Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bob-dole-doesn't-trademark-his-name dept.

United States 329

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office in November to trademark her name. On her initial application, Palin listed usage of the trademark for a website featuring information about political issues; and educational and entertainment services, including motivational speaking in the fields of politics, culture, business and values. Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services and that trademarking a name is more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports. 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities, in particular, speaking engagements ... and it looks like she's looking to protect her name with those activities,' says attorney Claudia Ray."

cancel ×

329 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I fear . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110738)

We are going to be subject to this woman for years and years to come.

Re:I fear . . . (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110982)

Is there any way to filter out stories about this stupid bitch? She is worse than Paris Hilton and I am so sick and tired of hearing about her.

Hmmm ... (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110746)

Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110774)

February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Funny)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111168)

Can we extend it to the whole year of 2011?

Re:Hmmm ... (4, Funny)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110806)

Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?

Re:Hmmm ... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110964)

Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?

Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111018)

Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!

Man, you see how he took that dude down? Guy was like "Sarah Palin is a Clueless Bitch" and he came back with "Nuh-uh, Obama's a Clueless Bitch!" He probably high-fived his keyboard after coming up with that witty bon-mot.

It's basically the Sunday morning TV news talk shows, distilled to their essence.

To be fair though, Sarah Palin is pretty much the Platonic ideal of Clueless Bitch. The first poster has accuracy going for him, if not the Oscar Wilde-like ability with the verbal comeback that the second poster showed with his "I know you are, but what am I?"

Re:Hmmm ... (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111042)

Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama. So what we have is a couple of little bitches, but one is ever so much bitchier than the others.

Obama has fallen down on his promises again and again. Palin has proven her idiocy time and again. Anyone supporting either of them at this point, however, wins the absolute clueless bitch award. Palin was chosen for unelectability. Obama was chosen for his palatability. END OF LINE.

Re:Hmmm ... (3, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111048)

^^^ Exactly. In a thread about Palin, they want to discuss Obama.

Re:Hmmm ... (3)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111166)

Now that Ted Stephens is no longer with us, I propose "That jackass from alaska".

We'll just have to call her something else (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110812)

i've been calling her "that stupid cunt from alaska"... & nobody seems to have any problem figuring out who im talking about.

Re:We'll just have to call her something else (2, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110850)

It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.

Wicked Witch of the West (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110952)

It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.

She's the Wicked Witch of the West.

Geeze!

Re:Wicked Witch of the West (3, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110974)

Ah! I didn't know that. It's gotten to the point that Pelosi could be trademarked too. Nothing tops "We've got to pass it to find out what's in it." It just doesn't get any better than that.

It's to head off ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110914)

SarahPalinIsARetard.com

SarahPalinIsADumbCunt.com

SarahPalin ... well you get it.

IANAL... (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111072)

I'm under the impression that a trademark must be associated with a certain product. That's why there's Linux soap [roesch-swiss.ch] . If Sarah Palin wants to register her name as a trademark, fine, that's her problem, but she cannot keep people from using it for other purposes.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111054)

Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?

That depends. Does the Digital Millenium Copyright Act apply to trademarks?

Good News Everyone! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111076)

I see this as good news then, it means she won't be running for office, as a political figure CANNOT exert such control over their name usage.

Now, you still can't sell products as "Approved by [Political figure]", but pretty much anything else is fair game.

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111084)

Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?

Probably not. She's a public figure and in that sense she's waived any exclusivity with regard to pretty much any aspect of her public persona.

I know, I know, according to Sean Penn the public doesn't "own" celebrities, but I don't believe that they can be barred or made to pay to satire or critique the activities/opinions of those same famous folk.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

tsj5j (1159013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111102)

DMCA is often confused with trademarks and patents.

DMCA specifically addresses copyright infringement and DRM circumvention.
It does not, and cannot, be used to threaten to take down a site based on trademark or patent claims alone.

