[E-trademarks] Proud Boys trademark

[Carl Oppedahl]

On 2/7/2025 2:31 PM, carla calcagno via E-trademarks wrote:
> Perhaps not as crazy as you think. On Jan 6 the Proud Boys attacked a 
> well known historic black church in washington because it was 
> displaying a Black Lives Matter sign. The church sued and asked for 
> damages . Proud boys defaulted . Church then sued to enforce the 
> judgment and sought transfer and or lien on the name as an asset of 
> group. Judge awarded it - are you suggesting judge cannot award IP to 
> satisfy a tort judgement ? Assuming church makes use of the mark in an 
> appropriate period , why not? Personally I’m thrilled .
My thrilled reaction matches yours.  But wouldn't it have been helpful 
if the judge's order were to have explicitly conveyed not only the 
registration but also the associated goodwill?
>
>> On Feb 7, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Julia Anne Matheson via E-trademarks 
>> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>> It’s absurd.  I’m seeing it too.  Makes no sense at all.
>>
>> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
>> Behalf Of *Miriam Richter, Esq. via E-trademarks
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2025 12:29 PM
>> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
>> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> *Cc:* Miriam Richter, Esq. <mrichter at richtertrademarks.com>
>> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Proud Boys trademark
>>
>> *WARNING:*External email, do not click on links or open attachments 
>> unless you recognize the sender’s full email address and expect the 
>> attachments.
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I’ve had a crazy week so it is possible that I’m missing something 
>> really basic here because my brain is fried, but, how is an historic 
>> Black church in DC going to own the trademark? How will they show 
>> use? I found four pending applications and no registrations. All four 
>> are owned by different individuals/companies and all but one are 1b.
>>
>> How can the trademark PROUD BOYS indicate a Black church as the 
>> source of the goods/services being provided? Is this a common law 
>> trademark thing?
>>
>> Does anyone have access to the opinion?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>> Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
>>
>> /Make Your Mark!// ®/
>>
>> Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
>> 2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
>> Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
>>
>> 954-977-4711 office
>>
>> 954-240-8819 cell
>> 954-977-4717 facsimile
>> *
>> **NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail 
>> message contains _confidential information_ that may be _legally 
>> privileged_. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
>> review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate 
>> this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this 
>> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by 
>> telephone at 954-240-8819 and delete this message. Please note that 
>> if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to 
>> a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or 
>> anyattachments may not have been produced by the sender.*
>>
>> -- 
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250207/884085d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250207/884085d1/attachment.p7s>