There is a new kerfuffle brewing in writer’s circles. A self-published writer has applied for (and received!) trademark status in using the word “cocky” in the titles of “romance” books. She has been sending out take-down letters to anyone who does have a story with “cocky” in the title, threatening to take all profits made on that story unless they change the title. One writer who had a story named The Cocky Cowboy received a takedown notice and renamed her story The Cockiest Cowboy To Have Ever Cocked.
I read about this at my source for all news - Cracked - http://www.cracked.com/article_25588_this-here-might-be-stupidest-legal-argument-ever.html
Faleena Hopkins trademarked the word “cocky” and now believes she owns the word, and anyone who uses owes her money. The trademark already has several challenges against it.
She is threatening writers who have the word cocky in their work to change their titles and sending takedown notices. She believes it is no big deal to change titles and artwork, and a reasonable thing to ask. What is the funniest is she believes she is the victim here of an unjustified backlash from the internet.
Heh. #cockygate.
Well there’s a trademark troll who will fall hard.
Too cocky for her own good.
She’s a moron.
I checked out the trademark.
She only holds a trademark on a particular design of the word, not on the word itself.
Here are the official details of the trademark:
Not the case, see my post above. She holds a trademark for a particular use of the word, namely in the titles of a series of downloadable e-books in the field of romance.
But will she sell a lot of books? There’s no such thing as bad publicity, or anyhow that’s what we used to say.
Somehow, I don’t think being known as the only author in the US who can use “cocky” in the title of a downloadable romance story is a hot ticket to sell your books. It helps to actually be able to write, after all. The word “cocky” isn’t some irresistible lure driving romance story buyers into the e-store.
Usually, intellectual property trollery involves rent-seeking: “you can license my legally-mandated monopoly if you pay me,” legally extorting a cut of some legitimate creator’s earnings. Trademark can’t be used that way.
Stupid. :smack:
I’ve been following this one closely, because it has huge implications for other published works (today it’s “cocky”–tomorrow will it be “rocket” or “billionaire” or “hitman”?)
Hopkins (currently) has a trademark on the word “Cocky” used in a romance series title (not the single word used in a title, despite her overzealous claims that she does), and the word in a particular font (a word mark) which she does not have the right to claim because the font designer’s TOS clearly states users cannot trademark anything created with it.
The Romance Writers of America are preparing a suit against her, as is a retired lawyer who’s come out of retirement to do this pro bono.
Hopkins also posted a nearly two-hour rant about the whole thing on YouTube (it’s since been taken down–I saw parts of it, and it made me wonder if she was entirely right in the head).
Hopefully this will be cleared up soon.
This appears to have been stated by a lawyer commenting on the case and making assumptions, but again, it does not appear to be substantiated. Both the trademark details linked above, and the grant in the Trademark Official Gazette state very clearly,
“The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color”
Yeah, I saw that too–I’m not sure exactly what the story is. I’ve heard conflicting reports from various people. But I do know that there have been many (at least seventeen, probably more) romance books with “Cocky” in the title prior to her claiming this trademark, including a series called “The Cocky Cagefighter series.”
If she’d tried tradmarking “The Cocker Brothers Series” or even “The Cocky Series,” I doubt anyone would have complained. But to trademark a word that many other authors have used in their titles before her…I don’t think that’s going to end well for her.
Yeah, she was being a little too…um…I know that there is a word for it…
It may not be legal to use it that way, but it is effective.
Apparently this lady is causing a major problem for other writers —by getting them banned from Amazon.
So that means less competition for her to sell her own ebooks.
Apparently, Amazon has a policy of automatically removing from its site any book which might be illegal to sell because of potential copyright or trademark violations.
And all it takes to trigger Amazon’s decision to remove the book is a single "takedown"letter which accuses the author of potential copyright violations.
No proof is necessary, just an accusation.
Until the case gets resolved in court,Amazon plays it safe by simply removing the book–and in the process destroying the income of the innocent author.
Fark dot com is a humor website, but the threads there often have interesting cites
Would you say she may be crossing the line between cocky and dickish…
I heard (within the last couple of days) that Amazon has restored the other books it took down, pending resolution of the trademark challenge.
“particular font style” is not the same as “particular font” - it’s things like bolding and italicization.
There is obviously a comma missing. It should be “…font, style, size, or color.”
This is a standard character claim, explained here and here.
Commas matter, though. I remember reading about some company that had to pay a lot of money due to a misplaced comma. If that’s the way it reads in her original trademark application, I wonder if she can be held to it.
If it’s not restricted to a particular font, then shouldn’t prior use be a reason to invalidate it?