●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
19034254
story
Posted
by
timothy
bruary 05, 2011 @08:13AM
from the bob-dole-doesn't-trademark-his-name dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office in November to trademark her name. On her initial application, Palin listed usage of the trademark for a website featuring information about political issues; and educational and entertainment services, including motivational speaking in the fields of politics, culture, business and values. Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services and that trademarking a name is more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports. 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities, in particular, speaking engagements ... and it looks like she's looking to protect her name with those activities,' says attorney Claudia Ray."
You may like to read:
Viacom Closes MTV Games
Sputnik Moment Or No, Science Fairs Are Lagging
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byWrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) writes:
Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
twitter
facebook
bygclef ( 96311 ) writes:
February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!
Parent
twitter
facebook
byuncanny ( 954868 ) writes:
Can we extend it to the whole year of 2011?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byHugh Pickens writes ( 1984118 ) writes:
Trademark is a geek issue that has been discussed dozens of times on slashdot [google.com] along with similar intellectual property issues like copyright and patent.
The issue of why a public figure might decide to trademark their name is an interesting one and the comments today have brought forward a number of illuminating answers.
As for being ideological, I strongly suspect the article would still have been published on slashdot if Barack Obama or if John McCain had decided to trademark his name.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bypubliclurker ( 952615 ) writes:
Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGreyfox ( 87712 ) writes:
Now that Ted Stephens is no longer with us, I propose "That jackass from alaska".
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * writes:
Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!
Man, you see how he took that dude down? Guy was like "Sarah Palin is a Clueless Bitch" and he came back with "Nuh-uh, Obama's a Clueless Bitch!" He probably high-fived his keyboard after coming up with that witty bon-mot.
It's basically the Sunday morning TV news talk shows, distilled to their essence.
To be fair though, Sarah Palin is pretty much the Platonic ideal of Clueless Bitch. The first poster has accuracy going for him, if not the Oscar Wilde-like ability with the verbal comeback that the second poster showed with his "I know you are, but what am I?"
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama. So what we have is a couple of little bitches, but one is ever so much bitchier than the others.
Obama has fallen down on his promises again and again. Palin has proven her idiocy time and again. Anyone supporting either of them at this point, however, wins the absolute clueless bitch award. Palin was chosen for unelectability. Obama was chosen for his palatability. END OF LINE.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byWilyCoder ( 736280 ) writes:
^^^ Exactly. In a thread about Palin, they want to discuss Obama.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDraek ( 916851 ) writes:
If your sole measure of success is the money you make, you have far bigger problems than mere cluelessness.
bysortius_nod ( 1080919 ) writes:
You may not have made that argument, but you're definitely embodying the phrase clueless. Money is not a measure of success, and to try and use that to refute that someone is clueless shows your own mental lacking.
Palin is a moron, we all know this (we as in the rest of the world). To even allow someone this clueless to be in any part of government lowers your reputation with the rest of the world (not that it can get much lower after you had Bush Jr as president).
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * writes:
I'm wanting to make as much $$ as I possibly can....the more money I have, the better lifestyle I can live
If you equate wealth with quality of life, you will probably never have either.
bywrencherd ( 865833 ) writes:
Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
Probably not. She's a public figure and in that sense she's waived any exclusivity with regard to pretty much any aspect of her public persona.
I know, I know, according to Sean Penn the public doesn't "own" celebrities, but I don't believe that they can be barred or made to pay to satire or critique the activities/opinions of those same famous folk.
bytomhudson ( 43916 ) writes:
'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities
The Palinator ... seeing as she pretty much wrecks everything in politics that she touches.
The Dems are going to be VERY unhappy about this.
byWill.Woodhull ( 1038600 ) writes:
To expand on parent post: Yes, there is the argument that the public doesn't "own" celebrities; that celebrities retain a right to privacy. This applies to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as well as to Barbara Streisand and what's-his-name, the cute little boy action figure actor who is so big on Scientology. All those guys are entitled to some degree of privacy and a certain amount of control over how their name might be used.
