Intellectual Property Law

There are currently two filings for Occupy Wall Street both of which were filed on the same day:

* Occupy Wall Street, which appears to be owned by those directly involved with the movement.
* Occupy Wall Street, which is owned by Fer-Eng Investments, LLC. "Fer-Eng Investments appears to be a shell corporation with the only officer named as ?The Ferraro-Eng Family Trust.? The names provided on the address refer to Vincent Ferraro and Wee Nah Eng. Interestingly enough, Ferraro, a Stanford Business School grad, is the former Vice-President of Worldwide Marketing for Hewlett-Packard"

Now, those affiliated with the movement filed as in-use so Fer-Eng's intent-to-use filing will likely not end well.

The two latest to jump into the trademark pool are:

OCCUPY Las Vegas
Occupy Los Angeles

The LA mark filed for "political action committee services, namely, promoting the interests of Occupy Los Angeles in the field of politics" whereas the Las Vegas mark filed for clothing.

In a Las Vegas Review Journal interview, Mary Underwood (the protester who filed the application) stated ""This way we can make the argument that they are harming our brand...This is just a bulwark against people using the term in sketchy ways."

Underwood said she doesn't intend to restrict use of the term by people from the Occupy Las Vegas site and has plans to turn over the trademark to whatever entity develops to represent Occupy LV."

I'm sure this won't be the last of the Occupy trademarks. My bet is on parody marks next.

What do you think of these filings? Is it hypocrisy, as some have opined? Or is the movement coalescing in order to protect their voice?

Full post as published by TradeMark Express: A Daily Blog on December 02, 2011 (boomark / email).