Anecdotally, shortly after The Daily WTF gained popularity I emailed Alex to suggest starting a sister site for non-programming IT related WTFs and he tried to poo poo the idea saying he didn't think it would have enough content, etc. Without support of the Daily WTF, it was a lost cause so I gave up on it. Shortly thereafter, he started a section on the Daily WTF site for non-programming stories.
Since "Programming Praxis" is not a registered trademark then it would likely be a long and costly battle to legally force The Daily WTF to cease using it. (Common Law trademarks do have rights, but it's not nearly as clear cut).
That said, if the emails are accurate I do think The Daily WTF is behaving incredibly poorly and they've just lost this reader.
Trademark rights arise once the mark is used to identify goods in the stream of commerce.
Registration gets you two things:
1. The scope of your mark applies beyond your geographical area.
2. Registration on principal register is constructive notice to the nation. It creates nationwide coverage and removes defenses of good faith and lack of knowledge.
If "Programming Praxis" is not registered, then Daily WTF can asset good faith and lack of knowledge defenses. I don't think that the geographical limitation issue has much weight on the internet. Those would be the only differences.
Registration also puts a nice, convenient stake in the ground of who was there first. I don't think that will be an issue here.
Alex seems to have some reading comprehension problems. In nearly every email Phil mentions his desire to keep his blog as separate...
"You and I have similar objectives: you want to extend your already-successful brand by offering something new to your readers, I want to grow my new blog."
"I like the idea of having a Programming Praxis sub-section on TDWTF, and I also want to keep my blog at programmingpraxis.com."
"May I ask a favor? Can you please include somewhere in the text of the exercise a link to my blog?"
"First, programmingpraxis.com will continue to exist in roughly its current form, as a stand-alone web site with two exercises per week, no matter what happens with Programming Praxis exercises at TheDailyWTF."
"Regarding linking: If Programming Praxis is going to become a regular weekly feature on TheDailyWTF, with at least some original content, I don’t see the problem with putting a link to programmingpraxis.com somewhere obvious."
Alex constantly ignores this until the end when he says:
"I don’t want to come across as abrasive or inconsiderate, but we started this conversation on the premise of joining forces, and I’ve reiterated that intent several times. My understanding has been that, if our test(s) proved successful, then we’d combine blogs; if not, then you’d continue with your blog, and I would continue with mine."
And if he was operating under the assumption that the first few articles were just "tests" (as he refers to them repeatedly), why is it suddenly so hard to change the name of the section?
According to the e-mail log, he introduced the new "programming praxis" section name mere days after Phil asked him to stop using the term. That strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. He could have avoided the whole issue by simply picking a different name at that point, but he instead chose the one name that would sabotage the work of his former collaborator.
While I'm sure TDWTF will triumph legally, I can't help think that the incident will influence their relations with any future collaborators.
The argument from TDWTF that 'it's too late to change it now' is pretty much an admission of guilt. Lawyer up, spend a few hundred on a C&D and then register your TM.
It's astonishing to see how many comments on the blog are not only hostile, but rude and hateful. I guess I'm naive and overly optimistic, but it always surprises me to see the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1] proven in practice...
Alex is quickly (rightly or wrongly) coming off as a "bit of a dick" in this. On the Internet you can live or die on your reputation - right. Surely the logical approach would have been a "sorry dude, ill change it, misunderstanding"
And of course the cynic in me is saying; well programming praxis will be getting a shed load of new publicity now :)
He can trademark his site name, but it would be ridiculous to forbid the name "Programming Praxis" as a header for a column or subsection of another website. It's just too generic.
Yes agreed. But if the section is identical in theme to that of the Programming Praxis blog I think he has a legitimate point (or at least has some rationale for making the point)
This story is summed up very well by a comment on the page made by sorryoldman - "It sounds like this:
“You had her first all right, but I slept with her and she’s way too hot for me to give up now. So bugger off and dont come looking for her. She’s too sexy and she’s mine now.”
I hope this last sentence puts things in persepctive."
Trademarking the generic title "Programming Praxis" seems a bit over the board. There are too many trademarks -- everywhere! To me, this seems to be contradicting the open-source and free knowledge spirit!
As one commenter in the original article put it: "He’s a prick. You’re a winey bastard. Move on, yo."
> I think you're confusing Trademark and Copyright.
And I think you didn't read the OP's link:
"Is registration of my mark required?
No. You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark. However, owning a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages, e.g.,"
Furthermore:
"When can I use the trademark symbols TM, SM and ®?
Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO. However, you may use the federal registration symbol "®" only after the USPTO actually registers a mark, and not while an application is pending."
So no, the OP isn't confusing trademark and copyright. You do, however, have greater legal recourse if someone inappropriately uses your mark if it's not registered. Otherwise, you're SOL.
FWIW, johns wasn't responding to my comment, he was actually responding to a comment at the same level of mine that has now been deleted. The way the nesting dealt with it makes it a little confusing.
Let’s see if there’s an apology coming from Phil now that Alex has changed the category name (and after he gave a reason for the delay) and whether it receives as much attention as the attention*ring post on the site.
Two things. One, if you don't bother to get legal protection for your "trademark", don't complain if people "steal" it. You can't have something stolen from you that you never owned. Get over it. Two, generic terms should not be eligible for trademark in the first place. Especially, no phrase of the form adjective-noun and no compound noun should be elgible for trademark.
Nor for copyright, but having copyright does not guarantee legal protection for copyright. If you can't prove that you have it and had it first, you may as well not have it at all.
The site you linked to says quite clearly that you should register to get:
"""
# a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
# the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
"""
So in other words, if you don't register, you don't have these things. Yes, you have a trademark, sure... you just can't do anything about it.
"The owner of a federal trademark registration may sue in federal court more easily. It is worth noting that even without a federal trademark registration you still may be able to sue in federal court, but it may be more costly when proving jurisdiction (i.e. diversity of citizenship & amount in controversy over $75,000). Even if you can't sue in federal court, you can always sue in state court. However, attorneys usually prefer federal court in trademark cases for perceived procedural advantages."
Flagged this because it's not a trademark. While he might have a legal case due to first use, and be able to trademark it now, he doesn't currently have a trademark. Bad title, no biscuit.
