You fell for an ad agency's demo reel. I say that because if you actually follow the campaign's advice and do a little bit of reading, you'll see this is a toothless stunt that may be fake news in its own right.

The premise that they can stop the president from using the term "fake news" by trademarking it is false. Trademarks cannot be used to restrict a person's speech. They're used to prevent imitators in select industries. There has to be a legitimate fear that someone could confuse your brand/phrase/logo with something that already exists. Prior use by other parties and the commonality of the word also come into play. Apple's lawyers have gone ego-tripping in the past and they usually lose.

To make things worse, I actually dug up what appears to be their trademark application (the person listed under the filing is a Florida-based member of the SPJ). Look at the category they're seeking protection in: pens. They were strapped for options because multiple people have tried (and some have succeeded in) trademarking the term. As far as I can tell, Trump does not sell any merch, pens included, with "fake news" branded on it. What is that C&D for? Nothing. The best part is, they haven't even been granted the trademark yet, so if the USPTO denies their application, they'd be threatening a lawsuit over something they don't even have the legal right to.

I've read the CBC and Newsweek article on this. No mention of what I just said. Newsweek's editor should heed the marketing agency's advice, though. Research is important and journalists should try to understand words before using them. The URL for this story claims they've patented "fake news." You cannot patent a phrase. 

Last edited by Retaw (October 29, 2019 8:36 pm)

Chrisphen wrote:

Honest, God-fearing types are too meek to declare their desire for the fetid PR ejaculate to be washed away by a civilisation-ending flood.

What to make, then, of the City of Toronto's wet weather flow master-plan, a multi-million-dollar series of engineering measures intended to prevent stormwater that lands on the city's hard surfaces from ending up in Lake Ontario?

grilled.cheese wrote:

Saul wrote:

Chrisphen wrote:

Honest, God-fearing types are too meek to declare their desire for the fetid PR ejaculate to be washed away by a civilisation-ending flood.

What to make, then, of the City of Toronto's wet weather flow master-plan, a multi-million-dollar series of engineering measures intended to prevent stormwater that lands on the city's hard surfaces from ending up in Lake Ontario?

Toronto needs more permeable parking lots. 

PR bile should always sink where it lands.