Fark Seeks to Trademark NSFW

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The term NSFW is about to join the :( emoticon, going from a generic, oft-used internet abbreviation, to one company's exclusive trademark. Fark is seeking a trademark on the use of NSFW to describe naughty online content. Of course, they may face a bit of a battle because more than a few other people are already using the term NSFW to describe their products and services. Not that that's stopped anyone in the past." And, of course, the whole thing could be a big practical joke.

Hello?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Guess nobody clicked on the story cause it's marked NSFW! :)

Re:Hello?

[77Punker (673758)]

I don't have a job, you insensitive clod!

Re:Hello?

[jonpublic (676412)]

They should try to trademark the Florida tag.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski (3773)]

The cost to file a trademark is like $25.

Oops. Look like you mistyped that. The cost to file for a federal trademark is $275 (or more, depending on the details).

You can see the PTO's current fee schedule here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007september30.htm [uspto.gov]

You've got it all wrong!

[DeeQ (1194763)]

The term NSFW is about to join the :( emoticon

NSFW is :)

Re:

[Cornelius the Great (555189)]

Technically, it's :-( that's trademarked, not :(

And both trademarks appear to be jokes. Despair, Inc does use the trademark as their logo (although it was Scott Fahlman [wikipedia.org] who first used it in 1982). I don't think prior art works for trademarks.

IANAL, but I'm dating one ;-)

Re:You've got it all wrong!

[Anne_Nonymous (313852)]

>> IANAL, but I'm dating one ;-)

I<3ANAL should be your bumper sticker.

Re:You've got it all wrong!

[Alzheimers (467217)]

NSFW is (.)(.) and 3==D

Even if it is a joke...

[Bones3D_mac (324952)]

... wouldn't Fark want to at least consider seriously doing it before someone else manages it. This could really come back to bite Fark in the ass now that they've opened the pandora's box on the topic by bringing it up.

Re:Even if it is a joke...

[VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719)]

As a regular Farker, I think it's safe to assume that there's no malicious intent behind this. Seriously, read the linked blog entry:

About the NSFW Trademark Application, I can say three things:

1) Yes, we applied for it.

2) Can't comment on the prank angle other than "stay tuned."

3) Muhahaha.

Does that sound remotely serious to you?

One of two things will happen. One: the trademark is granted, Drew gets some laughs, lawsuits, and the TM gets taken away. Or two: the trademark is denied from the beginning. Either way, this TM is not going to hold up for obvious reasons already cited in the summary.

I don't think this is opening up any sort of Pandora's box. With or without this development, trolls will TM random shit regardless. We just have to hope that the system corrects itself -- which, in general, it has.

Re:Even if it is a joke...

[EMCEngineer (1155139)]

I think everyone missed the point of this, and Slashdot fell right into it. The more page hits Drew Curtis gets, the more money he makes. So he has now created a stupid practical joke that is guaranteed to get dozens, if not hundreds, of websites to mention fark.com over and over and over.

Then, he calmly dismisses it as a joke, while raking in profit.

The stupid thing about this is how a few months ago fark went from being fairly open about NSFW imagery, to banning anyone that links to or posts it. Apparently they can make more money by being family(or workplace) friendly.

Re:Even if it is a joke...

[RyoShin (610051)]

The stupid thing about this is how a few months ago fark went from being fairly open about NSFW imagery, to banning anyone that links to or posts it. Apparently they can make more money by being family(or workplace) friendly.

I'm sorry, but: what?

I've been a member of Fark for quite a few years now (five digit ID, aw yeah), and they have always been against the NSFW postings. You could never post actual NSFW images in the discussion forums, even for discussions of a NSFW link. You could link to stuff, but only if you had large notices that the link was NSFW. If something is questionable, they remove it anyway.

Even on the TotalFarker side (who are the only ones that can comment on Boobies links now) you can't post anything like that. Images are auto-disabled for "Adult content" links, too.

Drew has generally tried to keep Fark a place that could be browsed at work, uncaught by language and porn filters. This isn't new. They may have cracked down on porn links recently, but everything else is old hat.

Re:Even if it is a joke...

[pecosdave (536896)]

Must remember to not click on anything from RugbyJock.

Re:

[Billosaur (927319)]

Does that sound remotely serious to you?

No... it sounds juvenile, puerile, and self-serving. The only thing that would make it worse is if the trademark is actually granted. Really, is this what you have to do to get people to notice you. If he's really hot for attention, walk through town in a purple plaid suit with neon orange tie, but leave the internet community out of it.

Re:Even if it is a joke...

[gclef (96311)]

it sounds juvenile, puerile, and self-serving.

In other words, totally normal for fark.

