So yesterday I got a weird letter from The Freecycle Network, the stodgy heads of the org that owns the trademark to freecycle, which I lauded here. Not only did they gently chide me for writing freecycle instead of Freecycleâ„¢, they also let me know that writing “freecycler” is unacceptable:
The appropriate usage would be to say “Freecycle member”…. Another common mistake is to use the mark as a verb as in “freecycling” or “to freecycle” as opposed to the correct usage: “posting and item to the local Freecycle group.”
WTF?
I can sort of understand why TFN got trademarked — That in itself is not a problem for me. I can even understand why TFN might want to prevent non-TFN affiliated groups from using freecycle in their names, since it’s possible that these rogue groups may bend and change the rules that freecyclers expect (i.e. I suppose a rogue group could try to charge a membership fee or something, taking advantage of would-be freecyclers who don’t know that freecycling should be free).
What I don’t understand is the motivation behind TFN’s insistence that freecycle only be written as Freecycleâ„¢, and its efforts to prevent variations on the common usage of the word freecycle (freecycler, freecycling, etc.). What does TFN gain from trying to prevent freecycle from entering the popular lexicon? What does it gain from sending idiotic letters to people like me who’ve so far only said nice things about freecycle?
I’m not even angry at TFN; their claims are so ridic that I can’t take them seriously. Simply, I’m just puzzled. Seriously — what’s the motivation here? As far as I can tell, this effort only means wasted time and money.
I mean, even Starbucks — which is all about taking all manner of businesses to court over trademark issues — doesn’t send ominous letters to bloggers demanding them to only refer to the coffee chain as Starbucks® Coffee Company. They don’t even raise an eyebrow when I forget to capitalize starbucks.
Apparently, Grist got a similar letter a while back, to which David at Grist replied sarcastically: “Grist can’t wait to provide you more freeâ„¢ coverage as you expand your establishment while staying close — so close — to the grassrootsâ„¢.
Since, TFN has even tried to get Grist to remove negative comments about TFN, claiming that they’re illegal. The court injunction that could have lent some weight to TFN’s stance was stayed by the Ninth Circuit, so as of now, we’re legally “allowed” to say negative things about TFN. I mean, the first amendment still stands, yes?
Somewhat relatedly: Maybe one day greenLAgirling and greenLAgirled and greenLAgirler will enter common usage?
Below’s the letter from TFN in its entirety.
___
Dear Green LA Girl, Siel
RE: Green LA girl’s BLOG: The nuts and bolts of freecycling, October 1, 2005
We are extremely appreciative of your past coverage of The Freecycle Network(TM) and its phenomenal growth as a nonprofit organization and as a grassroots recycling and gifting network. Thank you. We shall certainly continue to strive to further reach out to the public about this wonderful effort by thousands of volunteers worldwide.
We are, however, also making a concerted effort to reach out to all media that have run a story on Freecycle(TM) in order to educate them as to the appropriate usage of the trademark-protected term “Freecycle.” As you can imagine, protecting such name as a small nonprofit is no mean feat. In order to maintain the concept of one which stands solely for the integrity of a nonprofit public commons we must keep the mark from becoming merely descriptive or generic.
For this reason I include below a link to our site’s trademark section which walks you through examples of appropriate vs. inappropriate use of the mark. This information can be found here: Freecycle(TM) Trademark and Copyright Policy.
Further, we have a contact email address for any trademark questions which you may have at: trademark@freecycle.org.
Common misuses include adapting the mark as a noun such as the phrase “freecycler.” The appropriate usage would be to say “Freecycle member” (note also the use of capitalization of the mark). The first use of the phrase should be followed by a superscript TM. If you use the total organizational name, it is appropriate to add the superscript TM after the entire name: “The Freecycle Network(TM).” Another common mistake is to use the mark as a verb as in “freecycling” or “to freecycle” as opposed to the correct usage: “posting and item to the local Freecycle group.” For further detailed appropriate usage tips, please reference The Freecycle Network’s Web site noted above.
