ADVERTISEMENTS

Like most people (at least I would like to think most people), I find the whole OCTOMOM story ridiculous. She has single handedly ruined the name Nadia for me ? a great name which I was going to give to my future daughter until now. I even go out of my way to avoid reading or watching any tabloid stories on Nadya Suleman just so that I won?t play a part in the media frenzy feeding into her octo-ego.

Despite my self-imposed OCTOMOM embargo, I cannot help but make a one-time exception with a link to Tamera Bennett?s ©reateP®otect blog post (which cites The Smoking Gun) about the dueling intent-to-use trademark applications for OCTOMOM pending at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? one filed by a Texas company, Super Happy Fun Fun, Inc., on March 10, 2009 covering three classes (computer games, toys, and providing online games) and the other two filed by ?Nadya Suleman AKA Octomom? on April 10, 2009 (the first for disposable diapers, dresses, pants, shirts, and textile diapers and the second for an on-going television variety program).

As Bennett notes, Super Happy?s application was filed first and will have priority before the PTO and could even serve to block Suleman?s applications. Of course, I would imagine that Suleman will try to oppose registration of Super Happy?s mark on the basis that the media coverage she has received worldwide has (sadly) made the word OCTOMOM famous as a term identifying Suleman . . . albeit in connection with services in the nature of a media harlot exploiting her eight newborns for the sake of her personal ambitions for fame.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.