6 ms·

Artist trademarks 'Pi' symbol, enrages the web

71 points by adeaver 12y ago

plink 12y ago
Did Mr. Ingrisano actually create and copyright a particular font used with his trademarked symbol or does his trademark apply to any use of that symbol followed by a period? Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testing how thin the ice upon which it can skate before the entire institution falls through?
- Zren 12y ago
  Looks like your regular old Times New Roman font. http://graphemica.com/%CF%80/glyphs/times-new-roman-regular http://graphemica.com/%CF%80/glyphs/times-new-roman-regular http://www.scribd.com/doc/227367808/Zazzle-Pi-Trademark-Letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/227367808/Zazzle-Pi-Trademark-Lett...
- manicdee 12y ago
  The trademark covers exactly the "π" symbol displayed in the [Wiktionary page on Pi](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pi#English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pi#English) followed by a period ".". The guy did not create his own font. Zazzle just started pulling all the things with the π symbol on them, because as I'm sure everyone is aware, nobody has ever thought to put π on a T-shirt before, so obviously this guy's trademark on "π." takes precedence over all the copycats!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- ThatGeoGuy 12y ago
  You should take care to notice that this is not a patent, but rather a trademark, which falls under an entirely different set of laws and practices. In particular, they likely just have a trademark to make shirts with the pi symbol and a period afterwards. While you may disagree that they should not be allowed to have such a trademark, it is the name of their company, and they have to enforce the trademark if they want to keep it. Because this is a trademark, they have to prove that someone else is trying to pass off a product as one of their own in order to take punitive action against the opposing party. What this means in practice is that if someone uses the pi symbol in a paper or on the internet, it's likely not to be confused with the t-shirts they are selling, so therefore there is no trademark infringement. However, if you're selling t-shirts that have a pi symbol on it in a similar fashion, you're opening yourself for litigation. It is also important that they take action against companies that are infringing on their trademark lest they lose the trademark (which also happens to be in their company name). In any case, this is just a silly story and has nothing at all to do with patents, and nobody should be worried unless you plan on making and selling t-shirts with a pi symbol on the front of them.
chrismcb 12y ago
It is a trademark, not a patent nor copyright. There was not copyright violation, and not trademark violation. Zazzle jumped the gun. If they had actually read the letter they could just have ignored it.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
π.
- ingrisano 12y ago
  Money, please.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rdtsc 12y ago
How does this happen? Who are the people who decide what is a valid patent/trademark and what isn't? We all here look at each other in disbelief (figuratively). Yes someone granted the the trademark thinking this is valid thing to do. I guess, thinking about it. No matter how indignant I would get about this topic, I really don't see myself dropping programming and applying to the Patent Office. It seems to me this is not completely unlike the case of primary education in US. I have heard and seen horror stories about utter incompetence of math and science teachers in some schools. I get angry and indignant about it. But, in the morning, I will go back to programming. I will not be applying for a teaching certificate or whatever the first step is to become a teacher. Painting with broad strokes here, it seem, this is the work non-experts doing experts' work. The tragedy is there are anti-incentives to attracting passionate or driven individuals in such positions. Bureaucracy, low pay, perceived cultural low status of the jobs, is probably the driving force behinds these kind of things.
- slapshot 12y ago
  This case is about a trademark, not a patent. Any word or symbol that identifies a source of goods can be a trademark. Hence Apple getting a trademark on using the word "Apple" to sell computers even though people have been using the word "apple" to refer to fruit for hundreds of years. (The same goes for "Amazon" despite the river, "Windows" despite the ventilation system, and "Beats" despite the existence of rhythm). If one tried to sell computer parts under the name "Apple" or any reasonable variant thereof, it wouldn't be a defense to say "look, there's a fruit called the same thing." The real problem here is that Zazzle caved in based on a weak letter about the trademark -- not that the trademark office somehow failed. If Apple Inc sent a letter to Zazzle asking to remove all references to the word "apple" in Zazzle, the problem wouldn't be that Apple's trademark is invalid (it's perfectly valid for selling computers), but rather that Apple would have stretched its trademark too far (it only grants the right to control uses related to selling computers). Same here. Somebody could quite reasonably sell computer products under the name "Pi" (see Raspberry Pi for example), but that wouldn't grant the right to remove all references to the number from Zazzle.
  - lucaspiller 12y ago
ilyanep 12y ago
IANAL but I'm pretty sure that a judge would never rule that there was possibility of confusion between all of these products on Zazzle and Pi Corporation. I think the real issue here is that Zazzle needs to exercise more discretion on which cease and desist letters it follows.
- sgdesign 12y ago
  Yes, this definitely seems like a mistake on Zazzle's part. And it's possible the artist may have been acting in good faith, and only wanted designs that actually copy his brand removed, not all designs featuring pi. Edit: OK, it does seems like the artist is also abusing the system here, judging by his other trademark: http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-who-trademarked-pi-symbol-has-designs-on-ilt3quot-31754 http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-who-trademarked-pi-s...
- chrismcb 12y ago
  ESPECIALLY when the C&D talked about copyright infringement.
rebolek 12y ago
What kind of artist is he? It looks to me he's a con artist.
tluyben2 12y ago
Weak Zazzle and anyone else actually taking this seriously in the first place, even if they reconsidered afterwards. The incentive to try to abuse the system is too great in the US and met with success way too often... Companies and individuals need to stand up against this kind of thing.
coherentpony 12y ago
Are people allowed to trademark an arbitrary letter of an arbitrary alphabet? How about arbitrary collections of letters that may or may not form a 'word'?
- slapshot 12y ago
  Yes and yes. "IBM" doesn't form a word, but it's a perfectly valid trademark and you would be sued into oblivion (quite fairly at that) for trying to sell computer software or hardware as "IBM." Gatorade has a trademark on a capital "G" in the field of sports drinks because consumers have come to recognize the "G" line of products. "Google" is a mostly-made-up word (it was at least unfamiliar before Google became popular) and it is a valid trademark. "Apple" is a commonly known word and it is also a valid trademark. The symbol for Prince [1] is an arbitrary symbol that could also be trademarked. The key fact is that trademarks protect the right to use a word or symbol in connection with selling goods or services in a certain field. Apple doesn't get to ban all uses of the word "apple" but you couldn't go sell your own products as "Apple Computing Stuff". Prince can't ban people drawing the symbol linked above, but he could sue anybody who released a CD with that as their cover artwork. Gatorade doesn't control all uses of the letter "G" but I wouldn't try selling a sports drink with just a capital G on the bottle. Zazzle done messed up, but not because letters or symbols alone couldn't be trademark. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_logo.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_logo.svg
  - coherentpony 12y ago
    >Yes and yes. That's all I needed to hear. Trademarking 'pi' is therefore nothing more than exactly this. There's therefore no need to rage out.
ivanhoe 12y ago
Imagine if all math books in future will have to include a footnote saying: "All greek letters' trademarks are property of their respective owners" :)
- ljf 12y ago
  A is for Apple™...
jbrooksuk 12y ago
I <3 this guy's next attempt. http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/85481027-i-lt-3 http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/85481027-i-lt-3 For the record, I don't.
dang 12y ago
A dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827524.
jessedhillon 12y ago
I wish newegg would bait this guy with a pi-themed sale or event.

