[DRAFT] Without Watermarks, Trademarks Spark Snarky Remarks

[Fauxia]

Another, similar title is "Trademark Sharks Spark Snarky Remarks". My only hesitation with that one is that, while it makes sense given some uses of the word "shark", "trademark shark" is not a phrase people use. But there are a lot of ways to mess with this one.

If I can do this in a week and a half, this may be a contest draft. Or it will not.

Current Draft: 1.1

[description] @@CAPITAL@@’s second most popular football team recently announced it would change its name from the Bigwigs, a term considered offensive by many Bigtopians. However, the team found that fan favorite names such as "Corrupt Politicians" and "@@LEADER@@ Haters", as well as some wild cards like "Ancient Grumpy Mangroves" and "Two-Century-Old Iron Steamships" could not be claimed, due to "trademark squatting", the practice of registering trademarks without using them in the hopes of receiving royalties down the road.

[validity] allows immigration, didn’t take 13.1?

[option] "How are we supposed to change our name if no one will let us get a new one?" fumes the chair the club, who unilaterally rejected more than a dozen "puny-sounding" names. "We go through all this trouble just to appease some angry Bigtopian brutes, and then everyone’s telling us we have to pay thousands of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to be able to sell authentic merchandise? Are you kidding me? People should not be able to trademark names unless they plan to sell items with the name!"
[outcome] trademarking marks in fact requires trading said trademarked marks

[option] "Serves you right!" shouts Bigtopian rights activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, taking a match to a pile of old team jerseys and pictures of you. "These privileged rich folks make millions off of a name used to intimidate and demean Bigtopians and then cry like they’re the victims! It’s ridiculous! Reject their trumped-up claims of injury, and instead forbid the trademarking of offensive terms. That’s what the fat cats deserve! Come to think of it, maybe we can call them the @@CAPITAL@@ Fat Cats."
[outcome] trademarking something also requires paying Bigtopians not to claim offense

[option] "All these names are too colorful, anyway," says First Name Last Name, an androgyne dressed entirely in gray. "Why are all these companies and teams and whatnot obsessed with having silly names? Why don’t we only allow trademarks for names that describe the company? That team can become '@@CAPITAL@@'s Second Football Club', McSanto can become the 'Cancer Causing Company', Generic Electric can become… well, that one can stay. I know the big companies won't like it, but now they'll have to succeed on their own terms instead of relying on the value people put on their names."
[outcome] it’s easy to get the Blue Pill Company and the Blue Diamond Pill Company confused

[Fauxia]

Uh, well this didn't get any responses, so bump. Touched up on the draft a little, up to draft 1.1

[Daarwyrth]

fumes the chair the club

This should be "fumes the chair of the club", I think.

trademarking marks in fact requires trading said trademarked marks

I love this

trademarking something also requires paying Bigtopians not to claim offense

I love the option that precedes this effect line, but the effect line itself is a little lost on me. Perhaps you could change it to something a little sharper? Could be just me tho.

Beyond that, this is a fantastic issue draft! The humour is very sharp most of the time, and the issue is presented in an interesting and engaging way. Great work!

[Ioavollr]

I like this issue, clever and funny. My suggestions are very minor.

[description] @@CAPITAL@@’s second most popular football team recently announced it would change its name from the Bigwigs, a term considered offensive by many Bigtopians. However, the team found that fan favorite names such as "Corrupt Politicians" and "@@LEADER@@ Haters", as well as some wild cards like "Ancient Grumpy Mangroves" and "Two-Century-Old Iron Steamships" could not be claimed, due to "trademark squatting", the practice of registering trademarks without using them in the hopes of receiving royalties down the road.

I think you may be able to make unavailable names even sillier, either tough-as-picking-a-username silly. @@ANIMAL@@_1977B or as common as pie silly.

"All these names are too colorful, anyway," says First Name Last Name, an androgyne dressed entirely in gray.

I think it might be a little more believable if this person was Firstname Lastname, but I like this sentence very much.

[SherpDaWerp]

This seems a little bit like a collision of two worlds; it's the intersection of "derogatory trademarks" and "trademark squatting". I'd gather the intention is the latter, but including all the stuff about Bigtopians makes it less clear.

Option 2 is especially guilty of this - it doesn't address "trademark squatting" at all, from my reading.

I think it's probably better to focus on one or the other, instead of trying to pack them both in here.

[Fauxia]

Thanks for your comments.

This seems a little bit like a collision of two worlds; it's the intersection of "derogatory trademarks" and "trademark squatting". I'd gather the intention is the latter, but including all the stuff about Bigtopians makes it less clear.

Option 2 is especially guilty of this - it doesn't address "trademark squatting" at all, from my reading.

I think it's probably better to focus on one or the other, instead of trying to pack them both in here.

You are right, looking it over again. There's a reason for this, of course - I was originally going to write about offensive trademarks, but thought it might be too similar to other issues (especially if "Bigwigs" was used again) and realized I could go here. As a result, it is a collision of those two. I will work on that when I do the next draft.