But Sarah Palin has moved herself from that group to another one by her deliberate
bytsj5j ( 1159013 ) writes:
DMCA is often confused with trademarks and patents.
DMCA specifically addresses copyright infringement and DRM circumvention.
It does not, and cannot, be used to threaten to take down a site based on trademark or patent claims alone.
For those, you will likely need a lawyer to send a Take Down notice or file a suit.
byTheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 ) writes:
No, it means that no other Sarah Palins can enter politics without changing their names. Trademarks cannot prevent people from talking about the subject of the trademark, only preventing people to promote themselves with the subject's name in the same field.
bymoortak ( 1273582 ) writes:
No, she couldn't. It would probably allow her to stop someone from making a Sarah Palin TV show or magazine.
byTheaetetus ( 590071 ) writes:
Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
As the name implies, the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act applies to copyright law, not trademark law. With a registered trademark, she can prevent others from using her name on commercial products where there's a likelihood of consumer confusion that she's endorsing, sponsoring, or created the goods. Like, if you sell "Sarah Palin's Gun Cozy," you'll get hit with an infringement suit. If you post a blog entry saying "Sarah Palin's a greedy doofus," this is entirely outside trademark law.
byamiga3D ( 567632 ) writes:
It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.
byamiga3D ( 567632 ) writes:
Ah! I didn't know that. It's gotten to the point that Pelosi could be trademarked too. Nothing tops "We've got to pass it to find out what's in it." It just doesn't get any better than that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymangu ( 126918 ) writes:
I'm under the impression that a trademark must be associated with a certain product. That's why there's Linux soap [roesch-swiss.ch]. If Sarah Palin wants to register her name as a trademark, fine, that's her problem, but she cannot keep people from using it for other purposes.
byJaysyn ( 203771 ) writes:
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
twitter
facebook
byPsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) writes:
Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".
byJaysyn ( 203771 ) writes:
Exactly what I was thinking. I doubt she will have any luck shutting down anything from before she trademarked her name though.
byWrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) writes:
Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".
To be fair, the lighting in that movie was done very well. The back story (not to be confused with the on-her-back story) didn't get the same attention to detail.
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * writes:
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
I've got $20 that says she actually ends up using a club to quell speech she doesn't like.
byTheaetetus ( 590071 ) writes:
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
Sure, soon as you explain how selling a product with a false implied endorsement by Sarah Palin - e.g. "Sarah Palin-approved Real American Flags!" - falls under the first amendment. Commercial speech is not as protected.
"But I didn't mean that! I meant purely political speech!"
Yeah, and trademark law doesn't apply to non-commercial speech, so we're good here, no?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
How thick are you? Using her trademark registration "as a club to try to quell speech" is not a literal statement. There is no suggestion of violence. Nobody is claiming that she is somehow going to take the registration, make a knobbly club out of it (perhaps using the techniques of papier mache) and beat people she dislikes with the resultant weapon. Just in case you forgot the start of that sentence by the time you got to the end of it: NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THIS.
Moron.
byJackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) writes:
When your opponent literally is a moron, it is an accurate point that illustrates the clarity and honesty brought to the political discourse for which she should not be taking part in because she is a fucking moron.
If you want to allow these types of carnies to game our political system for their financial gain at the cost of peoples lives and jobs... you're a fucking moron too.
bya_nonamiss ( 743253 ) writes:
Let's be real here, the opponent in reference here is not literallyamoron [wikipedia.org]. While many persons with mild mental retardation might post to ./, I think their posts would be highly recognizable as such.