For those, you will likely need a lawyer to send a Take Down notice or file a suit.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111140)

No, it means that no other Sarah Palins can enter politics without changing their names. Trademarks cannot prevent people from talking about the subject of the trademark, only preventing people to promote themselves with the subject's name in the same field.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111184)

No, This is about money and clearly a religious spirit. Most religious put their name into a crusade or programs, church names, or in titles, that no one else would use, and don't attempt to make their business exclusive to this extent.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111256)

I'm guessing the reason is this [buzzfeed.com] (NSFW).

1st Amendment (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110748)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

Re:1st Amendment (1, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110804)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.

But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".

But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?

Re:1st Amendment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110862)

Aww, did we stwike a nerve wit the widdle neo-con?

Re:1st Amendment (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110870)

How thick are you? Using her trademark registration "as a club to try to quell speech" is not a literal statement. There is no suggestion of violence. Nobody is claiming that she is somehow going to take the registration, make a knobbly club out of it (perhaps using the techniques of papier mache) and beat people she dislikes with the resultant weapon. Just in case you forgot the start of that sentence by the time you got to the end of it: NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THIS.

Moron.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110920)

Yes, referring to your opponent as "moron" goes a long way to illustrate the sophistication you bring to political discourse.

-- Slashdot token contrarian conservative

Re:1st Amendment (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111006)

When your opponent literally is a moron, it is an accurate point that illustrates the clarity and honesty brought to the political discourse for which she should not be taking part in because she is a fucking moron.

If you want to allow these types of carnies to game our political system for their financial gain at the cost of peoples lives and jobs... you're a fucking moron too.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111164)

Let's be real here, the opponent in reference here is not literally a moron [wikipedia.org] . While many persons with mild mental retardation might post to ./, I think their posts would be highly recognizable as such.

Don't misuse the word literally, moron.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111148)

How thick are you?

Moron.

leave bristol alone, she's just defending her meal ticket.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110886)

Doesn't playing one of Slashdot's token contrarian conservatives get boring after a while?

Re:1st Amendment (3, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110890)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.

The club is a metaphor [wikipedia.org] ... just like the ponies on /., they represent something other than their specific definitions.

Re:1st Amendment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110902)

Glenn Beck has used this tactic in the past. It didn't work. But he tried to have DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com shut down because it violated the trademark of his name. But I'm sure if you research this further, you'll see that this tactic is tried time and again by many people of many political walks of life. I have no doubt Palin will try it at some point. Perhaps she'll reserve it for something that is exceedingly offensive or perhaps she'll sue the first liberal blogger that calls her dumb as hair. Either way it is apparent that it is a legal tactic that is irresistible to people.

Re:1st Amendment (-1, Flamebait)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110924)

The problem is cable. Before cable news people got their carefully crafted propaganda from CBS, ABC and NBC. Now all those right wing viewpoints are out there on cable and since people can choose what to watch Fox keeps making ridiculous amounts of money. It's not fair. If they shut down FOX then things can go back to the way they are supposed to be. The people who know what's good for the country can keep spinning the news the way they want without FOX around to show another view. And while we're at it that CSPAN should go too. It's actually raw footage of events!!! A huge threat to the real truth on NBC.

Re:1st Amendment (4, Informative)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110934)

That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111098)

You don't get it do you? Have you ever noticed the twisted lies that NBC and ABC throw around...or CBS when Dan Rather was at the helm? The days when their was just plain, straight factual reporting are gone. Everybody lets their ideology taint their reporting now.

Re:1st Amendment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110976)

Scott Adams said it best
When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View [wikipedia.org]

Re:1st Amendment (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111100)

Ignorance is always a point of view. It always has been.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111026)

Using the advantage that the superiority of your ideology gives you, why don't YOU own broadcast media so that you can reach massive numbers of people with your own point of view? Oh that's right, those who make such investments happen to share the conservative points of view. Well whose fault is that?

