Dummies For Dummies

February 9, 2006 by Jeff Jarvis

Well the dork-of-the-day title surely goes to the fool who sent Jason Calacanis an email saying that he shouldn’t use “For Dummies” in a headline without giving credit to a certain book company I’ll not bother to name.

Well, if we don’t all have the courage to stand up in solidarity with the Danish publishers of the Mohammed cartoons, we can at least stand in solidarity with Jason.

How many of us can write posts headlined “For Dummies”? When you do, please tag it, as I have, above.

  • http://lonewacko.com/ TLB

    As a trademark infringee, I agree with Wiley. Hopefully a trademark lawyer will weigh in, but unless it’s a parody/satire or a review of a For Dummies book or similar, I think they have the right to enforce their mark.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Try selling a mug or T-shirt online with the logo “Got Jarvis?” and see how long it takes to get a takedown order or lawsuit threat. I dare ya. Sure, technically you have the law on your side since you’re not selling milk or any other kind of beverage for that matter, but are you willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees in order to prove it? And if you’re using a web-based print shop, guess what? They won’t even let you go to the mat anyway for your right to parody and/or satire, because it’s their ass on the line as much as it is yours.

    Trademark lawyers may not kill anyone or burn down embassies, but their tactics — based on fear, not the law — are no less stifling to free and open discourse and the marketplace of ideas. To the average Joe or Jane out there in the blogosphere, what’s the difference between a multimillion dollar infringement suit or a death threat? Both succeed in silencing all but the bravest and/or foolish of voices.

  • Pingback: » Silly Legal Threats for Dummies The Blog Herald: more blog news more often

  • Michael

    As any infingee should know (er, know better), use of a common term isn’t explicity trademark infringement.

    Gimme a break. Jason should make this as public as possible just so Wiley can learn what it’s like to be their namesake product’s audience.

  • http://jaxn.org/blog Jackson

    IANAL but…

    Wait, since I am not a lawyer I don’t have much to add.

    Seems like creative license to me though.

  • Anne

    Forgive my incredulity, but is this a hoax? Does this Kathleen person really exist? I just can’t believe someone could be so devoid of common sense to make such an assertion and offer themselves up as blog fodder.

  • Pingback: Technoogle » Blog Archive » How to be Dummy, for Dummies

  • http://www.schwimmerlegal.com Marty Schwimmer

    I’m a trademark lawyer and here’s my take:

    http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/archives/2006/02/trademark_attri.html

  • Pingback: Netweb » Stupid Lawyer Tricks For Dummies

  • http://www.advicegoddess.com Amy Alkon

    I’m sorry, but if you have a trademark (and I do), my understanding is that you have to defend against use by others of your mark or your ownership of the mark becomes watered down. Perhaps a trademark lawyer could weigh in on that?

  • http://suzette.typepad.com/the_joy_of_soup/ Sue Pleydee

    It’s one thing to face a situation like this if you are a well-known blogger with equally well-known friends going to bat for you. It’s quite another to face it as a somewhat more minor light in the blogosphere. When the lawyers from Simon&Shush-ter came for me, all I had was the joy of a website called Chilling Effects.
    http://www.chillingeffects.org/

  • Ted

    Re: “fordummies”. What are ‘ummies’ and why does Ford have anything to do with them? They should stick to the auto industry, unless ‘ummies’ are car thingies. Then that’s okay.

  • Ted

    Oh, oh. With all the literalists out there, I’ll bet some readers are head-shaking right now. Irony is hard. (Cast irony is harder.)

  • Pingback: Creative License for Dummies at Jackson Miller

  • Pingback: Dummies » Nanotechnology For Dummies