Thank you again for your wonderful coverage. You may be interested to know that we will be launching an entirely new Web site in the coming six months which shall be free from Yahoo groups and provide a new and wonderful home to the now 1.5 million Freecycle members in over 50 countries! Stay tuned.
Sincerely,
Media relations
Freecycle.org
press@freecycle.org
Good gravy, that is ridiculous. Shame on them for besmirching the good name of Freecycling (I too am okay with the efforts to keep it a proper noun, ergo trademark). And I’ve been Freecycling things since 2003, if memory serves. Shame, shame.
Comment by meg — January 15, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
tradmark dilution is pretty serious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution
basically when a brand/mark becomes a mainstream term, the trademark can be lost by the holders of the trademark. for example, “Zipper” used to be a trademark for it’s product. but widespread use of the term zipper made the company lose it’s name and competitors were able to use it for their zippers.
its also the same reason why you’ll never see in a published book or medium something like “I’ll make you a Xerox.”
Comment by Jane — January 15, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Can you say Micromanage and anal-retentive? Geez, they should be just be happy that Freecycylers are Freecycling!
Comment by Lisa — January 15, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Jane’s spot on about this. It’s not a question of being anal retentive, it’s a matter of protecting their trademark. Trademark law is perhaps the weirdest part of IP law. Unlike patents and copyrights, trademarks don’t have a built-in expiration date, so a trademark is theoretically forever. But the trade-off is that if the mark holder doesn’t protect their trademark by doing things like they did in this letter, then they can lose their trademark. It’s weird, but that’s how things work sometimes.
Comment by don hosek — January 15, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Wow, I’d just tell them to Shove OffTM.
Comment by Jasmin — January 15, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
My dad used to work at a newspaper in the ’50s and every year they would receive a very well-written letter that everyone enjoyed reading. It was Cola-Cola’s do’s and don’t of using their trademark in print.
Comment by Andy — January 15, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
control freaks…they ruin their own good thing…have seen it with other “good” things in the past…freecycle, freecycler. we can do the same thing in our neighborhoods, communities, cities without freecycle, freecycler, etc…
Comment by EcoLarry — January 15, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
and the green living movement doesn’t need more ’stodgy heads!’ Well said, Siel!
Comment by EcoLarry — January 15, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
I’m astonished at all the haters here. Seriously. What’s the point? This is trademark law 101 and running a business. Google has the same problems with people saying, “Just google it.” If they allow that type of common usage, the trademark becomes generic and anyone can use the word google. Anyone. Competitors. Crappy competitors. Good competitors. Unrelated competitors. This can destroy a business.
So, you have this letter that thanks you for your coverage, but politely says, “Hey, we gotta tell you how to use our trademark or we’ll lose it and we can’t keep doing business with it,” and you get pissed? It seems like you’re cheering for a good company to lose it’s name, which happens to be creative and a competitive advantage. It’s things like this that make it tough for small companies to survive. I would have expected a more thorough approach to this one, especially from such sophisticated readers and writers.
Comment by Preston — January 16, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Preston, you cannot determine what will or will not fall into popular usage. It’s this little thing we call free will. Should Freecycle police every e-mail or spoken conversation next? Because with this letter to Siel, they’re not just targeting blogs, but *personal* blogs. Whither freedom of speech?
Comment by Jasmin — January 16, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Jasmine, I understand the point on free speech, but it’s not relevant. Free speech is not an issue here because the company isn’t telling you to stop talking, they’re just telling you to refer to their company properly.
For the company, this isn’t an invasion issue and they’re not going to find everyone out there that’s mis-using their company name. This is a common due diligence item, and it’s rather hilarious that people get so hot and bothered because a company told them to attribute properly when mentioning their company name. Think about it this way: if the company didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be mentioning their name. It’s called intellectual property, and a trademark is a property right that people can own. Free speech doesn’t destroy that. If you invoke their property rights by talking about the company, you ought to do it correctly. That’s the point.
