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.