Chicago Cubs Successfully Oppose Iowa Man's 'Cubnoxious' Trademark; Court Cites Obnoxious Cubs Fans

Furnished content.


Since 2016, when the Chicago Cubs became magically relevant in baseball again, the team has also become relevant in intellectual property discussions. The Cubs have gone to war with the street vendors that have long set up shop near Clark and Addison, and the team has been party to an ongoing battle with roughly all the uses of the letter "W" in commerce.But as the team's lawyers appear to have been invigorated by its on the field success, that isn't to say that every single trademark dispute it initiates is one in which it's the bad guy. For instance, one Iowa man decided to trademark the term "Cubnoxious", but apparently didn't have any actual plans to use it when the Cubs came calling.

Ronald Mark Huber applied to register the word mark in 2016 in class 25 for shirts. In response, the Cubs asserted a number of marks for the team name and logo for various goods and services, including clothing. In its decision, issued on Friday, May 3, the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled that Huber had failed to provide sufficient evidence of intent to use the mark at the time of filing the application.Apart from the trademark application itself, Huber did not provide any documentary evidence of his intention to use the mark other than an affidavit, which stated his “plan to use the mark in commerce for the general public”.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the Cubs offered "convincing" evidence its marks were strong, going back to the early 1900s, when Hall of Fame infielders Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance wore Cubs jerseys.It also said "Cubnoxious" was already associated with some Cubs fans, citing media reports, Twitter posts and even a Yelp user who complained about having to avoid "Cubnoxious Drunkards" in a Chicago park.

0 comments, click here to add the first

Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake

Furnished content.


Last week we wrote about how annoying it was that major media publications were misrepresenting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and suggesting -- completely without merit -- that the law was designed to keep platforms "neutral" or that they were mere "pass through" vehicles, rather than actively engaged in moderation. We pointed out that online trolls and grandstanding politicians were making this incorrect claim, but it was not an accurate statement of the law, and the media should know better. In our comments, some people called me out for not suggesting that the media was being deliberately dishonest, and in response I noted that there wasn't any evidence of deliberateness from most of them (not so much with the trolls and especially grandstanding politicians like Ted Cruz, who have been told, repeatedly, that they are misrepresenting CDA 230). I hoped that it was just a mistake that would be corrected.Perhaps surprisingly, the author of the Vox article that I called out, Jane Coaston, did exactly that. After a few others called out her article, including Harvard's Jonathan Zittrain, Coaston has now apologized and done a massive rewrite on the original article to make it more accurate:

0 comments, click here to add the first