Azraella
2nd November 2011, 17:46
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_trademark/index.htm
This is pissing me off. For OWS to hold a trademark it must be a legal person. Or, if OWS is not a legal person, the trademark is actually owned joint and several among the "officers" of OWS, i.e. privately owned rather than belonging to the movement itself.*
Either way, the existence of a trademark will likely require an eventual legal determination of the leaders and officers of the supposedly leaderless movement to determine who can legitimately control disposition of the trademark, and possibly even membership requirements.
* Before someone starts in, I realize that unincorporated associations and IP law are far more complex than that and this may not be accurate. I'm just laying out the catch-22 appearance of the situation, not making a legal argument.
This is pissing me off. For OWS to hold a trademark it must be a legal person. Or, if OWS is not a legal person, the trademark is actually owned joint and several among the "officers" of OWS, i.e. privately owned rather than belonging to the movement itself.*
Either way, the existence of a trademark will likely require an eventual legal determination of the leaders and officers of the supposedly leaderless movement to determine who can legitimately control disposition of the trademark, and possibly even membership requirements.
* Before someone starts in, I realize that unincorporated associations and IP law are far more complex than that and this may not be accurate. I'm just laying out the catch-22 appearance of the situation, not making a legal argument.