71 points by adeaver 12y ago

plink 12y ago

Did Mr. Ingrisano actually create and copyright a particular font used with his trademarked symbol or does his trademark apply to any use of that symbol followed by a period? Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testing how thin the ice upon which it can skate before the entire institution falls through?

Zren 12y ago
Looks like your regular old Times New Roman font. http://graphemica.com/%CF%80/glyphs/times-new-roman-regular http://graphemica.com/%CF%80/glyphs/times-new-roman-regular http://www.scribd.com/doc/227367808/Zazzle-Pi-Trademark-Letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/227367808/Zazzle-Pi-Trademark-Lett...
manicdee 12y ago
The trademark covers exactly the "π" symbol displayed in the [Wiktionary page on Pi](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pi#English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pi#English) followed by a period ".". The guy did not create his own font. Zazzle just started pulling all the things with the π symbol on them, because as I'm sure everyone is aware, nobody has ever thought to put π on a T-shirt before, so obviously this guy's trademark on "π." takes precedence over all the copycats!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ThatGeoGuy 12y ago
You should take care to notice that this is not a patent, but rather a trademark, which falls under an entirely different set of laws and practices. In particular, they likely just have a trademark to make shirts with the pi symbol and a period afterwards. While you may disagree that they should not be allowed to have such a trademark, it is the name of their company, and they have to enforce the trademark if they want to keep it. Because this is a trademark, they have to prove that someone else is trying to pass off a product as one of their own in order to take punitive action against the opposing party. What this means in practice is that if someone uses the pi symbol in a paper or on the internet, it's likely not to be confused with the t-shirts they are selling, so therefore there is no trademark infringement. However, if you're selling t-shirts that have a pi symbol on it in a similar fashion, you're opening yourself for litigation. It is also important that they take action against companies that are infringing on their trademark lest they lose the trademark (which also happens to be in their company name). In any case, this is just a silly story and has nothing at all to do with patents, and nobody should be worried unless you plan on making and selling t-shirts with a pi symbol on the front of them.

chrismcb 12y ago

It is a trademark, not a patent nor copyright. There was not copyright violation, and not trademark violation. Zazzle jumped the gun. If they had actually read the letter they could just have ignored it.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

π.

ingrisano 12y ago
Money, please.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rdtsc 12y ago

