The New Yorker ordinarily has interesting articles in long-format which are usually factually correct. However, lately, I have to question the accuracy of some of their information.
One problem with being an Attorney is that you are trained to speak precisely - and the imprecise language of ordinary folks tends to drive you nuts. Dangling modifiers, for example, annoy me. And as Patent Attorney, it is worse, as people tend to spout off all sorts of nonsense about Patents - and not even get the basic facts right.
And some certain phrases are like nails on a chalkboard to an IP Attorney. "I trademarked my invention," or "I copyrighted my company name," for example. They are as annoying as "I Xeroxed a document".
In a recent issue of the New Yorker, this boner jumped out at me:
"When he comes to Las Vegas himself, he is Farmer Lee, and wears a uniform he has trademarked with the U.S. Attorney General's office...." (August 16&23, 2010 issue, page 45, col. 1, lines 11-12, emphasis added)
Nice try, New Yorker. How about the Patent & Trademark Office? The "U.S. Attorney General's Office" does not grant Trademarks. Seems kind of simple. The USPTO even has the word "Trademark" in its name. How hard is that?
* * *
UPDATE: Apparently the New Yorker read the letter I wrote to them and still got it wrong. The phrase in the article online now reads:Here is the correct wording: "He wears a uniform he hastrademarkedregistered as a trademark with thepatent’sU.S. Patent & Trademark office"
patent's office? Are you shitting me? Know-nothing people at the New Yorker! And what a horrible shill article for Las Vegas! My question to the author, how do you sleep at night knowing that you whored for gambling interests? This is modern journalism in a nutshell. Even their correction gets it wrong.
* * *
The rest of the article was pretty much bullshit as well. It was a 10-page fluff piece about some dude who buys gourmet food for Vegas restaurants. Unsubstantiated facts, rumors, and that sort of thing, plus a "Gee-Whiz, those people in Vegas sure do eats them fancy foods" kind of deal. It was an unabashed promotion of Las Vegas, frankly, and disappointing for the New Yorker. Perfect for People magazine, if you trimmed it down to a page or so.
A 30-second search of the USPTO database (even a newbie can use it!) reveals the following, when searching under "Farmer Lee":
| Word Mark | FARMER LEE JONES |
| Goods and Services | (ABANDONED) IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line ordering services featuring fresh vegetables, fruits, plants, herbs and edible flowers; Retail services by direct solicitation by sales agents in the field of fresh vegetables, fruits, plants, herbs and edible flowers; Retail stores featuring fresh vegetables, fruits, plants, herbs and edible flowers |
| Standard Characters Claimed | |
| Mark Drawing Code | (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK |
| Serial Number | 77034979 |
| Filing Date | November 2, 2006 |
| Current Filing Basis | 1B |
| Original Filing Basis | 1B |
| Published for Opposition | July 10, 2007 |
| Owner | (APPLICANT) The Chef's Garden, Inc. CORPORATION OHIO 9009 Huron-Avery Road Huron OHIO 44839 |
| Attorney of Record | Jeffrey C. Norris |
| Prior Registrations | 2798381;3042576 |
| Type of Mark | SERVICE MARK |
| Register | PRINCIPAL |
| Other Data | "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Lee Jones , whose consent(s) to register is submitted." |
| Live/Dead Indicator | DEAD |
| Abandonment Date | April 3, 2008 |
From that dead mark, searching by owner name (Chef's Garden) we get a host of Marks:
Searching through this list (looking for IMAGE marks, which don't have a name in the mark column) finds this:
| Goods and Services | IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Retail store services, telephone order retail services, on-line retail store services, and retail services by direct solicitation by sales agents in the field of fresh vegetables, fruits, herbs and edible plants. FIRST USE: 20051107. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20051107 |
| Mark Drawing Code | (2) DESIGN ONLY |
| Design Search Code | 02.01.18 - Farmers (men); Hobos (men); Men, farmers, hobos and other men wearing overalls; Overalls (men wearing) 02.01.31 - Men, stylized, including men depicted in caricature form 02.11.06 - Beards; Hair; Hair extensions; Human hair, locks of hair, wigs, beards, mustaches; Mustaches; Toupees; Wigs 09.03.02 - Coveralls; Exercise clothes, shorts; Gym shorts; Jeans; Knickers; Overalls; Overalls; Pants; Shorts; Slacks; Sweatpants; Trousers 09.03.15 - Bow ties; Neckties; Ties, neckties or bow ties 09.05.01 - Caps, including visors, military caps and baseball caps |
| Serial Number | 78330939 |
| Filing Date | November 20, 2003 |
| Current Filing Basis | 1A |
| Original Filing Basis | 1B |
| Published for Opposition | October 26, 2004 |
| Registration Number | 3042576 |
| Registration Date | January 10, 2006 |
| Owner | (REGISTRANT) The Chef's Garden, Inc. CORPORATION OHIO 9009 Huron-Avery Road Huron OHIO 44839 |
| Attorney of Record | Jeffrey C. Norris |
| Prior Registrations | 2571195 |
| Description of Mark | The mark consists of a picture of a farmer wearing overalls, a bow-tie, and a cap. |
| Type of Mark | SERVICE MARK |
| Register | PRINCIPAL |
| Other Data | The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Lee Jones , whose consent(s) to register is submitted. |
| Live/Dead Indicator | LIVE |
So yes, he has a Trademark registration for his image, including the outfit (and his face). But no, the USAG does not issue Trademarks. (And no, the mark is not for the outfit per se, but for the image shown above).
Total Search Time: 1 minute.
Do I have to start reading the Atlantic Monthly now or something?
What makes the crime worse was that the New Yorker ran an article a few years back about how great their fact-checking department is. They detailed how every statement in an article is run down and checked and sources found - even innocuous statements that would seem to be self-evident. Of course, that article was about how the fact-checking department worked, "back in the day".
Perhaps in the interim, Conde Nasty has laid off all the fact-checkers to save money. To miss something as simple as which government agency registers Trademarks, well, that seems like a no-brainer.
Perhaps the New Yorker is going the way of Time Magazine?
Perhaps. It illustrates how much of our media and information these days is sloppy and poorly prepared. Television long ago ditched factual reporting in favor of celebrity news and talking heads. Allegations and "controversies" are now the order of the day. Factual analysis is too expensive and frankly, the ratings are too low.
So fluff pieces and showy articles that generate interest are promoted, as that is what sells. It is just sad that that sort of thing has trickled down to the New Yorker.