Have you ever thought that by improperly using (misappropriating) their trademark, you could be interfering with their business? That’s really the issue here. And my point is that green activists, who are people that care about the world around them, should be cognizant of this perspective.
Comment by Preston — January 16, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Preston — I think you’re missing a couple key things here: Freecycle is not a for-profit company like google. It’s officially registered as a nonprofit; many users of the service consider it a grassroots movement, as opposed to an official “entity” of some sort.
‘Sides — “Googling” and “googled” have already become words, pretty much — and I don’t hear Google freaking out about it.
Comment by Siel — January 16, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Siel, you’re right, I don’t know anything about the company. I think there’s a stronger argument to respect their letter, especially if they’re trying to make a difference as a non-profit. Again though, this trademark stuff is so basic and common, there’s no reason to get worked up about it. They have to do it as a company.
On Google,
http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html (read trademark basics and rules for proper usage)
http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_trademark_become_generic/
Comment by Preston — January 16, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Preston — Again, freecycle’s not a company, and it’s not a business! It’s a grassroots movement to most, and a nonprofit to some. I understand the business (for-profit) case you’re pointing to, but they’re not so relevant in freecycle’s case. Freecycle should be free!
Anyway — that google page you took me to has to do with people who specifically want to use Google brand features on their 3rd party websites. It’s not geared toward people who may be writing or talking about the company — and thus not proof of Google trying to police the usage of google as a word.
Thanks for the circleid link — v. interesting, esp. this quote: “in the end, it is the public that decides as to when and how a name will become generic and when will it lose its trademark powers.” So the future of freecycle as a word depends more on me than TFN’s imperatives! Mwahahaha.
Comment by Siel — January 16, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
The trademark comments here are dead on — and in fact the name “freecycle” has been the victim of attempted take over by a FOR PROFIT company or two — which would do exactly the same thing, but, ebay-like, charge a fee to list something.
It is absolutely imperative that the Freecycle(tm) folks write such letters, and helpful if people honor them. Non-profit status is irrelevant; even grassroots organizations can lose the right to use a name.
One of the things that continues to amaze me is that people think something can’t be “grassroots” if it follows current legal rules.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 17, 2007 @ 6:00 am
What do you mean by “lose the right to use a name”? I was under the impression that if freecycle’s deemed to’ve enter the common lexicon, freecycle would still be able to call itself freecycle — it’s just that they wouldn’t have dibs on the name (others could possibly use it too). No?
Comment by Siel — January 17, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
If the Freecycle(tm) mark were not protected others could use it too — and by their use, create a trademark in the name, owned by them, and exclude everyone else with a less strong claim.
Thermos brand vacuum bottles lost the trademark “Thermos” for awhile — it was deemed generic — but through hard work and many millions in legal fees, they earned the TM rights BACK to a court-declared generic term . . .
It is not that the term enters the generic arena, like a word like “coffee” or “dog” or “cat”, but that FIRST it is not the trademark of any person or company and so is available to become the trademark of any person or company who wants it.
“GreenLAGirl” is like that. It was a generic description of an eco-minded female from LA. You changed that into your TM (even if you have not registered it) by writing under that heading. You would be pretty unhappy, I’m sure, if someone else started blogging under GreenLAGirl, and especially unhappy if they were making money and giving bad green advice — all off the reputation you have built for your widely read blog.
Now consider if a company took up a well funded operation and called it “Freecycle” — and after plowing millions into the name could show that Freecycle, as a trade name, meant their product, and no other. They gain the legal right to sole use of the name as a trademark. Just like you did, even if you haven’t spent millions on it. Et voila! No more grassroots use!
So, the Freecycle Network(tm) folks have created a non-profit to hold the rights to the name and gently oversee the Freecycle lists . . . to in fact preserve the name for a public benefit (the other name for non-profits is sometimes “public benefit corporation”).