How does this happen? Who are the people who decide what is a valid patent/trademark and what isn't? We all here look at each other in disbelief (figuratively). Yes someone granted the the trademark thinking this is valid thing to do. I guess, thinking about it. No matter how indignant I would get about this topic, I really don't see myself dropping programming and applying to the Patent Office. It seems to me this is not completely unlike the case of primary education in US. I have heard and seen horror stories about utter incompetence of math and science teachers in some schools. I get angry and indignant about it. But, in the morning, I will go back to programming. I will not be applying for a teaching certificate or whatever the first step is to become a teacher. Painting with broad strokes here, it seem, this is the work non-experts doing experts' work. The tragedy is there are anti-incentives to attracting passionate or driven individuals in such positions. Bureaucracy, low pay, perceived cultural low status of the jobs, is probably the driving force behinds these kind of things.

slapshot 12y ago
This case is about a trademark, not a patent. Any word or symbol that identifies a source of goods can be a trademark. Hence Apple getting a trademark on using the word "Apple" to sell computers even though people have been using the word "apple" to refer to fruit for hundreds of years. (The same goes for "Amazon" despite the river, "Windows" despite the ventilation system, and "Beats" despite the existence of rhythm). If one tried to sell computer parts under the name "Apple" or any reasonable variant thereof, it wouldn't be a defense to say "look, there's a fruit called the same thing." The real problem here is that Zazzle caved in based on a weak letter about the trademark -- not that the trademark office somehow failed. If Apple Inc sent a letter to Zazzle asking to remove all references to the word "apple" in Zazzle, the problem wouldn't be that Apple's trademark is invalid (it's perfectly valid for selling computers), but rather that Apple would have stretched its trademark too far (it only grants the right to control uses related to selling computers). Same here. Somebody could quite reasonably sell computer products under the name "Pi" (see Raspberry Pi for example), but that wouldn't grant the right to remove all references to the number from Zazzle.
- lucaspiller 12y ago

ilyanep 12y ago

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that a judge would never rule that there was possibility of confusion between all of these products on Zazzle and Pi Corporation. I think the real issue here is that Zazzle needs to exercise more discretion on which cease and desist letters it follows.

sgdesign 12y ago
Yes, this definitely seems like a mistake on Zazzle's part. And it's possible the artist may have been acting in good faith, and only wanted designs that actually copy his brand removed, not all designs featuring pi. Edit: OK, it does seems like the artist is also abusing the system here, judging by his other trademark: http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-who-trademarked-pi-symbol-has-designs-on-ilt3quot-31754 http://news.artnet.com/art-world/artist-who-trademarked-pi-s...
chrismcb 12y ago
ESPECIALLY when the C&D talked about copyright infringement.

rebolek 12y ago

What kind of artist is he? It looks to me he's a con artist.

tluyben2 12y ago

Weak Zazzle and anyone else actually taking this seriously in the first place, even if they reconsidered afterwards. The incentive to try to abuse the system is too great in the US and met with success way too often... Companies and individuals need to stand up against this kind of thing.

coherentpony 12y ago

Are people allowed to trademark an arbitrary letter of an arbitrary alphabet? How about arbitrary collections of letters that may or may not form a 'word'?

slapshot 12y ago
Yes and yes. "IBM" doesn't form a word, but it's a perfectly valid trademark and you would be sued into oblivion (quite fairly at that) for trying to sell computer software or hardware as "IBM." Gatorade has a trademark on a capital "G" in the field of sports drinks because consumers have come to recognize the "G" line of products. "Google" is a mostly-made-up word (it was at least unfamiliar before Google became popular) and it is a valid trademark. "Apple" is a commonly known word and it is also a valid trademark. The symbol for Prince [1] is an arbitrary symbol that could also be trademarked. The key fact is that trademarks protect the right to use a word or symbol in connection with selling goods or services in a certain field. Apple doesn't get to ban all uses of the word "apple" but you couldn't go sell your own products as "Apple Computing Stuff". Prince can't ban people drawing the symbol linked above, but he could sue anybody who released a CD with that as their cover artwork. Gatorade doesn't control all uses of the letter "G" but I wouldn't try selling a sports drink with just a capital G on the bottle. Zazzle done messed up, but not because letters or symbols alone couldn't be trademark. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_logo.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_logo.svg
- coherentpony 12y ago
  >Yes and yes. That's all I needed to hear. Trademarking 'pi' is therefore nothing more than exactly this. There's therefore no need to rage out.

ivanhoe 12y ago

Imagine if all math books in future will have to include a footnote saying: "All greek letters' trademarks are property of their respective owners" :)

ljf 12y ago
A is for Apple™...

jbrooksuk 12y ago

I <3 this guy's next attempt. http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/85481027-i-lt-3 http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/85481027-i-lt-3 For the record, I don't.

dang 12y ago

A dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827524.

jessedhillon 12y ago

I wish newegg would bait this guy with a pi-themed sale or event.