EXTREMELY URGENT: Subeta/Neopets/Gaia Users

littleboy6326 · **Posted:** Tue May 15, 2007 2:57 pm

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Morningstar · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2007 11:14 pm

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

littleboy6326 · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 10:31 am

Morningstar wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

#chan is not a company.

So is it even possible for them to make a trademark out of the idea of a "long cat"? I think they're just looking for an excuse to sabotage something, to be honest.

Siouxper · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 11:56 am

littleboy6326 wrote:

Morningstar wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

#chan is not a company.

So is it even possible for them to make a trademark out of the idea of a "long cat"? I think they're just looking for an excuse to sabotage something, to be honest.

You know what she means. But whatever the issue, it is no reason to attack other sites, that could get you into more trouble.

littleboy6326 · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 12:25 pm

siouxper wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

Morningstar wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

#chan is not a company.

So is it even possible for them to make a trademark out of the idea of a "long cat"? I think they're just looking for an excuse to sabotage something, to be honest.

You know what she means. But whatever the issue, it is no reason to attack other sites, that could get you into more trouble.

Hm? I do know what she means, yes. I was just pointing out that you cannot copyright/make a trademark (or at least a real legal one) out of the idea of a long cat. It just doesn't work like that.

Just like Neopets can't copyright the IDEA of a virtual pet site.

I don't see what the big fuss is about, to be honest.

Morningstar · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2007 3:31 am

I've worked as a corporate and patent paralegal. I went to Northwestern Law School. I recently took a postgraduate business law class, which discussed cyberlaw in great detail. I know exactly what I am talking about. If people associate the word longcat with #chan, then it is considered to be a trademark. Words can be trademarks. Just like the word "Lite." Ever notice how no other beers can use the word "Lite." They all have to say "light beer." That's cause Lite is considered to be a trademark of the Miller High Life company. And you don't have to be a "company" in order to have a trademark. Any type of entity, including those which own an internet domain name, can have a trademark.

Siouxper · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2007 11:50 am

littleboy6326 wrote:

siouxper wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

Morningstar wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

#chan is not a company.

So is it even possible for them to make a trademark out of the idea of a "long cat"? I think they're just looking for an excuse to sabotage something, to be honest.

You know what she means. But whatever the issue, it is no reason to attack other sites, that could get you into more trouble.

Hm? I do know what she means, yes. I was just pointing out that you cannot copyright/make a trademark (or at least a real legal one) out of the idea of a long cat. It just doesn't work like that.

Just like Neopets can't copyright the IDEA of a virtual pet site.

I don't see what the big fuss is about, to be honest.

It is not an "idea" but more of a "thing" so it can still be trademarked. Just read Morningstar's post. And it's not a long cat, it's a Longcat.

littleboy6326 · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2007 11:58 am

siouxper wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

siouxper wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

Morningstar wrote:

littleboy6326 wrote:

mercurius wrote:

I don't know who had longcat to begin with but if it was a stolen trademark it should have been handled properly in a more mature manner. Attacking other people's websites was uncalled for. For all I know Gaia, DeviantArt, and all the Subeta Fansites had nothing to do with this and they were also attacked in some form.

You cannot copyright a meme.

"OMG, ILL GO OUT AND FIND A CAT, AND ILL COPYRIGHT IT SO ONLY I CAN JOKE ABOUT IT"

Copyright and trademark are two totally different concepts. Copyright applies to original works that are artistic, literary, and/or dramatic in nature. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, and/or symbol that a company uses to distinguish its product/services from the product/services of someone else. The first entity to use that trademark to identify the product/services owns the trademark, even if it has not been registered, and has the exclusive right to use that trademark.

The argument is whether or not Longcat is a trademark. And who had the trademark first. So, if 4chan (or 2 chan or whatever #chan) used Longcat to distinguish itself from others, and did so before anyone else used it, then whoever used it after that can be sued for damages and have an injunction placed against their use of the trademark.

That being said, if someone takes your trademark, you do not have the right to sabotage them. Instead, you need to file a lawsuit in court for trademark infringement and let the court decide whether or not there is a trademark violation. So, though Subeta had no business taking #chan's trademark, the owners of #chan should have pursued the theft via the court system and not have taken matters into their own hands. If this goes to court (I don't know if it has yet or not), it is possible that both parties will be charged with criminal or civil action.

It is a shame that so many innocent people became the victims of this dispute.

#chan is not a company.

So is it even possible for them to make a trademark out of the idea of a "long cat"? I think they're just looking for an excuse to sabotage something, to be honest.

You know what she means. But whatever the issue, it is no reason to attack other sites, that could get you into more trouble.