Re:

[dissy (172727)]

No... it sounds juvenile, puerile, and self-serving. The only thing that would make it worse is if the trademark is actually granted. Really, is this what you have to do to get people to notice you. If he's really hot for attention, walk through town in a purple plaid suit with neon orange tie, but leave the internet community out of it.

But if he did that, how would he make money? Right now all this attention is pulling in banner ad impressions and such.
Unless one could find a company willing to pay you to walk through town in a purple plaid suit with neon orange tie, that would be really stupid for someone to do (Or atleast really pointless), while what he is doing now (making money) sounds really smart.

Re:

[neoform (551705)]

So it's ok cause Curtis is being juvenile and 'funny'?

This is patent trolling 100%. Fark didn't invent NSFW and could easily try to extort money if they're granted this trademark.

I'm not sure why anyone's taking fark's side on this one..

Re:

[Whammy666 (589169)]

Fark is a pathetic shell of what it used to be. Drew has really screwed up the site as compared to its glory days. I think this is another attempt at attention whoring to get people to come back to his site. It's not going to work. Fuck Drew. He'll get over it.

Re:

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

>Drew gets some laughs, lawsuits, and the TM gets taken away

Abuse of the legal and patent system == hilarious? Are you going to read a 200 page deposition and chuckle all the way through? Yeah I dont think so.

After Drew's disastrous book about the media being unquestioning idiots while his own site was doing its best to support bush's iraq adverentures/WMD and calling global warming a myth up until very recently, well, we're looking at another failure by this small loud-mouth businessman.

If this was trul

Re:

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

Drew Curtis is a moron.

You misspelled moran.

Re:

[jcnnghm (538570)]

I wouldn't call him a moron. This story has been picked up all over the internet. For $385 (the cost to file a trademark application), I don't know that it is possible to get much more promotion.

If they can do it

[techpawn (969834)]

we should trademark IANAL... IMHO...

Re:

[AvitarX (172628)]

I'm going to trademark "Florida". That way Drew will have to cross license with me to get most of his crazy news stories.

Re:If they can do it

[Alzheimers (467217)]

only if we can trademark IORAL too...
No, Apple already trolled the iOral for their sex toy

Then Apple has probably already trademarked iAnal, too.

Re:

[techpawn (969834)]

only if we can trademark IORAL too...
No, Apple already trolled the iOral for their sex toy
Then Apple has probably already trademarked iAnal, too.

I knew this trademark thing was going to be a pain in the arse somehow...

NSFW

[olm911 (889429)]

Go to Fark and read about it. It is just a joke.

Re:

[PastaLover (704500)]

Which anyone even remotely familiar with fark knew when they read the headline. I think this poster in the linked fark blog got my sentiments just right: "I can't believe how many people in the blogosphere are falling for it."

WWJD?

[rodney dill (631059)]

Trademark WWJD, apparently

In relatiation

[oahazmatt (868057)]

In retaliation, CmdrTaco has filed a trademark for "slashies"

/ sorry
// had to do it

Y'all don't understand trademark law.

[CygnusTX (1174717)]

First off, the original post is wrong. The guy is not trying to trademark NSFW to describe naughty online content. The application is for the provision of entertainment services. To complain about this application is very much like complaining about someone trying to trademark the word "Apple" for computers and electronics. Oh my, but who would do that? If the application is registered, it would not take NSFW out of the public domain of posts and the like. It will just prevent the COMMERCIAL use of NSFW for the provision of entertainment services. So, if one of you wanted to use NSFW to sell, say, a cologne, you still could. And you could prevent others from doing so by registering the trademark.

Re:

[jthill (303417)]

"Apple" isn't a descriptive acronym.

Trademark applications

[ebcdic (39948)]

... are the new press releases. How easily you are all trolled.

You think it's a joke?

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

Sure, and it was all fun and games until "The Daily WTF" [worsethanfailure.com] was forced to rename by the World Trade Federation.

Re:

[Bones3D_mac (324952)]

That kind of reminds me iof the big World Wrestling Federation vs World Wildlife Fund case over the "WWF" moniker. (Which I personally thought was ridiculous considering just about anyone at the time would have associated the term with wrestling before animal conservation.)

Eventually, the World Wrestling Federation changed their to name to World Wrestling Entertainment using the current "WWE" moniker, but included the tagline "Get the F out!" for several months following the ruling.

Re:

[mikael_j (106439)]

(Which I personally thought was ridiculous considering just about anyone at the time would have associated the term with wrestling before animal conservation.)

American I take it? I always associated it with the World Wildlife Fund as the World Wrestling Federation was just some crap the cable networks would broadcast in the middle of the night because they could get it for cheap...

/Mikael

It's OK if they get it

[RailGunner (554645)]

Drew will license it for beer. No worries.

