Meteo Xavier Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Even further nerve - surely someone out there has trademarked "prophetic" just as well. Quote
Zerothemaster Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 In case there is confusion we have the trademarked name which includes both film and music for we have produced in both categories. Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely shirts, sweatshirts, and headwear We our a lifestyle brand. please send us your mailing address and a letter will be sent out from out attorney if you desire to fight this. Seriously, if these guys are for real, they would have a secretary or someone who knows that this is the worst thing ever written. However, their email address is thevibeshowroom, it's the name of their showroom, it seems. I mean, don't ignore it, but it seems less and less likely the more and more I see it. Quote
RiverSound Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Even further nerve - surely someone out there has trademarked "prophetic" just as well. Yep, but I guess this Jon Ward is too busy to do any real research. Quote
Cash Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 EDIT: I missed the c Also, the home page of the website looks odd. Quite a situation, do you know anyone who is a lawyer and knows more about this kind of thing? Quote
RiverSound Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 The last line doesn't make sense. "No one can stop you from using prophetic just FYI."Aren't they trying to do just that? Or maybe I'm not understanding the sentence. Also, the home page of the website looks odd. They're bitching about Prophetik, and now he suggested prophetic with a c as if it would not be trademarked. Quote
Cash Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 They're bitching about Prophetik, and now he suggested prophetic with a c as if it would not be trademarked. Yep, just noticed the c. Brad said he only uses "Prophetik Music" on his website and sells music under his real name, would they even have a case? Further, why are they even pursuing this? I don't see how Brad could possibly be a threat to their business. Quote
RiverSound Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Yep, just noticed the c. Brad said he only uses "Prophetik Music" on his website and sells music under his real name, would they even have a case? Yea, Brad doesn't use the name Prophetik Music for commercial purposes, so it would seem that they would not. With common sense this whole thing just stinks, but I wouldn't take the risk. Quote
zircon Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Because when you Google "prophetik", Brad is the 2nd link that comes up. They're bitching about Prophetik, and now he suggested prophetic with a c as if it would not be trademarked. As I have explained, it is much harder to trademark and protect generic, non-distinct words like "prophetic" that are in the dictionary. Yea, Brad doesn't use the name Prophetik Music for commercial purposes, so it would seem that they would not. With common sense this whole thing just stinks, but I wouldn't take the risk. Guys, trademark (or patent or copyright) infringement does not require commercial use. Again I'm not a lawyer but I do study IP law... I'm sure if Dave's wife Anna chimed in she'd agree with me. Quote
Cash Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 I know little about this stuff, so I'll take your word for it zircon. Quote
RiverSound Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 It's just so nice to speak like you know something just to have a guy like zircon come in with actual knowledge and correct everything. Well, the facts have to be said sooner or later... I just want to bash these guys again and again for their inability to spell correctly. Quote
SuperiorX Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the people that are contacting you are legitimately from that company. I've worked in marketing before and most companies will go to extremes to protect what they believe is their "brand image" or "brand reputation", no matter how inconsequential the supposed "infringement" is. They'll believe any misrepresentation of that "image" could/would/may impact their business. Also, in my current job, I've received many emails from internal and external clients that have misspelled words, incorrect punctuation, etc., so unfortunately that has no bearing on the legitimacy of the email in question. Sad, but true. Lastly what I don't understand though is yeah Brad isn't using the name in a business (i.e., selling products and/or services for profit), so I really don't get how they have any case whatsoever. I know Andy has said that trademark infringement isn't limited to commercial use, but still that seems silly. In that case, where does it end? Technically couldn't any person using a trademarked name in an email address, forum user name, gamertag, etc. be forced to change their name too, since they are "infringing" on the use of that trademarked word? Seems a little ridiculous to me. Regardless, if you have to change your name Brad, can we refer to you as "The Artist Formerly Known as prophetik", or will that infringe on their trademark as well? Quote
RiverSound Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Regardless, if you have to change your name Brad, can we refer to you as "The Artist Formerly Known as prophetik", or will that infringe on their trademark as well? prophet of mephisto wasn't too bad either IMO. It has an epic feel to it. Quote
Level 99 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I'm planning on doing a dramatic reading of these correspondence. This is just too fucking hilarious. Don't get me wrong, Brad. If this goes foul and you have a lawsuit on your hands, its gonna suck. But there is so much gold here. I am Level 99, and I am a lifestyle brand. Quote
prophetik music Posted May 31, 2012 Author Posted May 31, 2012 stevo get a picture of the beard with LIFESTYLE BRAND put over it and i'll give you monies i promise Quote
WillRock Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Hmm... I don't remember Queen getting sued by the royal family. Or the planet pluto getting sued by disney. Quote
KyleJCrb Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Time to switch back to "prophet of mephisto." Or "mephistik." Quote
BardicKnowledge Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 This is comedy gold. Brad, I'd register "prophetik music" as fast as you can, just in case. Strange that a mid-sized company would feel the need to target you though. Quote
zircon Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 This is comedy gold. Brad, I'd register "prophetik music" as fast as you can, just in case. Strange that a mid-sized company would feel the need to target you though. It's because if you search "prophetik" you get Brad's site second. I doubt their marketing guys like that. Quote
Zerothemaster Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Hmm... I don't remember Queen getting sued by the royal family. Or the planet pluto getting sued by disney. Wouldn't the planet have to sue Disney? Or perhaps the greek (roman?) god would do that. Quote
Overdriven Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Well, normally I'd say that there'd be a distinction issue, but since they are a lifestyle brand claiming to have a trademark on "prophetik music" which it looks like they don't have (and that possibly doesn't even EXIST) that they're trying to pull one over on you, but I'm not the best person to ask when it comes to such legal matters like this. This does make for a pretty funny story though. Unless this turns south, then it'll just suck and I'll have another reason to hate companies like this that are possessive/defensive/overzealous over anything remotely similar in name to anything they carry or produce....... Quote
Meteo Xavier Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Yeah, to me, thats the keystone thing there - no one can even find the trademark to prophetik music in the first place. Brad, is there any chance you can trademark it and beat them to the punch? Then throw it back at them and threaten your own legal action. > The first one I'm serious about. Quote
PROTO·DOME Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Despite the atrocious grammar, this looks pretty serious to me, I'd be real careful. What you'd gain in winning this case is nowhere near to what you'd lose perusing it. Quote
Annie Felis Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Wayback machine brought up this link from 2002. So apparently on their crystal-vision journey of marketing hemp dresses, there were two people from their studio that released a CD and used the same band name as their clothing line. I didn't look at every single month for every single year, but it doesn't look like they have any music links after 2002. If they didn't register the copyright for the band name then it doesn't matter. They're probably hoping to milk some money from you, but they have no legal grounds to sue you. Unfortunately they probably will go through with it and it will waste a lot of your money. I'm guessing they're doing this because they might want to release more music under that name. Quote
Meteo Xavier Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 What you'd gain in winning this case is nowhere near to what you'd lose perusing it. Couldn't one just demand court costs in a countersuit for damages? Quote
OceansAndrew Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Couldn't one just demand court costs in a countersuit for damages? Demand, sure. Receive? Eh. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.