[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 483 KB, 1662x1886, linkpics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12208624 No.12208624 [Reply] [Original]

Recently found the SmartContract team's trademark filing records. (https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87727908&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch))

In them, I found a filing that states that SmartContract is changing from a "Principal Registry" trademark to a "Supplemental Registry" trademark. (Filed on November 16th 2018.)

Reading online on the differences between principal and supplemental trademarks - I see there are distinctive characteristics a product needs to meet.(See last picture)

What is your take on this, fellow Marines? Mainnet may be sooner than we thought.

(All URLs are pictured.)
1. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=87727908&docIndex=0&searchprefix=sn#docIndex=0
2. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88112969&docId=RFA20180914082645#docIndex=0&page=1
3. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87727908&docId=OOA20181219151345#docIndex=0&page=1
4. https://patentlawip.com/blog/principal-vs-supplemental-trademark-register-differences/

>> No.12208636

>>12208624
How do you profit from this?

>> No.12208649

>>12208636
Buy mobius sir

>> No.12208661

>>12208624
I say $1k Chinese new year

>> No.12208666

>>12208636
fuck if I know, im just a brainlet. we need real high ranking marines to crack the code

>> No.12208684
File: 61 KB, 820x541, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12208684

>>12208624

>> No.12208705

>>12208624

It means he does not want to be put through the wringer like Coinbase was with their "BUIDL" trademark fiasco.

He's taking precautions before the platform is widely known.

>> No.12208881

>>12208705
Definitely sounds like something the man who secured the domain "Smartcontracts.com" would be doing.

>> No.12208908

>>12208684
So .... that's kinda pissballs

>> No.12208945

>>12208684
LINK is such a common word it would be really hard to justify a principal mark.

But you're missing the point; the OP's pic points out that a supplemental filing has to be in use not in use maybe sometime in the future.

I wonder if a token being traded on shitcoin exchanges is enough to justify "in use" or if this is really a mainnet portent.

>> No.12208971

>>12208705
This is bad news for any brainlets

Moving from principal, means the patent and registered is not unique enough

>> No.12208972

Supplemental registry has fewer rights attached and provides weaker protections than the principal registry. I construe it as being the opposite of "main net soon", because the supplemental registry is provided to things that are "mere descriptions" rather than concrete products. It suggests that in Chainlink's application they have merely provided a description of their product instead of a concrete articulation. Supplemental is still better than nothing, though, and they can reapply for principal in 5 years

>> No.12208989

unironically a person who knows what they are talking about here

he's basically moving to a lesser level of trademark protection for Smart Contract. im assuming he's doing this to avoid getting sued in the future over having a full trademark over Smart Contract. for example, if someone trademarked 'television' before it became popular, then no one would be able to use the word without getting sued by the person who owns the television trademark. however, it's such a generic word that US law does not allow you to own trademarks over generic words. they have to be distinctive. like Sony or Samsung, etc. sergey is probably trying to avoid getting in that fight and giving up the right to owning Smart Contract

>> No.12209034

>>12208989
you seem informed, any speculation to if this could be connected?

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/08/16/1552862/0/en/AXS-Blockchain-Solutions-Inc-and-Chainlinks-Lab-Inc-Announce-Name-Change-to-LiteLink-Technologies-Inc-and-LiteLink-Labs-Inc.html

>> No.12209045

>>12208945
nah, he's probably just thinking about preemptively avoiding getting sued and having a fight (which he would likely lose) about whether a principal trademark over 'Smart Contract' is valid

>> No.12209055

>>12208989
This.

Same reason its code is open source... you CAN build on the base code for running smart contract system sure. But why would you do that when version 1.01 for example would have all the bells and whistle already attached... just like how dozens of companies run UNIX based systems, but more specific rule set/applications are patented and sold (microsoft). So yes, its a smart move years before it becomes a issue.

>> No.12209082

>>12209045
what is your take on the phrase in OP pic "cannot utilize an 'intent to use' filing basis, rather it must be used in commerce"?

Used in commerce is where OP is leading us I think.

>> No.12209087

>>12209034
no. this is regarding the trademark "SmartContract", not "Chainlink"

>> No.12209157

>>12209082
with principal trademarks, you can register the trademarks with an 'intent to use' application. as in, you intend to use the trademark in the future. "i intend to brand all my tvs as Sony"

with supplemental trademarks you can still do that but have to show the govt how it will be used. if you dont show them then they will reject the application.

all of this is moot though because the trademark has already been registered. there does not need to be another application

>> No.12209426
File: 470 KB, 1117x845, 1545491848253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12209426

>>12208624


Ohh no no nooooo mhhmmmhmmhmmm a scam?

>> No.12210415

>>12209426
Kek this was my favorite fud. Lmao think of the fags who believed a photo of an email lmao