The dangers of NSFW!

[HeliosTrick (825325)]

A friend told me that NSFW stood for "Now Show Friends and Workmates"... I'm now unemployed :(

Well played sir

[Loosifur (954968)]

I think this may be the finest job of trolling I've ever seen, as illustrated by the length and quality of this thread. Sometimes I just wake up filled with gratitude that I live in such exciting times. /obligatory //tribute ///slashies

They couldn't anyway

[Loki_1929 (550940)]

They couldn't get the trademark for something they didn't invent. NSFW is a 4chan thing. Mootles would undoubtedly have evidence of significant prior art somewhere in his sperm-soaked basement apartment of his parents' tiny shack.

until this story

[mikesd81 (518581)]

I never knew what NSFW was abbreviation for.

Re:

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

Slashdot's coolness is based upon the users.
The fact that its freshness jumped the shark right around the first MicroSoft ad, while indeed tragic, is also peripheral.
Can't fault CdrTaco & Co. for making a buck--slashdot is not a vow of poverty, after all, but if the site is uncool, that's our problem.

Re:

[Megaweapon (25185)]

Can't fault CdrTaco & Co. for making a buck

I don't fault either CmdrTaco nor Drew Curtis for trying to "make a buck". It's the method of doing so. If Slashdot tries to think of itself as a bastion of "open source" while running ads for Microsoft or Fark reeling back on it's past of "boobies and beer" by shadowbanning users that post non-moderator approved cleavage (despite the near NSFW ads they sometimes run) the sellout factor becomes apparent.

Re:

[jafiwam (310805)]

Well Drew did get the "ass ads" (seriously, naked man's ass) pulled because people bitched about it.

I think there's details in the blog entry, and either the ad network got dropped or threatened to be dropped.

I never saw it though, I block all ads from both Slashdot and Fark. (Pretty much everywhere else too.) It's my internet, you all can get the fark off of it or figure something else out to make money. My eyeballs belong to the hotties at the bar I frequent.

Re:

[Megaweapon (25185)]

The slashdot audience might be largely pro-open source, which indeed may render your statement true. I am not sure you can apply that same label to slashdot itself as a corporate entity.

Today Slashdot is owned by SourceForge, Inc., but it is still run by many of the same people as it was 'Back in the Day'. [slashdot.org]

Combining user-developed content, online marketplaces and e-commerce, SourceForge is the global technology community's nexus for information exchange, goods for geeks, and open source software distributio [sourceforge.com]

Re:

[Bones3D_mac (324952)]

Fark kinda started losing its "coolness" factor once they started banning people for linking to legitimate news sources that carried video clips of the Saddam Hussein execution. Hell, they even told me they'd ban anyone that posted links to any site with video clips covering significant historical events, such as the controversial Zapruder "JFK assassination" film.

Re:

[jtfryman (1059608)]

Now that is recursion at its finest.... Imagine a superscript TM with a smaller superscript TM above it, trailing off into the nether regions of unprintability...

Re:Truer words were never spoken

[glindsey (73730)]

Seriously speaking, I'm betting Drew just wanted to see how many news outfits he could get to carry such a ridiculous story, and how much of an overreaction and outrage said coverage would generate in the blogosphere. An effective publicity stunt, really, considering the recent publication of his book [amazon.com] and its subject matter.

Wait a minute... whenever other companies attempt to patent/trademark/copyright something stupid, Slashdot jumps right on it, and rightly so because it's a stupid move. We freak out about patent trolls and people trying to copyright emoticons. If Fark really were honestly trying to trademark "NSFW," why would it be ridiculous or overreacting for everybody to point out how broken the system is, and how much respect Fark has lost for pulling such an ass move?

Are we saying that abuses of the copyright, trademark, and patent systems are not newsworthy now? If this is a joke, then more power to them, but I see no reason why those sorts of things shouldn't evoke outrage.

Re:Truer words were never spoken

[kent_eh (543303)]

If this application actually gets approved, I'm guessing that Drew will be the first to point out the system is sooo broken that anyone can register pretty much anything.

And the rest of the Farkers will post hundreds of variations of "pOwned" or the Nelson "Ha Ha" picture [wordpress.com]

Drew is just pointing out that the emperor really has no pants, and poking fun at the fact.
SOP at Fark.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

In any case, the "imaginary property" is just a slogan, not an actual argument or principled stand. As I have argued many times before.

IP *rights* and physical property *rights* are both intangible.

The *referents* of both IP and physical property rights are both tangible. (i.e. even IP restricts your use of *tangible* things, even if it is metaphorically phrased as use of an intangible idea)

Re:

[rodney dill (631059)]

Though the National Weather Service may be a little miffed about it.