Don't misuse the word literally, moron.
bysiride ( 974284 ) writes:
The word clearly doesn't mean that anymore and hasn't for some time. The article you linked to admits as much.
byWrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) writes:
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
The club is a metaphor [wikipedia.org] ... just like the ponies on /., they represent something other than their specific definitions.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBeelzebud ( 1361137 ) writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk [youtube.com]
Yep just a total fabrication. You poor victimized conservatives... :(
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Glenn Beck has used this tactic in the past. It didn't work. But he tried to have DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com shut down because it violated the trademark of his name. But I'm sure if you research this further, you'll see that this tactic is tried time and again by many people of many political walks of life. I have no doubt Palin will try it at some point. Perhaps she'll reserve it for something that is exceedingly offensive or perhaps she'll sue the first liberal blogger that calls h
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * writes:
dumb as hair
Hair called and is really pissed.
byhedwards ( 940851 ) writes:
But, you can't trademark your birth name, such things are eponymous. I'm always a bit shocked at the lack of competence in some of these trademark applications. Even with a trademark, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com would still be referencing Glenn Beck and ought to be permissible under trademark law. A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itse
byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * writes:
I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean? And does your assurance that he has not heard "people" discuss this topic include non-famous people he associates with?
byGoody ( 23843 ) writes:
The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It's considered too Marxist / Communist / Nazi by the right. The Fairness Doctrine lives on as yet another crazy bad thing "freedom-hating libruls" are going to do, and is periodically brought up by right wing pundits to rally the ignorant masses, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of coming back.
byjbengt ( 874751 ) writes:
Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean?
Accoring to Wikipedia:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so
It never required equal time, was dropped in the late 1980s, and with the expansion in broadcast channels available and the decline in over-the-air importance, it has become less important either way. That's not to say I would want it to be policy in our current environment.
byjmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) writes:
Chuck Schumner, a senator from New York, has called for the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.
Here's the source [michellemalkin.com]
byThird Position ( 1725934 ) writes:
If that's true, then what would be the point of it? I can remember when the original Fairness Doctrine was in effect. I don't remember many rebuttals ever being given by representatives of the Communist, Nazi or Libertarian parties.
Obviously, a "fair" representation of opposing viewpoints would demand *all* opposing viewpoints be given recognition. The day that happens, I'll be on the lookout for low flying pigs.
byjmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) writes:
It had nothing to do with allowing equal time, but simply required that anybody with a broadcast license give some recognition to opposing viewpoints, even if it's marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored..
he Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. [wikipedia.org]
I'm not going to link to more quotes from that article, but the "Supporters" section indicates that the Democrats that want to reinstate it want to do so to reduce the effect of right wing talk
bynstlgc ( 945418 ) writes:
I call troll for literally interpreting "as a club" to mean something violent, but I'll bite:
So I guess that when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?
I'm reasonably certain that classified documents don't fall under protected speech.
byrbrander ( 73222 ) writes:
Well, that's a moral argument. The practical argument is that six members of the United States Supreme Court disagreed with him on June 28th, 1971. (New York Times Company v. U.S; Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun and Harlan dissented).
The argument is wrong on another level. The call was not for publication of the leaked documents to be halted, the call was for the publisher to be treated as a terrorist, which has a much, much stronger chilling effect. Given the way that the US has "treated terro
bycloudmaster ( 10662 ) writes:
Constitutional comprehension fail. Freedom of the press is one more specific form of the general freedom of speech defined in the first amendment. It's also the same freedom used by talk show hosts, making this an incredibly apt analogy.
byiter8 ( 742854 ) writes:
I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases [eff.org] to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybennomatic ( 691188 ) writes:
Hell, there are plenty of people on this site who, when they have mod points, will use "-1 Troll" as a replacement for "I disagree".
byMr. Slippery ( 47854 ) writes:
But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
It's amazing what you can manage to not see when you keep your eyes shut, isn't it?
Palin has suggested violence against Julian Assange, saying "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" [huffingtonpost.com]. Several others pundits -- mostly on the right, though I wouldn't be surprised if hear the same nonsense were to come from one
byArcherB ( 796902 ) writes:
And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].
I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any perma
byZorque ( 894011 ) writes:
It's not like there isn't precedent. She got at least one congresswoman she didn't agree with to shut up. This way she can do it without getting called out as a bloodthirsty demagogue!
bycyber-vandal ( 148830 ) writes:
That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byArcherB ( 796902 ) writes:
That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
Strange. And here you are, lying, trying to say that FoxNews won a court case that it is OK to lie. Let me explain.
First, the report that was at the heart of the case was on a Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. However, Fox lawyers are also FoxNews lawyers, so you could possibly spin it to say FoxNews lawyers argued successfully...
