probably even dumber. As you may have noticed, plenty of people are named McDonald and do not pay a royalty. Most common words or phrases are trademarks many times over. Words like "TIDE", "MONSTER" or "UNITED" are still free to use, despite being well known marks for a detergent, a soft drink and an airline, among other things.
