Someone from Russia illegally trademarked the name and logo of the SCP Foundation website, which is licensed under Creative Commons (CC) and is using the trademark to attempt to shut down the website/community. Would that guy be considered a “trademark troll?” Also, what would be the term for violating CC licenses by illegally trademarking material licensed under such licenses, if there is one?
100.36.44.138 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have and will continue to remove the addition of Tim Langdell from this article without reliable sourcing. In any event, I note that vigorously defending your own trademark that you have and continue to operate under may be a bit excessive and give IP in general a bad name, but it is not trademark trolling as defined in this article.
Taken from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104051-Langdell-Loses-His-Edge, here's an extract of the USPTO ruling :
"Given the suspect nature of Dr. Langdell's representations to both the USPTO and the Court concerning plaintiff's current and future sales and business activities, it is an open question whether plaintiff's business activities legitimately extend beyond trolling various gaming-related industries for licensing opportunities," wrote Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court.
is that enough of a source ? 159.208.34.100 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to link to the judgment itself if someone can find that. And the key thing in this article is not to go on about Langdell, but to confirm the point that trademark trolling is essentially impossible. GDallimore (Talk) 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked COI/CIR user discussion
The cited Alsup order only ordered that the injunction be denied, the rest of it was an 'opinion' not legal findings. Even so, he only suggested "It is open to question whether plaintiff's business activities legitimately extend beyond trolling ... etc." To say there is an open question is NOT to find Langdell or EDGE are trolls. The final order in the case found no wrongdoing by Langdell, so no trolling. Trolling is wrongdoing. In the intervening decade or more, Langdell has won USPTO fights against Razer (got their EDGE mark cancelled) and Mobigame (stopped them from registering the mark EDGE). And recently won two major trademark victories in the UK and in France where it was found in both cases (even to appeals in the UK) that Langdell's EDGE has been selling games at all times with no evidence of trolling. It is outrageous that Langdell keeps being added back to this page when he was only added out of spite by supporters of Mobigame. Vertisis (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with @GDallimore -- Trademark trolling is essentially impossible. Unlike a patent troll, a trademark troll would need to own a trademark registration, make no use of it, and then try to get money from others using the mark. You can't do that with trademarks since if you get a registration and yet aren't using the mark then it is easy for the other party to get your mark cancelled for nonuse. In the case of Langdell, he has won trademark case after trademark case in the US, UK and France and those wins would not have been granted to him if he were a troll not using the marks he owns. Vertisis (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for hard cites:
UK PTO win shows Langdell using his mark at all times (so clearly not a troll -- remember this page is viewable by all territories worldwide not just the US)
the other party to get your mark cancelled for nonuse which is exactly what happened to Langdell, as supported by the cite the IP editor gave above. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie What do you mean "which is exactly what happened to Langdell"? None of EDGE's (Langdell's) marks have ever been cancelled for nonuse. On the contrary, EDGE's marks have repeatedly been affirmed as valid and in use as in the failed attempts to cancel Langdell's marks in the UK and France based on nonuse. If you are referring to the Alsup decision, then the final order by Alsup states EDGE wins on the head of claim where EA tried to say EDGE had abandoned its marks through nonuse. So EDGE literally WON on that head of claim, leaving all of its common law rights in place and clarifying the marks were not being cancelled either through nonuse, or through fraud on the PTO. Perhaps like others you have misunderstood the final order in the Alsup case -- which I repeat was never heard on the merit anyway so no 'decision' or finding in it can be given any real weight. Vertisis (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were cancelled by a voluntary surrender. Remember, as a stipulated judgment it was Langdell who wrote the final court order, not the court (not Alsup). And Langdell made sure that the voluntary cancellation was not misunderstood to be a cancellation based on any reason to cancel the marks. That is why the Alsup order (which he agreed to sign but did not write) is on condition the EDGE marks were not considered obtained illigitimately (no wrongdoing) and not considered abandoned by nonuse (which is why EA's head of claim that EDGE had abandoned its use of EDGE was ruled in EDGE's favor by Alsup, not EA's). Vertisis (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Langdell arranged that he get registration of EDGE GAMES before the cancellation of the other marks to ensure there was continuity of EDGE owning US trademark registrations from 1994 to the current day. He didn't lose all his US marks and he didnt lose any of his UK, France, German or EU marks. So don't misread the Alsup decision as saying something it didnt -- EDGE actually won about 50% of the case with EA, that is why it was as settlement rather than an actual court decision after a trial. Vertisis (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without a difference. At the end of the suit he didn't have the marks any more. Reading the writing on the wall and making a face-saving settlement didn't change anything. Well, I suppose it made it less likely the judge would refer the matter for criminal investigation. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the final ruling had the judge reversing his decision and finding Langdell had not committed any wrongdoing, there really wasn't any chance of him referring for criminal investigation was there? And before you remind me that I said Langdell wrote the final order, not Judge Alsup, that's true but Alsup had to approve the final order (which he did). So Alsup totally reversed himself in the final order and Langdell was found innocent.
