27 comments on “Tee hee

  1. Glorious

    Murphy has repeated form when it comes to outright theft of the IP of others, using spurious defences for doing so.

    We should all go round to that unimpressive end-terrace in Ely and ransack it, as clearly he has no respect for the property of others.

  2. OT

    A few days ago someone mentioned that Labour could take any old right-wing trope and by the cleansing power of putting “progressive” in front of it, turn it into something entirely different and acceptable to them. I would like to remember who it was and where it was written but as our glorious host has STILL not sorted out google indexing of this blog (Timmy- do it, you’ll get loads more traffic) I can’t, but Guido has a fabulous example…

    https://order-order.com/2017/02/21/labour-arguing-about-using-england-flag-on-leaflets/

    Progressive patriotism!

    A brilliant new left wing policy to win back voters from UKIP, if only they had thought of it sooner!

    As for Murphy – BWHHAAAAA

  3. TaxMap’s website, linked from his/her Twitter account, appears to have crashed under the sheer weight of traffic.

  4. Remember when Ritchie claimed that the only reason to register a trademark was tax avoidance? It was in the context of Apple managing to get a Community Trademark passed for their store layout.

  5. I may be missing something here but FairTaxMap is not the same mark as TaxMap?

    #whothefuckcaresanyway?

  6. If it was anyone else we’d say ignore the message from TaxMap and carry on. It’s not the same thing. Nothing has been appropriated.
    Delicious to see the spat though.

  7. Magnus

    A few days ago someone mentioned that Labour could take any old right-wing trope and by the cleansing power of putting “progressive” in front of it, turn it into something entirely different and acceptable to them. I would like to remember who it was and where it was written.

    That was I.

  8. Progressive patriotism!

    On a similar theme I remember Murphy vomiting out some bilge he called “Libertarian Paternalism”. Completely meaningless.

  9. @Dan, “I may be missing something here but FairTaxMap is not the same mark as TaxMap?”

    It contains letter-for-letter the registered mark and there is a priori a severe risk of confusion that TaxMap may be involved with FairTaxMap. Just like with say “INTEL” and “FAIRINTEL”, or “MERCEDES” and “FAIRMERCEDES”.

    (this is part of what I do for a living. if I were counselling “fairtaxmap” I’d tell them to find another name yesterday and chastise them for not having contacted me before launch to do the most basic check on this shit. If I were on the side of TaxMap it would be nasty letter funtimes with strong potential for a weapons-free and a nice fat almost guaranteed win.)

  10. “Please refrain from communicating our name without permission.”

    yeah, that’s not how company registrations nor trademarks work there Hillier

  11. @Agammamon, they’ve got a massively strong TM case. It could only be stronger if the name was identical. And “FairTaxMap” are indeed using the registered mark of “TaxMap” as part of their name, so that much is entirely correct.

    The company-names thing is probably a kinda roundabout way to make a Common Law “passing off” claim against them, as a secondary claim for the microscopic chance that an attack based on the registered mark fails..

  12. @mr ecks’ cock

    No. Because word marks are always considered in ALL CAPS.

    You want to play with capitalisation, you’ve got to do an image mark. but a word mark trumps an image mark.

  13. Is ‘Mr Ecks is a Cock’ Ritchie?

    Has he decided to strike back at the folks who wander over to his site under a pseudonym and take the piss by doing the same here, and getting free advice to boot?

  14. @abacab

    As you work in the business I guess you are familiar with French Connection and the trouble they had with the bloke (Dave Griffiths) who registered CNUT as a trademark?

    French Connection are notorious for going after people, having challenged Pony Club over PCUK and someone who had a go with trademarking FCEK.

    FCUK are themselves shameless when it comes to ripping off other people’s trademarks without permission, something Dave Griffiths pointed out to some of the wronged businesses and forced FCUK to withdraw lines.

    Their run-in with CNUT had ended up as both a stage show at the Edinburgh Fringe & elsewhere and a film.

    Trouble is, you do need deep pockets to defend trademarks.

  15. John Square. Erm no. Genuinely interested as I know nothing about trade marking. It’s not something I think about.

    Also, why would I bother asking the question on some site I was pointed at (ASI to here by linkage) if I wanted advice?

    Fucking hell, I’ve been lurking for enough time to know mr ecks is a cock. If that’s the criteria that you judge posters by, then yeah, it must mean North Korea.

    Or you are Dave.

  16. @Andrew C

    I was not aware of that case, but I can see how that must have been a fun one 🙂 It’s always fun when people try to expand the protection of their mark way beyond the bounds. It must have been fun to argue that there was a risk of confusion with any name made by switching the two middle letters of a swear word…

    But yeah, it can cost money to defend. Either that or balls of steel if the suit is not clearly abusive (but don’t underestimate the power of saying “no, fcuk off” to see if the trademark holder has the balls to try his hand in court).

  17. Some might say that this trademark-infringing map shows which businesses to avoid, but I don’t care. Whether a business pays “fair tax” or not is irrelevant to my decision to patronise them.

  18. @abacab,

    If you have a Company that usually trades aa the initials of its full name, and have a logo with those letters that is registered, do you also need to trademark the name of the company (in full or abbreviated) as a word mark?

  19. “Some might say that this trademark-infringing map shows which businesses to avoid,”

    Bloody right it does. It’s any business on the map. Not choosing to minimise tax liability costs. And the incidence of that’s going to end up with the customer in higher prices. So, yes. Very useful service.being provided here. Full marks.

  20. @BiG: “If you have a Company that usually trades aa the initials of its full name, and have a logo with those letters that is registered, do you also need to trademark the name of the company (in full or abbreviated) as a word mark?”

    Only if you want to be sure to stop others doing it, and to give yourself the right to oppose a later registration by a 3rd party of the same or similar mark, which could embugger you later.

    Remember, nobody NEEDS to register their mark (but you’re mad not to) – it’s a blocking right, and gives you priority over a later registration so you can oppose it.

  21. @mr ecks is a cock

    He is a genuine legend of the comments section but:

    ‘Or you are Dave’

    did make me chuckle out loud…..

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.