Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'trademark'.
Found 5 results
Minimum search term is 4 characters long. Can't find what you want? Click here for the custom google search instead.
Guys, Last week, on April 23, 2020, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed for two (2) new trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Both trademarks are character marks (versus a design trademark for a logo). Here are the two new trademarks: 1) "On-Demand Liquidity" 2) "Ripple On-Demand Liquidity" Both of these filings should come at no surprise. Ripple Labs, Inc. continues to add to their IP portfolio (always great to see). To date, Ripple has filed for 55 trademarks with the USPTO. 40 of the 55 trademarks are "live" and active whereas 15 are considered "dead" and abandoned by the company. The character mark "XRP" is still owned by the company. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/24086-new-trademark-filed-by-ripple-labs https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/27862-abandon-the-xrp-trademark/ @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking
Hey guys, As of today (October 7, 2018), Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed 53 trademarks in the United States, 48 of which are considered "live" whereas 5 of the 53 trademarks have been "abandoned" by the company. Ripple Labs, Inc. has quite the intellectual property portfolio, and it seems to be growing too (e.g., the company has filed three (3) trademarks in 2018). And we have seen at least two (2) lawsuits in which Ripple (the company) has sued in order to protect their intellectual property (exactly what you want to see from a well ran company). My intent with this post today is simply to raise some criticism, hopefully constructive, encouraging this community to debate one (1) of the U.S. trademarks still considered "live" and being protected by Ripple (the company) - the trademark for "XRP." My question is why not abandon this "XRP" trademark? A trademark is a symbol, word, group of words, name, and/or a design that is legally registered or established by use as representing a company or a product/service. Think of a brand name. Although trademark registration is not mandatory, one files for trademark protection in order to establish the presumption of ownership, to establish the right to use the mark on or in the connection with goods/services, and/or to file a trademark infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court to obtain monetary remedies, including profits, damages, costs, etc. Ripple (the company) has an active or "live" trademark for "XRP" (see picture below). The "XRP" trademark was filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office back in 2013 by OpenCoin, Inc. You can see the description of the goods and services and other information from the trademark in the picture attached to this post. A lot has happened in five (5) years since this "XRP" trademark was filed for protection by OpenCoin, and we all get that. However, XRP (digital asset/cryptocurrency) is independent from Ripple (the company). We have heard this time and time again from management. To my knowledge, and according to my research, no one owns the trademark for "USD" or "BTC" (although there are several trademarks from multiple companies using "USD" and "BTC" for other products/services, and the USPTO or U.S. Trademark office allows for that). Abandoned trademarks (by Ripple Labs, Inc.): 1) "Interledger" (abandoned in August, 2017) 2) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 3) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 4) "Ripple Communications" (abandoned in June, 2014) 5) "Rippln" (abandoned in January, 2015) *"Ripple Labs" is still bring protected by a different trademark Last point. See the list of abandoned trademarks above. These five (5) marks were all abandoned by Ripple (the company). For example, we all know that Ripple (the company) invented Interledger, the open protocol suite for sending payments across different ledgers. Ripple (the company) filed for trademark protection on "Interledger" in October 2016 and then abandoned the same trademark in August 2017. We all know that Interledger W3C Community Group is now developing Interledger, a group of hundreds of companies and individual contributors. It is decentralized (no one owns it). XRP is also decentralized. No one, including a company, should be able to trademark "XRP" and establish the presumption of ownership over the three letters "XRP" in the context of financial services. The trademark should be open and in the public domain, and the person (or company) who created the trademark five (5) years ago should no longer benefit from that original filing. Thoughts? Let's discuss. Source(s): https://www.uspto.gov/trademark (search TESS, search "Ripple Labs" and use the option to search by owner name/address); https://interledger.org/ @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking @EasterBunny
Hey guys, On November 14, 2018, a company called "XRP United" filed the appropriate paperwork with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to protect the word mark "xSettle" (see picture below). XRP United (company) appears to be an xrp-based exchange based out of Estonia. And the description of "xSettle" is very interesting (again, see picture below). However, one could make the argument that xSettle causes a "likelihood of confusion" to the following trademarks owned by Ripple Labs, Inc. (company): xCurrent xPring xRapid xPool xVia Below are some links about the xrp-dedicated exchange, XRP United. Legally speaking, a "likelihood of confusion" exists when one could assume that the product or service (xSettle) represents or is associated with the source of a different product or service identified (Ripple's products, like xCurrent, xRapid, or xVia). In the past, Ripple Labs, Inc (company) has gone to court to protect their intellectual property. Going to follow up with this in a few months. Take care. https://ethereumworldnews.com/xrp-united-the-first-full-exchange-dedicated-to-xrp/ https://xrpunited.com/
I've seen several suggestions for physical coins, lapel pins, clothing, etc. I very much want to support such endeavors and hopefully wear them with pride. My question is, has anyone obtained permission from Ripple to use their logo to make money on the sale of such items? I'm sure they are so busy, such requests are likely to be put on the back-burner, but it seems to me that we should endeavor to treat our friends at Ripple with proper & legal courtesy. Thoughts? (Or, perhaps I'm unaware of legitimate merchants that have already addressed this?)