To say the marks were cancelled so its a distinction without a difference is to totally misunderstand trademark law (at least in the US and UK). In the US what matters is common law rights, not trademark registrations. So the fact the final order by Alsup specifically kept all Langdell's common law rights in place (which EDGE's win on that head of claim showed), means that cancelling those few trademark registrations had no negative impact on Langdell's rights at all. Owning a trademark is not important, it is whether you have common law rights and the final order determined EDGE (Langdell) still has all its common law rights. Also, they were only a small number of Langdell's trademarks, he kept all the rest in the US, UK, France, Germany and EU. He was also permitted by EA to register the mark EDGE GAMES before the other marks were cancelled so that his main mark remained registered right from 1994 to the current day.
So by your own logic he wasn't found to be a trademark troll. Yet the secondary sources you cite mistakenly say he was found to be a troll. He was never found to be a troll and he is not seen as a troll in the public eye. A couple of cites where that word is mentioned does not rise to the level of an opinion in the public eye. Vertisis (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@X201: Spill over from Talk:Edge Games. Clearly though, the reliable secondary sourcing as well as the court document support the label. The article itself already denotes that the label itself applies a misunderstanding of trademark law. But it is undeniable that reliable secondary sourcing, as well as the court, have referred to Langdell's actions as trolling and being a trademark troll. -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again literally no one in any court or in any trademark office has ever found Langdell to be a "troll". On the contrary, there are now several trademark decisions (Federal Court 2008, Trademark offices 2020, 2022 and 2023) that have repeatedly ruled that Langdell is not a troll since he genuinely owns his marks (which by definition a troll does not). Also no one has ever shown that Langdell ever asked anyone for money, so the label of troll fails on that count too. Vertisis (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the 2010 case before Alsup was never heard on the merits. EDGE/Langdell never got to a point where they were permitted to present any evidence to the court. By contrast the recent UK and French cases were heard on the merits and found Langdell is not a troll. Also the 2008 case of Velocity Micro v. Edge Games had a final order to be deemed heard on the merits and found in EDGE's favor on all counts including that Langdell had not committed fraud obtaining any mark, none of his marks were abandoned through nonuse (EDGE's use of its marks was confirmed), and Velocity was found to have been passing off on EDGE. The 2008 court ruling overrules the 2010 comments by Alsup since Alsup had no standing to reconsider the same claims against Langdell:
In all cases actually heard on the merits, Langdell has been ruled to have acted professionally and never to have acted as a troll. There is also no evidence he or EDGE ever asked anyone for money. Vertisis (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that you keep referring to Tim Langdell as "he"/"Langdell" when there's a very likely chance you are, in fact, Langdell. I mean, come on, who else would defend a company that made... checks notes ...two Garfield games, obscure ports of other games and a bunch of clones? LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)19:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 court ruling overrules the 2010 comments Do you know how time works? A 2008 ruling literally cannot overrule a 2010 ruling. It is VERY CLEAR, that the marks were cancelled by court order. You understand that the links you keep supplying even point this out, don't you? The side bar lists the marks in question and their serials, and denotes them as cancelled, including that the appeal to revive them was denied. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you put Langdell back on this page when I have given you proof that the US, UK and French trademark offices have all given decisions that he is not a troll. That is outrageous.