Next, the case was not about lying at all. It was about a Fox affiliate (affiliate, the same group that shows "The Simpsons", not the channel that shows "The Factor with Bill OReilly
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Scott Adams said it best
When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View [wikipedia.org]
byamiga3D ( 567632 ) writes:
Ignorance is always a point of view. It always has been.
byicebraining ( 1313345 ) writes:
Are everyone's sarcasm detectors broken?
byamiga3D ( 567632 ) writes:
You need to pay more attention. It's those in power who routinely try to shut down other's speech. Whether they are left or right seems to matter little. Power corrupts most of them it seems.
Maybe it's just the human condition, hence the founding fathers' attempts at limiting governments power.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byhaus ( 129916 ) writes:
Other then 'Martha Stewart' has several lines of products spread over multiple categories which are sold across the nation (perhaps elsewhere, I do not know, as I really do not give a hoot). Sarah Palin produces noting other then sounds bites many of which are cringe inducing.
byXiaran ( 836924 ) writes:
I have never heard anyone try to "shut her down" from public speaking. How are they going about this?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
>>$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
> You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others'
> speech.
Interesting... a post from an alternate universe.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byblahplusplus ( 757119 ) writes:
"It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech."
Only on slashdot could this shit ever get rated insightful, the right has done plenty. Like glenn beck talking about killing michael moore, too many stupid people on the right is just insane in america. These demagogues merely fan the flames of stupid people. The problem is freedom of speech was coined before the era oft television and mass media where most people are living in worlds of illusion manufacutred b
byicebraining ( 1313345 ) writes:
Then they're doing a terrible job, because she's the only US politician who's opinion I hear every single week without ever searching for it.
byColdWetDog ( 752185 ) writes:
I can't believe no one has mentioned the lack of politic leftness in the US anyways. There quite literally is no left wing, it's all just shades of right, rendering this whole argument completely moot.
Remember, two lefts don't make a right. But three do.
Think about it.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byeedlee ( 1448129 ) writes:
So now we cant make any more SarahPorn?
bygrimJester ( 890090 ) writes:
Unless it's included in "entertainment services" she seems to have made a mistake. Perhaps she realized that having the trademark listed for pornography would make her a laughing stock? It's also possible that wouldn't be granted because of prior art. Does prior art count for trademarks?
byhedwards ( 940851 ) writes:
Sort of, that's where eponymous words come into play, and you're not likely to get a trademark for a term that's already in use. Hence why you see all these stupid misspelled signs. They couldn't get a trademark for the name with its proper spelling so they misspelled it and there you go.
byGreyfox ( 87712 ) writes:
Get your Sarah Palin Love Doll [trendhunter.com] before it's too late!
byjs3 ( 319268 ) writes:
Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
twitter
facebook
bydkleinsc ( 563838 ) writes:
Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politican
Oh, you mean like Ronald Reagan? People like that make perfect figureheads.
byScentCone ( 795499 ) writes:
did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?
byScentCone ( 795499 ) writes:
Are you really this uninformed, filled with hate, bitter, and angry at the world, or do you just act that way because you think you're scoring some sort of points? Regardless, read up on paid speaking engagements, paid appearances, etc. If you really think that broadcast networks are the only ones who pay political activists and personalities to say what they say, then you're forming a world view based on a huge helping of deliberate ignorance.
bySponge Bath ( 413667 ) writes:
As an entertainer, it's fitting that she trademark her name like other with the same act, such as Lady Bunny and Jackie Beat.