I see a whole lot more complaining than I see anyone actually *doing anything about it.*

Re:1st Amendment (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111138)

Are everyone's sarcasm detectors broken?

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110936)

Oh hey, look, the Sarah Palin Defense Force is at it again.
I won't even bother providing links and facts as to why Sarah is an absolute moron of a person since you will just ignore it anyway.
I bet you probably felt sorry for her when her e-mails "got hacked by super evil hackers of the internet".

Sometimes i feel a bit jealous of people so narrow-minded. They can live in such closed-off worlds without having a guilty conscious. (that goes for fanboys and girls of any case, really)
I felt a bit bad for Obama, actually, now that i bring this up.
He was all for change and everything before the election. That enthusiasm he had.
When the poor guy got in to office, you could see that he had just broke inside. Being on the top and having to decide the fates of millions can really break a person. Hard.

Re:1st Amendment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111050)

Wus da night afo' Crizzmus, and all thru da hood,
everybody be sleepin' and da sleepin' be good.
We hunged up our stockins, an hoped like all heck,
dat Obama gunna brang us our welfare checks.

All of da family, was layin' on da flo',
my sister wif her gurlfriend, my brother wif some ho.
Ashtrays was all full, empty beer cans and all
when I heared such a fuss, I thunk...."Sh'eet, must be da law".

I pulled the sheet off da window and what I'ze could see,
I was spectin' the sherrif, wif a warrent fo' me.
But what did I see, made me say, "Lawd look 'a dat!"
Dere was a huge watermelon, pulled by eight big-ass rats.

Now ovah da years, Santy Claws he be white,
but it looks like us brotha's, got a black un' tonight.
Faster than a poe'lice car, my homeboy he came,
and whupped up on dem rats, as he called dem by name.

On Biden, On Jessie, On Pelosi and Hillary Who,
On Fannie, On Freddie, On Ayers, and Slick Willy too.
Obama landed dat melon, right there in da street,
I knowed it fo' sho', - can you believe that Sheet?

Dat Santy didn't need no chimley, he picked da lock on my do',
an I sez to myself, "Son o' bitch..he don did dis befo!"
He had a big bag, full of presents - at first I suspeck?
Wif "Air Jordans" and fake gold, to wear roun' my neck.

But he left me no presents, just started stealin my shit.
He got my guns and my crack, and my new burglers kit.
Den, wif my shit in his bag, out da windo' he flew,
I sho' woulda shanked him, but he snagged my blade too!

He jumped back on dat melon, wif out even a hitch,
and waz gone in two seconds, da democrat sonofabitch.
So nex year I be hopin', a white Santy we git,
'cause a black Santy Claws, just ain't worf a shit!

Re:1st Amendment (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111160)

I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.

No, you have not heard that. You made that up.

You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111224)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.

But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".

But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?

Whatta fucking idiot

Re:1st Amendment (4, Insightful)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111232)

I call troll for literally interpreting "as a club" to mean something violent, but I'll bite: So I guess that when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?

Re:1st Amendment (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110826)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of). I have no interest in her as a politician, and I suspect she's no longer interested in holding office, either. She wants to be a talk brand, and trademarking her name isn't any different than Martha Stewart doing the same.

Re:1st Amendment (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110872)

You need to pay more attention. It's those in power who routinely try to shut down other's speech. Whether they are left or right seems to matter little. Power corrupts most of them it seems.

Maybe it's just the human condition, hence the founding fathers' attempts at limiting governments power.

Re:1st Amendment (1, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110882)

Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of).

No, the stupid cunt just wants to kill them instead.

http://www.newser.com/story/106447/sarah-palin-julian-assange-should-be-hunted-like-al-qaeda-leaders.html [newser.com]

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Goody (23843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110888)

You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech.

