Just a heads' up. Someone is going to blogs discussing this issue and accusing the people who are against the trademark of harassment of the mark holder. He/she has already posted on the USNews discussion and on the MiamiNewsTimes discussion.

The poster also seems to accuse me of being a "copycat" blogger. My subconsious must have some SERIOUS internet skills, then, because my waking self had never even heard of the mark holder OR her blog until I got the cease and desist letter.

@Trai_Dep:

Yes, that would be ok. It is the unique combination of cock and sucker that makes cocksucker distinctive. Cockalicious is solely a derivative of cock and so would not be confused with cocksucker, and so is not a trademark violation.

Now that I have, I wish I never had.

@lincolnparadox:

Well I do have the TM on the use of the word "cocksucker" and its derivative "cocksuckerista", so I got that going for me, which is nice.

@PhilFR: And her twitter is @frugalista. This is RIDICULOUS.

Didn't the New York Times Sunday style magazine, which highlights current jargon, feature this word at one time? They never attributed it to this woman. I second the prompt to go to her blog and use the term with abandon in a post.

Avast ye mateys.

Lincoln Paradox, douchbagista (TM)

PS-Tell Mr. Wu I said 'hello.'

I used and verbally copywrote that term in 2004. Then I made a verbal contract with my dog that said anyone who wanted could use it without asking me for a license. Why is someone else now telling someone else they can't use it?

[miamiherald.typepad.com]

In fact in certain circumstances prior use can be used to oppose or cancel a mark. It gets fact based and there are many considerations but it is true that it is possible.

Hi, this is Amy Marquez -- I operate "Jackson Frugalista." It's not my name, just what I named my blog.

I agree, "frugalista" is a silly word, which is part of why I used it. The blog was meant to be a fun little way for me and my friends to keep up with sales, new consignment stores, etc. I am SERIOUSLY about the least "ista" person you'll meet.

I am not personally wed to the name - but I am pretty wed to my right to be able to USE WORDS. A few points:
• The trademark is for the WORD "frugalista," not the name of McNeal's blog, "The Frugalista Files." Had that been the trademark, it would have made sense.
• The approved trademark (there are 2) states ANY use in online blogs or journals. Just using the word online could be construed a violation. The pending application broadens the protection to include cable television and movies.
• The word has certain characteristics that make it ineligible for trademarking - it is of a descriptive nature, it has no secondary meaning associated with the applicant, and it exhibits "genericity," in that its use is widespread and varied enough that the general public does not automatically associate it with the applicant or her blog.
• Last but not least - it's a WORD! Not a product or a service or, even if McNeal thinks so, a person. It's a WORD. Why should anyone get to OWN A WORD???

I am going to change the name of my blog - I don't have $600 to pay for filing fees at the US Trademark Office in order to appeal the blog. I can't afford the inevitable lawsuit I'd get dragged into if I don't change the name. I'm frugal for a reason, y'all! But even if I had the money, I don't think I'd pay it - I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than having to spend my hard-earned money to get to use A WORD.

My blog is tiny-tiny-tiny. It was only ever meant to be so. But I couldn't let that c&d letter just go without making it VERY clear how very stupid I think word-ownership is.

Also felt I needed to point out the absurdity of their claim that I was infringing on her goodwill and "confusing the consuming public." Seriously? My blog is for people in Jackson, MS - thus the name "JacksonFrugalista." Hers is hosted by the Miami Herald, making the geography of her audience pretty clear. How often do you think people get Jackson, MS and Miami mixed up?

Additionally, our topics are VERY different. I talk about garage sales and discounts at fire sale and consignment stores. She talks about going a month without getting a manicure. I think she and I are talking about two TOTALLY different types of "frugalistas."

Take a moment to read the c&d letter, my response to it, and my argument against the mark on my blog, [jacksonfrugalista.wordpress.com] It's really not about the word, it's about the right to use it. I doubt I am the only blogger to have run into this kind of mess, nor do I think I'll be the last.

If these kinds of trademarks keep getting approved, how many words do you think will be left for the rest of us?

I hope she has legions of lawyers because that is what it will take to stop everyone from using the term.

RE: Harley Owners Group (aka- H.O.G.) and the infamous HOG witch hunt against motorcycle shops which had HOG in their name even if they were operating prior to the creation of H.O.G.

But it is leverage to have a trademark removed.

If prior-use is pervasive enough, you lose your right to a trademark as it then becomes un-enforceable.

but, i completely misread the article, so please disregard.

I make my own cease-and-desist letters at home!

@friendlynerd: What about the McCafé commercials that turn everything into "é".. Cubiclé and such crap.. Man that is annoying..é...

As stated above, other people's prior use of term in commerce does not prevent another from registering a trademark on the national register and obtaining national priority rights.

@mac-phisto:
I don't understand how you would counter sue for royalties?

Further, prior use by others is not a bar to registration of a trademark.

@thekai: My favorite was GatesGate. That sound was the meme eating itself.

btw, here's wikipedia's list of scandals using -gate suffix: [en.wikipedia.org]

A correction is in order. The blog is not keeping the name. [jacksonfrugalista.wordpress.com]

@The Porkchop Express: True, it would be much more frugal to make your own cease and desist letters at home.

Of course there's always the possibility of a backlash. She really doesn't want to make too much noise about it or else the internet may gang up to make fun of her.

That said, "frugalista" sounds like a $6 drink at Starbucks.

@uber_mensch: I don't know...I'm going to have to Google an example. Oh wait.

@madog:
Dont you just HATE it when people turn nouns into verbs?

On top of being a jackass, is it frugal to pay an attorney to do this? I mean is she losing money because the other frugalista is using frugalista? Will she win?

If not, then not so frugal.

OK, I'm going to trademark "douchebagalista". That is a person who uses their douchebagginess to ruin the lives of other people for no apparent reason.

@friendlynerd: and "ati". I've almost gotten to the point where I can't visit Gawker.com anymore because every day there is some "twitterati" post that makes me shudder as if someone is scratching their fingernails on chalk board, and when that happens I always imagine the persons fingernails being ripped off and uhhhkjerhlkwejrnqarg.

Bleh. Anyway, I know I'm not their target audience, but it's usually on the weekend when my favs haven't been updated...

Anyway, what were we talking about?

Ban the use suffix "-licious" as well. Especially with someone's name. Anyone who uses "licious" with their own name gets a swift kick to the nuts.

Target has a really stupid new online ad that uses the word frugalista way too much. It was so annoying to have to see that stupid ad while I was streaming TV the other day.

Does this mean this person is suing Target, too?