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).

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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”).

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.

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.