And with respect it is you who do not understand how court decisions work. Look up stare decisis which means that the 2008 decision in favor of Langdell cannot then be overturned by another court of the same level (here Federal Court). Thus the 2010 Alsup opinion is void on its face since he had no standing to go behind the already established 2008 order. Further, yet again, the 2008 decision that Langdell is not a troll was heard on the merits, whereas the 2010 opinion (only a maybe, not a definite decision) by Alsup was not litigated on the merits. It is another basic rule of court decisions that orders based on litigation on the merits trump any decision or order from a court where there was no full litigation on the merits. Consult an attorney/solicitor if you are unclear on this Ferret Vertisis (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the 2010 court order was not written by Alsup? It was written by Langdell himself since it was a "stipulated judgment" which is always authored by the parties, not the court. Do you really think Langdell would have written a court order to cancel a handful of his trademarks (leaving all his main marks still in place) if he didn't also make sure that the cancellation was not on any basis that the marks were improperly obtained or abandoned through nonuse? Again, read the Alsup order properly and bear in mind it was authored by Langdell himself not the court. Vertisis (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Links to trademark office pages do not support the claims you are making here per WP:NOR we cannot make the changes you are demanding based on these sources. Ditto for your personal interpretations of the validity of court decisions. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a cite of a 2008 Federal Court Decision that Langdell is not a troll, and three trademark office decisions (including a high level appeal that is at the same level as a High Court Decision in the UK), all of which say Langdell is not a troll (in that all of them prove he has used his marks at all times). And on your side you have a single 'opinion' by a judge who does not say Langdell is a troll but merely says it is open to question whether he is. And you deny all of the court and trademark decisions while upholding leaving the defamatory malicious statement on this page based on an 'opinion'?? How do you defend that? Your Alsup opinion has less credence that the 2008 Federal Court order, or any of the UK and French trademark decisions. I am not giving my person opinion on validity of court decisions, they are well established facts about court decisions. Again, do your research please. Vertisis (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those cites actually say what you are claiming they say. Also, if you use legalistic words like 'defamatory' or 'malicious statement' on Wikipedia again I'll refer this to the admin boards, and given the history of this subject and your apparent COI I have no doubt you will be blocked for making legal threats per WP:NLT. MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or put another way @MrOllie, how can you argue the Alsup opinion (which only speculates about Langdell being a troll) is NOR, whereas you are arguing the final Alsup Order that does not find Langdell is a troll is OR, and the 2008 Federal Court order is OR? And the UK and French decisions are OR? You could at least pretend to be applying the rules even handedly. You won't allow in the final order by Alsup or the 2008 Court order or the UK and French decisions all of which show Langdell clearly is not a troll, but you want to insist your cite -- a mere 'court opinion' that doesn't find his is a troll -- is permitted? This is an outrageous abuse of Wikipedia to advance your own agenda to attack EDGE and Langdell. Vertisis (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice strawman you're making there, but misstating my argument and then attacking your misstatements isn't going to help you get the article changed. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How am I misstating your argument? Langdell has been put back in with a cite that has no more standing than the 2008 Court decision or the UK and French trademark decisions, and the cite doesnt say Langdell is a troll it merely speculates that he might be (if the case against him were ever actually heard). Well, it was heard, in 2008. 2020, 2022 and 2023, and in all instances the ruling was he isnt a troll. So how am I misstating your argument? Vertisis (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now some other unreliable sources have been added in where writers have maliciously falsely stated Langdell has been found to be a troll when in fact now court or tribunal (not even Alsup) ever found him to be a troll. To say that I cannot edit it to present the correct view that the 2008 Federal Court order and at least three recent trademark office rulings all prove he has never been a troll, is an abuse of Wikipedia.
If you are going to refuse to delete the reference to Langdell when there is zero evidence he is a troll and a mountain of evidence that he is not a troll, then for now these comments in talk will have to stand as how incredibly unfair the Wikipedia editing process is. Vertisis (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a vast misunderstanding here. We don't need anyone to "rule" that he is a trademark troll. A trademark troll is not a legal term. We need to source that Langdell's activities have been viewed by reliable secondary sources as trolling, and that he has been referred to as a trademark troll in media and elsewhere. That's all. This is not a court of law, nothing about the concept of "trademark troll" deals with legalities or a trial. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So based on someone speculating he is a troll you put on a public website (Wikipedia) that he is a troll, which then gets repeated by people as if it is truth, when you know it is not remotely true. And we know this since he has been ruled not to be a troll by the US courts, and the US, UK and French trademark offices.
How do you justify vilifying Langdell for something you know he hasn't done just because some irresponsible people suggest he might be a troll?
Again, even the Alsop cite doesn't say he is a troll, he just said it might be the case. Then the other sources you site mistakenly translate that as he is a troll. At the very least there should be a balance where the fact he has been proven not to be a troll should at least be mentioned. It is utterly irresponsible to have it as it is. A knowing false statement about someone.
No reliable secondary source actually views what Langdell has done is trolling -- since it is a simple fact that he has used his marks at all times (and courts have ruled he has) and he has never asked anyone for money. So he doesn't come close to qualifying as a 'troll'. The fact a few sources misstate his activities and then having misstated what he has or has not done then falsely says it seems like trolling, is not a basis to add his name to this page.
he has been proven not to be a troll That hasn't been proven, though. The sources you keep attempting to cite on this don't say that. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. The sources find that Langdell's EDGE Games used its trademarks continually from 1994 to the day the judgment was entered (2008, 2020, 2022 and 2023). His company having been found to have continuously used its marks for around 40 years (and thus the attempts to cancel his trademarks failed) means that by definition he does not qualify to be considered a 'trademark troll' by any intelligent person. A trademark troll, BY DEFINITION, would have to be ruled against with their registration cancelled for nonuse. Unless that happens the trademark holder is clearly not a troll. The decisions don't need to say "Thus, Langdell is not a troll" since the finding he has used his marks at all times means he does not qualify to be called a troll.
