LittleForBig trying to trademark "Babyfur"

[NabePup]

So apparently the company LittleForBig is trying to trademark the term "Babyfur". Such BS, this is like Rearz trying to trademark"ABDL" all over again. I really hope they get denied and decide to try to not be stupid.

 

[SparkyDog]

LFB diapers have really dropped in quality

 

[PadPhilosopher]

Why do so many AB/DL companies engage in trademark sharking? What is to be gained by trademarking "babyfur"? I see no way they could gain, but obviously the attempt will alienate some of their customer base.

 

[NabePup]

Why do so many AB/DL companies engage in trademark sharking? What is to be gained by trademarking "babyfur"? I see no way they could gain, but obviously the attempt will alienate some of their customer base.

I really have no idea what they're thinking when they do things like this. Wow, I just looked up their TM page and they have a lot of very generic and ridiculous tm requests (some are less unreasonable), but things like "Little Furry" and "Sissy". Come on, those are so generic. It looks like they also have a request to trademark "Furrytails".

Spoiler: LittleForBig's trademarks

 

[NabePup]

Does anyone know if there's any LittleForBig reps on this site? lol

 

[PinkAndLittle]

That's up there on the same level of the monster energy drink company trying to own the generic term monster... like why if for no reason that trying to earn extra royalties...

 

[PadPhilosopher]

That's up there on the same level of the monster energy drink company trying to own the generic term monster... like why if for no reason that trying to earn extra royalties...

In that case it at least is part of the branding. Huy Fong Foods discovered the same thing when they tried to trademark "sriracha," but couldn't, because it was too widely used, both as a description of a sauce and a place.

 

[SnepperStepper]

imagine thinking your corporation eating the name a group of people you're trying to market to gave themselves would make them want to buy more of your stuff instead of the obvious immediate backlash that always happens. You would think the Fine Bros trying to copyright the concept of reacting years ago and having it absolutely blow up in their faces (or rearz and ABDL for something closer to home) would set a prescient but never underestimate the ignorant stupidity of people who get into business to be "rich" instead of to provide goods and services that people want to buy at prices they want to pay. They're not going to survive this.

 

[NabePup]

It really just goes to show how detached they are from the community they're trying to cater to. Anyone who identifies as a babyfur in this case (or ABDL in Rearz's case) would instantly and obviously tell how ridiculous it is to try to essentially own such a term. It just goes to show they're not looking at from the perspective of a babyfur or ABDL, but a souless money grubbing only cares about profits corporation.

 

[NabePup]

I also want to add and am surprised, but apparently Rearz has trademarks on the term "Dinosaur" and "Rebel" in regards to adult diapers. Both pretty generic terms. I guess Rebel is a slightly less surprising since they have or had their Rebel diaper line, but still. They're just words, not unique terms or anything.

 

[mistykitty]

Babyfur I believe already might belong to one of the furry conventions so legally I don't think they can trademark it. Plus what's to gain from it?

 

[mistykitty]

Of maybe it's wikifur that already owns it? either or I'm pretty sure somebody owns the trademark already. 99% chance LFB won't get it.

 

[mistykitty]

Why do so many AB/DL companies engage in trademark sharking? What is to be gained by trademarking "babyfur"? I see no way they could gain, but obviously the attempt will alienate some of their customer base.

That's the key question. Really they don't gain anything from it. So why?

 

[PadPhilosopher]

That's the key question. Really they don't gain anything from it. So why?

Perhaps they're afraid someone else will trademark it and then try to hold the community hostage? Maybe it's a move to protect the term for its community? That just occurred to me as a plausible and non-evil reason for the long list.

 

[mistykitty]

Perhaps they're afraid someone else will trademark it and then try to hold the community hostage? Maybe it's a move to protect the term for its community? That just occurred to me as a plausible and non-evil reason for the long list.

Ok, in that case it could be viable because if the wrong person owns it the could misrepresent it. I want to look further now because I'm 90% sure it already belongs to someone but if not and LFB is doing it to protect the term then I can maybe accept this.

 

[NabePup]

Babyfur I believe already might belong to one of the furry conventions so legally I don't think they can trademark it. Plus what's to gain from it?

"Babyfur Con" is trademarked for "Arranging, organizing, conducting, and hosting social entertainment events." BFC is an awesome con btw, I'd definitely suggest anyone who's interested to try to go haha. I guess it could be argued that it's kind of a generic term, but it is literally the name of the convention and a bit more specific and describes what it is and its intent perfectly, which is not the case of L4B.

 

[NabePup]

Perhaps they're afraid someone else will trademark it and then try to hold the community hostage? Maybe it's a move to protect the term for its community? That just occurred to me as a plausible and non-evil reason for the long list.

This is almost exactly what Rearz claimed when trying to trademark ABDL. This is most likely not the case, these companies really don't care about the community on a personal level and instead of trying to trademark it to protect it, they could just leave it be. On top of that, to maintain a trademark, you have to enforce it. For instance, Google doesn't like or want people to use the term "googling" or "I googled it" for looking up something online. Same with Adobe and "photoshopped" being used for editing an image. If a term becomes generic then it's no longer "trademark-able" so they're required to enforce and hand out CnD's if someone uses the term for anything other than what the trademark deams it allowable for. So by trademarking a term, such as "babyfur" and "ABDL", not only does that not protect it, but it requires them to enforce that it not be used by anyone else which is quite the opposite. That's more like literally stealing it from the community.

 

[Deleted member 80397]

If anyone is to so called trademark this word it should be Bittergrey and DPF, the backbone of a lot of the community in its early stages when It was being found out and coming together! - But at the same time it is as if McDonald's decided to trademark "Cheeseburger" It sounds like LittleForBig is creating a monopoly to give people a cheap product to throw people through a loop of popularity.

Im sorry you're not Gfuel. You're a littles company. Quit trying to make everything hip and take over trademarks, because I genuinely believe that trademarking words is only a ploy for them to get a chunk of cash anywhere it is used (Lets say from ABU Little Paws) So for them to get through it is disgusting. Did they not learn from Rearz?

 

[NabePup]

I should also probably add I'm definitely not a lawyer and well versed in trademark law by any means. So earlier when I said a trademark termed has to be enforced to not be used by anyone else, there's probably a bit more stipulations. I imagine it must be in regards to the context it's specifically tradmarked to (i.e. adult diapers etc.). Still though, it is giving ownership to a word that up to this point was used to define a community and form of expression to tons of people and could be freely used by anyone. No one has the right to take any form of ownership to any extent over such words/terms and anyone who tries to almost always has either ulterior motive and/or regardless of the intent, can only do harm without any benefits.

But I did a minor amount of googling to check what I was posting before posted it

 

[mistykitty]

. Still though, it is giving ownership to a word that up to this point was used to define a community and form of expression to tons of people and could be freely used by anyone. No one has the right to do take any form of ownership to any extent over such words/terms and anyone who tries to almost always has either ulterior motive and/or regardless of the intent, can only do harm without any benefits.

Well said