FedNow: https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow

Apparel: https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/products/fednow-shirt-1?_p...

Not a trademark attourney, but the styling is distinct enough. The use of identical name could be problematic I would think?

However, I don't see how this is a "parody" -- I thought parodies have to be clearly different but use similar styling, i.e. call it "FedThen" and cleverly include the `24/7` or something in the lettering, maybe inside the "e" which gets shaped kind of like the "o"

> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement.

Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright.

It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.

I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the undemocratic, nightmerican system of goverence with non-existent to weak checks and balances across the entire polis and an outdated constitution.

That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, and only someone riding the coattails of early adoption and espousing permanent oligarch rule through its lack of taxation could ever speak highly of its poor design, replacing centralized banking with a centralized computing infrastructure arms race to the detriment of the world's resources. There, I said it.

I don't completely agree with the point of Bitcoin Magazine, but the blatant attempt to suppress satire and criticism is deeply troubling.

Well, it appears that just because this is a parody does not mean it is fair use.

I noticed that in the lawyer response, a court case was cited. I did a search for this court case and found plenty of analysis. It turns out that the Congress passed a law, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which specifically provided protections from parodies. But...

> ... the concern with the TDRA's "fair use" parody clause is twofold. First, it is too broad in some respects by immunizing all non-source-denoting parodies from liability in one fell swoop. The main criticism of such a broad-brush approach is that it fails to assess the message communicated by the parody and its effect on the reputation of the mark. Second, the clause is, quite ironically, too narrow in other respects, as it excludes from its ambit certain source-denoting parodies that might be deserving of protection.

So the question, I guess, is whether this parody is excluded by the poorly-worded TDRA. Remember that earlier this year the Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniels in a trademark parody dispute against a dog toy manufacturer!

[1] https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect even pursuing this by the Fed.

undefined

This is a big nothingburger. Trademark holders have to actively show that they're defending their trademark.

They should have called it FedLater and then it would have been funny and made more sense

undefined

Where's the Fed's merch store? I'd buy a genuine FedNow t-shirt.

[flagged]