If you read some of my previous posts in this forum you saw that I very much like faucet websites, and there aren't many Ripple faucet websites out there. Whilst I get some small amount of Bitcoin every week from Faucets through referring other people - I tried the following Ripple faucet for quite a long time - RippleFaucet.info - and today when I came to check my account balance I saw the following notification - I am not going to go through the whole lot (you can see it if you wish to down below) but this is the part that makes me mostly concerned with Ripple: In closing, Ripple's strong arm tactics through the use of legal teams, against this and other small websites seeking to promote the Ripple financial ecosystem, reflects poorly on Ripple Labs and suggests that they are no different from the big banks they serve. You have been warned... So let me get it straight - Ripple Labs - the giant company - is chasing small websites for trademark infringement - is it really what's on their mind? The reason I mention it is because 48 hours from now this website is probably going to become a ghost website and no one is going to be able to express their opinion about it because no one would know it even happened except for the website owner and the faucet users who are probably going to remain silent but I'm not ... for me this is a huge issue - I mean - look at Bitcoin - it's skyrocketing over $7,000 because it's a FREE CRYPTO CURRENCY, no one from the "Bitcoin movement" is going to shut down Bitcoin related websites - and this is a DOT INFO domain ... I mean I agree trademark infringement is a violation and of course if Coca Cola wishes to shut down a CocaColaBig.com website they can do it - but what about some common sense?!?! When you drive on the road - the sign says 60 MPH and you drive 67 MPH - would you expect a police officer to stop you for that?! NO !!! Why?! Because it's freaking common sense - if he would then everyone would be a criminal ... of course if you drive 80 MPH or more then that's crossing a red line already - but Ripple Labs - why not use some Common Sense?!?! Why are you chasing small website owners? Really ... all you have in mind is trademark infringement? Yes I totally agree with this website owner whom I don't know and never met but he's right saying this is definitely 100% REFLECTS POORLY ON RIPPLE LABS AND SUGGESTS THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE BIG BANKS THEY SERVE. Lastly, I've gone to the new site this person created - and here he says the following: What is XRP? XRP is the ticker symbol of a cryptocurrency which cannot be named due to legal reasons. XRP is run by people who apparently spend far too much on ****** law firms. Unfortunately it is a case of 'love the currency, hate the company'. You are unlikely to ever get rich on XRP, as this is a currency by the rich for the rich (i.e. bankers). If you truly want to support innovative cryptocurrencies, we recommend looking into community backed, open source projects such as Monero and Elastic. So what's my opinion about all this? It changes lots of perspective I had for Ripple and especially for the XRP ... I do hold lots of XRP but I'm losing my faith with this company - Crypto Currencies are about a new revolution - the reason why Bitcoin is skyrocketing is because the FIAT system has lost all credibility ... I was hoping Ripple was a combination of both ... and I do believe in obeying rules and doing what's right but I'm also a firm believe in COMMON SENSE and what's Ripple is doing for itself is creating a bad credibility .... would you bank with a bank that gives you hard time, asking for Photo ID every 3 months for "verification purposes"? No, right? Even if the bank is legally allowed to do so ... it's a common sense to avoid such a bank. And Ripple is going in that direction ... I mean shutting down small websites - that's what they have in mind?! I'm shocked and I'm not sure what to do with the Ripple balance I was HODLing for so long ... but in my opinion if this is the direction of Ripple then I'm out ... this is just a small thing for some of you but it's a big red flag for me, and that's a red flag, however you want to look at it!