Hm? I do know what she means, yes. I was just pointing out that you cannot copyright/make a trademark (or at least a real legal one) out of the idea of a long cat. It just doesn't work like that.

Just like Neopets can't copyright the IDEA of a virtual pet site.

I don't see what the big fuss is about, to be honest.

It is not an "idea" but more of a "thing" so it can still be trademarked. Just read Morningstar's post. And it's not a long cat, it's a Longcat.

Ah, that makes quite the difference... butf surely Subeta could have bluffed it as a coincedance?

Excuse my spelling. Keyboard map is wrong, something is killing it.

Morningstar · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2007 5:12 pm

littleboy6326 wrote:

Ah, that makes quite the difference... butf surely Subeta could have bluffed it as a coincedance?

Excuse my spelling. Keyboard map is wrong, something is killing it.

If it goes to court, that will be for the court to decide. Along with whether it was proper for certain websites to be sabotaged in what looks to be retaliation for their use of Longcat. After all, if a beer maker uses Lite in their name, the employees of Miller High Life can't very well go into liquor stores and just smash those bottles of the competitors' beer. They would instead have to go through the proper channels, which is the court system. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this issue. Cyberlaw is a very hot topic in the legal system, because the law seems to be 2 steps behind technology.

Jerch · **Posts:** 329 **Joined:** Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:19 am

Morningstar wrote:

If it goes to court, that will be for the court to decide. Along with whether it was proper for certain websites to be sabotaged in what looks to be retaliation for their use of Longcat. After all, if a beer maker uses Lite in their name, the employees of Miller High Life can't very well go into liquor stores and just smash those bottles of the competitors' beer. They would instead have to go through the proper channels, which is the court system. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this issue. Cyberlaw is a very hot topic in the legal system, because the law seems to be 2 steps behind technology.

In some countries, wouldn't you need to register the trademark first, before it can be 'infringed'? ...

What 'll happen then, if one of the two parties (are/claim to be) in such a country? :S [assuming that the ?chan didn't register 'longcat']

btw, thanks a lot for shortening the layers of quotes...it's getting a bit tiresome ...

Jenna! · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2007 5:08 pm

First of all, it's the chans.
The owner of 4chan, moot, is not going to press charges against subeta.
No one even knows who was the first one to create longcat. Everyone is anon. on the chans.
The only reason, honestly, they invaded Subeta, was for the lulz.

All this talk about trademarks and parties, is just not really going to be involved in this. There will most likely be no argument of trademarks, because it really isn't one.

And for all those who are so confused on what the original concept of Longcat is:
It's usually this image, or a photoshopped one to make it seem very long.

with the accompanying text of "LONGCAT IS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG" etc, etc.

I feel bad for those who lost their items on subeta, yes. If that happened to me on Neopets, I'd be majorly mad. But nothing is going to court, there is no issue of a trademark. A site was invaded and hacked, it's not new on the chans. 7chan has a whole subforum /i/ dedicated to invading and hacking sites. It just so happened that we were affected as well. If anyone plays Habbo Hotel, they know the effect of the chans on there.

Paulisacretin · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2007 6:21 pm

Wow, I really like how many 14 year olds there are here with enough legal knowledge to make statements like that.

If you can learn the law from wikipedia so easily, it makes you wonder why there are many lawyers on million-dollar salaries.

Morningstar · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2007 7:30 pm

Bambam wrote:

Wow, I really like how many 14 year olds there are here with enough legal knowledge to make statements like that.

If you can learn the law from wikipedia so easily, it makes you wonder why there are many lawyers on million-dollar salaries.

Lol, Bambam, sure makes me wonder why I spent so much for my legal education. And, probably making you wonder the same, huh?

Paulisacretin · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2007 7:35 pm

I know exactly what you mean. I mean, heck, I don't even need to go on wikipedia. Clearly there is such an abundance of teenage lawyers on this website, and the rest of the internet, that I could learn what a $40,000 degree would teach me for free.

Morningstar · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2007 7:44 pm

Bambam wrote:

I know exactly what you mean. I mean, heck, I don't even need to go on wikipedia. Clearly there is such an abundance of teenage lawyers on this website, and the rest of the internet, that I could learn what a $40,000 degree would teach me for free.

Dang, Bambam, $40K? You are getting off cheap. Or did you get some sweet scholarships to defray the cost? Cause the school I went to, Northwestern, is charging over $40 for a year's tuition. Times 3 years. Yikes!!!! Much cheaper to just read the wikipedia.

Pink Poogle Toy Forum

EXTREMELY URGENT: Subeta/Neopets/Gaia Users

Who is online