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 18, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Interesting about the TM mark possibly being taken away and awarded to someone else! I was under the impression that the TM mark, once taken away, would always be taken away. I do doubt, though, that the TM mark for freecycle could be given to another company — legally — even if it was taken away from freecycle the nonprofit, cuz the nonprofit clearly has a huge network using the name. Are there any real life examples of a TM mark being taken away from 1 entity and given to another?
But more ’bout me — I actually wouldn’t mind if someone else started calling herself green LA girl, as long as they used their own email and stuff (wasn’t pretending to be me). I may even blog about her, welcoming her to the blogging community. Maybe we’d link to each other in sisterly fashion. I guess the only downside would be that people might be confused — or if green LA girl the 2nd was mean and not really green. But then I’d post about how there are 2 of us, and I’m at .com — please spread the word. Informing others about the situation seems to me much more pleasant than strongarming people to behave the way you want them to, even if you can “justify” your actions with legal talk.
I guess what I’m saying is that — as opposed to trying to stop people from talking about freecycle the way they want to talk about it (i.e. chiding people for writing “I freecycled a shirt today”), I would rather that freecycle worked on an educational effort, spreading the word whenever possible that people shouldn’t be fooled by attempts to make them pay to freecycle — that, in effect, freecycle is free.
Comment by Siel — January 18, 2007 @ 9:25 am
The point is, if they do it your way, a for -profit can come in and do what you don’t want: Take it over and use it for evil.
The law is such that the ONLY way to protect the grassroots use is to lodge ownership in a non-profit before a for profit takes it. Period. That’s the law, sad to say — and an area I practiced in for 15 years before moving on to other things.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 19, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
I’m still waiting for an example of a nonprofit whose TM was wrested away by an evil corporation.
I’m not saying you’re wrong — I’m just saying that “I used to practice law” doesn’t, to me, count as convincing proof for your argument. I’d like actual, concrete examples. Precedence, I believe you law people call it.
Comment by Siel — January 19, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
The fact that it is a non-profit is legally irrelevent; for profit, non-profit, individual: Trademark rules are all the same.
Here, the non-profit’s mark could be used by a for-profit, and at least two have attempted to co-opt “freecycle” already. The letter you recieved is part of the typical effort to stop it. This is not theoretical, but has already *nearly* happened to Freecycle as a mark. Close enough example?
Meanwhile, the most famous mark is “Thermos” as mentioned. But also “monopoly” was found generic; Xerox and Kleenex and Levi’s have suffered close calls over the years and send identical letters often.
I didn’t just used to practice law, I practiced trade mark law. And for a casual blog, that’s the best you’ll get out of me: If you think the Freecycle letter was offbase, perhaps you should find out if it is legally incorrect before griping about it . . . I believe the burden of proof on this one is on the complaining blog . . .
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 20, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I think I’ll avoid all this TM tyranny by just Craigslisting my stuff instead of worrying about whether I can be a freewheeling, freecycling freecycler or not. Why do people insist on clunky, multisyllabic terms these days, such as “posting and [sic] item to the local Freecycle group?†13 syllables instead of a nice 3 syllables tripping off your tongue! They should be glad you’re writing about them in the first place.
Comment by elsa — February 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Okay, coming in way late to the party, but…
From a marketing perspective, yes, it is ridiculous. Yes, in writing letters like the one you posted or making demands such as Freecycle™ did, we (marketing & communications people) feel like assholes. Yes, it is absolutely necessary.
In part Freecycle is being extra-careful because they are still in the trademark phase and their lawyers told them to be extra-cautious (note the ™ instead of ®). In other words, their trademark is still subject for review. You have to jump through ten million hoops to move to that big R in the little circle…and even then you have some defending to do. Simply sending you the letter is the due diligence they need to do to protect their trademark. But that’s not why I’m writing. For an example of how trademark can affect a non-profit/for-profit battle, look up the WWF (pop quiz: does WWF make you think wrestlers? or pandas?) While it’s an oddity, it does happen (and thus why there is WWE instead of WWF).
Comment by Cass — April 10, 2008 @ 9:24 pm