The decisions don't need to say "Thus, Langdell is not a troll" Actually, they do. See WP:NOR. That is the core Wikipedia policy you don't seem to understand. You can debate about what things should be BY DEFINITION all you like, but it won't get the article changed because we go by what our sources actually say directly. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect that is an absurd reference to Wikipedia policy. What you are saying is that is SoAndSo is accused of murder by 5 secondary sources, but 3 court rulings says he hasnt ever killed anyone or been found guilty of killing anyone, then just because the court order didnt say the words "he didnt murder anyone" you think Wikipedia policy says you can leave up the clearly false and defamatory statement that SoAndSo is a murderer?
Come on, we know that isn't Wikipedia policy. Implementing what is or is not appropriate to include in a page requires using some intellect. If someone has been proven to have used their trademark at all times for 40 years and the definition of a troll is someone who owns a trademark registration but doesnt use the mark, then obviously the trademark owner in question does not qualify to be considered as a trademark troll. That's simple logic, simple application of minimum intelligence.
To refuse to remove the false accusation because the court and tribunal rulings don't specifically say "Langdell is not a troll" makes no sense. That is not Wikipedia policy Vertisis (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the rulings all confirmed his EDGE Games company has used its trademarks at all times since 1984 (not 1994) to the present day.
Thus he doesn't qualify to be considered as a 'trademark troll' no matter what irresponsible secondary sources might opine, or even what a judge might opine. Vertisis (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, if a 'trademark troll' repeatedly wins cases that prove he owns the mark and uses it, then by definition he is not a troll. He may be an annoying person, but he is not a troll. By definition a troll cannot win a case -- if he wins a case by definition he cant be a troll. Vertisis (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to my prior point: your logic is that if a 'murderer' wins a court case saying he has never killed anyone, you can still call him a murderer because even murderer's sometimes win cases that rule they never killed anyone?? Please be reasonable. That is totally illogical as is your lack of justification for keeping Langdell on this page Vertisis (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still failing to understand that "troll" is not a legal term and not something decided by courts. It's something decided by the public eye. The secondary sources have consistently referred to him as such. This is simply how Wikipedia works, we report what is covered in secondary sources that we deem reliable (And a spoiler before you claim otherwise again, all of these sources are ones that Wikipedia has broad consensus to be reliable) and the refusal to take that to heart and understand it is a WP:CIR issue. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, what you are saying is a strawman.
What the entry has now been changed to is OUTRAGEOUS since it does not agree with any of the cites. The Court in the EA case did not find what the page now says it found. Instead the judge said "it is an open question whether plaintiff's business activities legitimately extend beyond trolling" -- it is OPEN TO QUESTION, not a finding, just a mere speculation. But this has been changed to factual 'finding' in the current edit.
I say your response is a strawman because you have defined 'trademark troll' as not a legal term but as something decided in the public eye. Then having defined the term thus you then say it does not have to be checked by anyone for truth of accusation, there mere fact someone says it in the public eye suffices to list the person as guilty of the term.
No, it is not decided in the public eye, there is still an onus on the editor of a page per Wikipedia guidelines to at least check if the assertion is true. It is a derogatory term that may be accurately used or it may be used inaccurately (hence defamation). There needs to be at least a basic check of whether the term was used in a defamatory way (said about someone where there is no proof to support to assertion). If so, then that person's name should not be listed OR if it is listed then there should be a statement that despite such public statements there is no evidence of actual trolling.
So I ask you to answer this (and please do not say it is irrelevant since it is crucial to proper editing of a page like this):
1. Is there ANY evidence whatsoever that Langdell ever acted as a 'trademark troll'?
2. To be clear, can you name even ONE instance where he owned a registered trademark which he was not using in commerce anywhere in the world and which he threatened to sue someone else using that mark to get them to pay him money?
Langdell has repeatedly stated under oath for 14 years that this never happened.
If you can name even ONE such example then you may be justified in adding his name to this list. But the fact is -- as much as you dismiss court decisions etc -- trademark tribunals and courts in the US and Europe have all found he has genuine ownership of his marks, has been using them at all times, and HAS NEVER SUED ANYONE ASKING THEM FOR MONEY. And before you misspeak, no there is no evidence he ever asked EA or Mobigame for money or threatened to sue them if they didn't pay him. Suing EA for passing off is not trolling it is standard trademark law practice that all companies do.
If you cannot name even ONE example of his clearly and unambiguously acted as a troll (as defined, not as used colloquially) then remove his name. It would be an outrage not to Vertisis (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