byfermion ( 181285 ) writes:
That is the trend right now. The issue is that when one is actually trying to effect change, people like her really screw it up. For instance Sarah Palin came to Houston to speak at a forced birther conference. The conference happened to be held just before the gubernatorial race between the socially conservative Republican incumbent and the fiscally conservative Democratic contender. Now people in Texas are pretty conservative, and while many people don't believe in forcing birth, many are capable of discussing it, even those who do not vote republican. So what did Sarah Palin do: she started with a pitch for the Governor and pretty much insulted everyone that was not going to vote for him. Now remember, Texas is conservative. Many people who voted against the Governor, Perry, did so because he is fiscal liberal(his policies of hiding fiscal incompetence resulted in 25% budget shortfall for the coming budget) while knowing full well that the legislature would remain very socially conservative. While this would mean that no laws would be passed allowed doctors to assist in the suicide of the mother so that the child might live, neither would we have an increase in the number of 12 years girls who sell themselves for lottery tickets knowing they can get a easily available and safe termination. There was not reason for Sarah Palin to promote Perry in such a venue. It did not help the plight of the unborn child. It only helped Sarah Palin the prostitute sell herself.
And this is why mixing entertainment and politics is wrongs. Entertainment is there to encourage people to pay to here you talk. Politics is there so people can have fair representatives to protect their interests as much as possible. Sarah Palin, as an entertainer, did not protect the interest of the unborn child. She used the unborn child to line her pocket as an entertainer, and in the process reduced the possibility that we as a country can come together and discuss the issue rationally. Now, I don't want to pick on Sarah Palin. There are entertainers on all sides of all issues that are willing to harm the democratic debate to personally promote their earning potential. These people we do not need.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGoody ( 23843 ) writes:
Does this mean I can't use the Sarah Palin name on my brand of specially-bred mutant jackasses I'm going to sell?
byGoody ( 23843 ) writes:
Palin's "rebutting" of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign invalidates that statement. Anyone who argues against an anti-obesity campaign under the guise of freedom and gives kids cookies at a school is political opportunist jackass.
byjenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) writes:
...is an effort at branding herself. And I'd be happy to help her. Can I start the fire and hold the branding iron, dear Sarah?
bydamn_registrars ( 1103043 ) writes:
From the front page summary:
more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports
She is clearly in entertainment - how many TV shows are about her right now?
She is also in fashion - we all heard about her massive wardrobe budget when she was campaigning with McCain.
And her entertainment issport - at least to her. She tells us about her heroic helicopter hunting trips, and her husbands awesome snowmobile races. Those definitely count as sport where she is.
twitter
facebook
byrossdee ( 243626 ) writes:
What does Michael Palin say about this? - He has been around as an entertainer for a long time.
Sarah is a common womans name - I am sure there was one in the Bible.
bySponge Bath ( 413667 ) writes:
"I am sure there was one in the Bible."
After a quick read of the GOP/T-Bag Abridged Bible, I can categorically refudiate that. It has only one page with the text: "God hates fags."
bysunderland56 ( 621843 ) writes:
I'm sure that all the other women in the world that had the incredible bad luck to be named "sarah palin" have already changed their names.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytwoears ( 1514043 ) writes:
A proud moment for the Palin family. Scumbag Levi Johnston must be very happy he got the hell out of Dodge. Problem is, he didn't get out of Bristol in time.
byhedwards ( 940851 ) writes:
To be fair, sleeping with a Palin is always a mistake, so I'm guessing he wasn't bright enough to no better.
bycvtan ( 752695 ) writes:
The article says Sarah is out of government. That's a big load off my mind. Now I can lump her in with other mindless celebrities like Paris Hilton and the Kardashian gaggle.
twitter
facebook
byThe Second Horseman ( 121958 ) writes:
Great. Those comparisons bring to mind a sex tape. I think I just threw up in my mouth.
bygreg_barton ( 5551 ) writes:
I guess we'll have to start using her Wasilla nickname now: Nutty McNutfucker.
twitter
facebook
bycrusher-1 ( 302790 ) writes:
If my family's name is "Palin" this means she owns the rights to my daughter if she's was named Sarah? What about the "prior" art argument? According to howmanyofme dot com there are 790,847 named Sarah, 1,178 people with the sir name of Palin, and 3 people named Sarah Palin. Do the other 3 people have to pay a licensing fee if the former governor get her patent (very likely give the behavior of the U.S. PTO of late)?
twitter
facebook
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
The founding fathers failed when they did not regulate political parties in the constitution. Now we have them anyway, and there's not enough limits on what they are able to do.
byGlock27 ( 446276 ) writes:
She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.
