Can You Trademark the Urban Self-Sufficiency Movement? The Controversy Over the Dervaese Family
Urban Homestead®. There, I said it. But according to the Dervaese family, the use of the term “urban homestead” is infringing on their trademark- a trademark that received its registration certificate only in October, 2010.
Sparked by a story first broken by Gustavo Arellano in OCWeekly, the internet gardening community has been abuzz since it was revealed on the OCWeekly blog that the family was issuing “cease and desist” letters to bloggers, website owners, authors, and even libraries that use the term urban homestead, or carry books with that title. It seems a bit odd that the family has sought out the community that supported its rise to notoriety (the family runs several websites and makes money off of home tours, filming, and selling their organic produce.
The reaction has been so poor that there are Facebook groups and twitter hashtags (#DumptheDervaeses) that call for the family to apologize to the gardening community. After all, many argue, can you trademark general principles that have existed for centuries?
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office you can, but should the family be acting on this trademark? Many companies have fought for their brands, such as Xerox, Kleenex, Hoover, and Tupperware, from being subsumed into popular culture and used as the generic term for the object, while newer companies, such as Google and Twitter, which deal with information and concepts, have somewhat embraced this. Does Google go after everyone who says “I ‘googled’ it?” No.
I think this is where much of the anger comes from – the Dervaeses have trademarked words to describe concepts that have existed for generations – from producing your own food and energy, to raising your own livestock.
According to LAWeekly, “This past week, the Dervaes Institute, the parent organization run by the Dervaes family, started sending out “normal, professional and informative” letters to anyone using the following trademarked terms: URBAN HOMESTEAD®, URBAN HOMESTEADING®, PATH TO FREEDOM®, GROW THE FUTURE®, HOMEGROWN REVOLUTION®, FREEDOM GARDENS®, LITTLE HOMESTEAD IN THE CITY® (the last one is pending, but it’s included on the original letter.). They also asked Facebook to take down pages that violated their trademark, which Facebook has done.”
The situation has escalated, with the Dervaes family shutting down their own Facebook account and claiming harassment of themselves and their friends. The family has issued its own statement, stating: “Please find the ‘cease & desist’ phrase in this normal, professional and informative letter. It’s a false, made up claim that people are jumping over themselves to make us look bad.”
The opposition has not been quiet, even going as far as starting a petition on change.org to cancel the trademark of “Urban Homestead.”
Should the phrase have been allowed to be copyrighted? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already decided that. What so many find questionable, I believe, is how the family has gone about enforcing their trademark. In the internet/information age, should we be able to trademark and copyright ideas and images that have existed in the public imagination for a while or were created through a collaboration of many people, over many years? (Lawrence Lessig explores these questions in his great book, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity)
That is a much larger and more complex question, which delves into the fartest depths of ethics and law. It’s no wonder the patenting, trademarking, and copyrighting of information is also tied to the outrage over genetically modified crops and seeds.
How will the story end? It’s unclear at this point, but it will certainly be interesting to find out what happens when the dust clears.
Like what you read? Don’t forget to add us to your reader. Read more about the Urban Homesteading cotroversy at 5 Questions with Gustavo Arellano: the Journalist who Broke the Dervaes Urban Homesteading Story Talks About Intellectual Property and the Urban Homesteading Movement.
The local food movement has arisen partly from the desire for a greater connection with the source. On tiny plots of land, resourceful urban farmers are replacing food deserts with astonishingly productive food oases. Sharing the bounty with friends, family, and food banks is often integral to the urban farmer’s practice. In this system, greed is out of place.
“Legal” and “Ethical” are not synonymous. While following the letter of the law, the Dervaes family is not, in my opinion, modeling the spirit of the farming community. Shame on the Dervaeses.
Thanks, Anne! I agree. Legal and Ethical are not the same thing – as I propose, it is a question and debate that will only grow larger as we move into the information age.
[...] been fantastic for finding news stories, keeping up on what the latest movements and trends are (#DumptheDervaeses, anyone?) and for “meeting” a lot of interesting people. When I first joined Twitter, [...]
The thing that is most outrageous about this is the context. I think people expect this kind of petty drivel and greed from corporations or what have you, but from “urban homesteaders”? (My check’s in the mail, Dervaes family.) Intellectual copyright has always made me a bit uneasy, and here’s a perfect example. Not only do we live in a society where “owning” parts of genomes (something that has existed long before humans could even conceptualize such a thing) is rationalized, it is also rational to own a concept that has existed in many forms for many, many years. All of these issues are just more symptoms of an ill-formed society (but that is my own, cynical opinion, and quite beyond the scope of this article).
Krysten, thanks for your really eloquent comments! I feel largely the same. We are moving into a brave new world – where everything is owned, and at the same time, nothing is owned as we continue to “rip, mix, and burn” anything and everything – some for the common good, some for the profit motive. It’s going to be a wild ride!
[...] Reinhardt | Monday, February 21st, 2011 | No Comments » In recent days, the story of the Dervaes family has been a hot topic in the world of urban agriculture. It has sparked a passionate debate about [...]
Can You Trademark the Urban Self-Sufficiency Movement? The Controversy Over the Dervaese Family http://ow.ly/40lEE
Can You Trademark the Urban Self-Sufficiency Movement? The Controversy Over the Dervaese Family http://ow.ly/40lEH
[...] Reinhardt | Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011 | No Comments » With all the controversy over the Dervaes family, it’s easy to get caught up in discussions of trademarks, ethics, intellectual property, and [...]
People need to know that Dervaes don’t have rights that they try to claim.Urban Homesteading trademark was registered in Supplemental Register. It means that it is merely descriptive.
Descriptive marks (or more properly, “merely descriptive marks”) are devices which merely describe the services or goods on which the mark is used. If a device is merely descriptive, it is not a mark at all, since it does not serve to identify the source of the goods or services. No trademark rights are granted to merely descriptive marks. No secondary meaning was developed by Dervaes to make it a protectable trademark. Most of people believe and there is sufficient proof in the internet that Urban Homesteading is generic phrase and therefore is incapable of functioning as a trademark
The benefits that apply to Supplemental Registrations are:
1) the mark will appear in trademark searches, and that the registrant is given the right to use the ® symbol in connection with the mark.
2) In addition, having a mark registered on the Supplemental register will assist in achieving registration of the mark in certain foreign countries.
3) Finally, Supplement Registrations can be used to help prove exclusive use of a mark for a five year period, which is one of the ways in which secondary meaning may be proved to the U.S.P.T.O.
Even if no opposition is filed, and the application becomes registered, it is still possible for a third-party to object to the registration of a particular mark. This objection is usually made through a cancellation proceeding, which is similar to an opposition proceeding except that it takes place after registration. You can find more information on http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/index.html
[...] | Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 | No Comments » There’s been a lot of controversy over the Dervaes family and their trademark of the term “Urban Homesteading.” One of the most interesting [...]
[...] reaction has been so poor that there are Facebook groups and twitter hashtags (#DumptheDervaeses) that call for the family to apologize to the gardening community. After all, many argue, can you [...]
[...] case you missed it, it’s been a very busy few weeks for Grown in the City. With a few viral articles, three new interactive maps, and the launch of an e-book on Amazon.com, [...]
[...] Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City (which was also at the heart of the Dervaes trademarking controversy) covered many of the basics of the urban homesteading lifestyle, Making It takes a different [...]
[...] at this point everyone in the community knows about the Pasadena family, the Dervaes, who have trademarked the phrase “urban homesteading”. I think the whole thing reeks like fresh horse manure. I believe the claim is bogus and I am [...]