She's also one of many recent political figures to be an IP maximalist.
Ah, the tired talking points of the entirely clueless.
First of all, she was a very successful office holder in Alaska. Even after being savaged by the national media, her popularity never fell below 50% when she was governor. Second, she did some pretty amazing and worthwhile things during her governorship.
On the other hand, we have 0bama, who reads a teleprompter fairly well. He had less time in public office before becoming President, and as Senator he didn't do much besides vote "Present". We're all gett
byColdWetDog ( 752185 ) writes:
First of all, she was a very successful office holder in Alaska. Even after being savaged by the national media, her popularity never fell below 50% when she was governor. Second, she did some pretty amazing and worthwhile things during her governorship.
If you define 'successful' as not getting arrested or indited, then yes. Otherwise, not so much. Remember, she was running against Murkowski Sr., an ancient, decrepit, arrogant fossil. She didn't do very much at all during her (brief) tenure and most of what actually was accomplished was done by her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell (who is now the real governor). Her 'accomplishments' included selling Murkowski's jet and brokering some oil / gas legislation that will likely get overturned in the current legisl
byGreyfox ( 87712 ) writes:
Prior art relates to patents. Trademarks are a whole other IP ball game. Patents expire, trademarks do not. You must vigorously defend your trademark, or risk losing it, but you can sit on patents or copyrights for years and then suddenly decide to sue everyone who's distributed your material. Trademarks can only be registered in a certain area, hence the Apple Music/Apple Computer troubles when Apple Computer went into the music industry. I'm not sure how much room there is for parody when trademarks are i
byNimey ( 114278 ) writes:
I think she single-handedly outweighs any good that McCain ever did as a Senator. To think I wanted the old goat to be president in 2000...
bybobbuck ( 675253 ) writes:
By "subject to" you mean there may be products with her branding that you may freely choose to ignore unlike the whims of our president.
byZ00L00K ( 682162 ) writes:
Make sure that she is disqualified from the upcoming election.
And find every other Sarah Palin in the US and make them file a complaint to USPTO about this requiring them to not make a trade mark out of that name. I strongly suspect that there has to be a few namesakes around with that name among the 308,745,538 or so citizens of the US.
byGlock27 ( 446276 ) writes:
This is one of the early supporters of the "Teabaggers", yes, you know, the ridiculous right wing nut jobs who called themselves "teabaggers"
Another ignorant, sophomoric idiot spouts forth. Great job.
"Tea Partiers" have never referred to themselves as "teabaggers". That tasteless epithet splattered nastily from the various liberal talking heads on TV.
The good news is that the Tea Party folk will have the last laugh in 2012, just as they enjoyed the 2010 crushing of the progressives. I'm amazed how many folk on Slashdot who no doubt consider themselves intelligent have bought in to the unworkable ideas of the Progressive Movement. The size and sc
bysiride ( 974284 ) writes:
Reactionaries are always on the losing side of history. The Tea Party will be no different.
byThe Second Horseman ( 121958 ) writes:
Yeah, that's great. Too bad most of the Tea Party supporters seem to be oblivious or unconcerned that a ton of the money flowing into the "movement" is actually coming from some wealthy quarters (Koch Brothers, anyone?). They have no interest in you, your common cause, or any ideology. I'd question whether or not they even really care about the country or society. Folks like that just want to stay on top. They're using the Tea Party to make sure they're unregulated - so they can do whatever they want to the
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
211 commentsHow Democrats and Republicans Cite Science
●
206 commentsDemocrats Warn Their Party May Try To Unravel Any Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal
●
201 commentsA Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers
●
173 commentsRepublicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Allegations of Organized Bias
●
163 commentsMichael and Susan Dell Donate $6.25 Billion To Encourage Families To Claim 'Trump Accounts'
Sputnik Moment Or No, Science Fairs Are Lagging
Viacom Closes MTV Games
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Sputnik Moment Or No, Science Fairs Are Lagging
414 comments
Viacom Closes MTV Games
27comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...