The right does it as well. I wish Palin would speak more. She's a gift from God to the Democratic Party.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111276)

I can't believe no one has mentioned the lack of politic leftness in the US anyways. There quite literally is no left wing, it's all just shades of right, rendering this whole argument completely moot.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

haus (129916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110928)

Other then 'Martha Stewart' has several lines of products spread over multiple categories which are sold across the nation (perhaps elsewhere, I do not know, as I really do not give a hoot). Sarah Palin produces noting other then sounds bites many of which are cringe inducing.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

Xiaran (836924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111000)

I have never heard anyone try to "shut her down" from public speaking. How are they going about this?

Re:1st Amendment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111030)

>>$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

> You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others'
> speech.

Interesting... a post from an alternate universe.

Re:1st Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111068)

You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of).

You'll be modded down for that, but it's the truth. To those asking who are trying to prevent her from talking, just watch the news. People are still trying to censor her over the Giffords shooting, despite the fact that the shooter was a left-wing radical, and his motive was Giffords refusing to talk to him.

If you want further examples, this thread is providing tons of them.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111120)

"It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech."

Only on slashdot could this shit ever get rated insightful, the right has done plenty. Like glenn beck talking about killing michael moore, too many stupid people on the right is just insane in america. These demagogues merely fan the flames of stupid people. The problem is freedom of speech was coined before the era oft television and mass media where most people are living in worlds of illusion manufacutred by our corporatocracy. I'm not a fan of stupid people on the right or left, nor of shutting down speech... but lets not pretend hateful speech does not have consequences in an age of mass media and mass propaganda. The founding fathers of the US could never predict what science now knows about media and mass communications. I'm sure they would be horrified at what mass media was able to do to the public mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg#t=0m48s [youtube.com]

Re:1st Amendment (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111150)

Then they're doing a terrible job, because she's the only US politician who's opinion I hear every single week without ever searching for it.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110856)

Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".

Re:1st Amendment (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110900)

Exactly what I was thinking. I doubt she will have any luck shutting down anything from before she trademarked her name though.

Re:1st Amendment (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110908)

Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".

To be fair, the lighting in that movie was done very well. The back story (not to be confused with the on-her-back story) didn't get the same attention to detail.

but i live in canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110938)

ill still make sarahpalinisaretard
and
sarahthetardPalin

Re:1st Amendment (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111052)

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

I've got $20 that says she actually ends up using a club to quell speech she doesn't like.

What a gip (2)

eedlee (1448129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110760)

So now we cant make any more SarahPorn?

Nailin Palin (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110918)

Unless it's included in "entertainment services" she seems to have made a mistake. Perhaps she realized that having the trademark listed for pornography would make her a laughing stock? It's also possible that wouldn't be granted because of prior art. Does prior art count for trademarks?

Re:What a gip (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111174)

Get your Sarah Palin Love Doll [trendhunter.com] before it's too late!

Perhaps... (1)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110764)

...she's going to copy Dave Gorman, find a bunch of other Sarah Palins, and write a book/tv show around her adventures...

Maybe she's not a politician (3, Informative)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110766)

Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110786)

Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politican

Oh, you mean like Ronald Reagan? People like that make perfect figureheads.

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110842)

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110876)

Really! People pay to hear Pelosi speak? Amazing!

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110930)

It's funny because Pelosi is a Democrat and not a Republican like Sarah Palin. Please mod parent funny.

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110960)

Ah! I get it! It's expected for a Democrat to be an idiot. When it's a Republican it's funny. But really I just expect all politicians to be idiots and I'm almost never disappointed. Sometimes Sarah is ridiculous, sometimes she sounds nutty as hell but on her worst day she seldom sounds like the kind of idiot that Pelosi comes off as. Then there is Joe Biden. Picking Biden for a running mate was probably the shrewdest move that Obama could have made. It virtually guarantees no attempts at assasination. Even the KKK don't want Biden as president.

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111032)

did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?

You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (0)

impos (805511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111242)

did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?

You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?

And which network is paying them for their political 'insight'? Of course they aren't pundits for the left, we wouldn't pay heed to them. Go back to your Fox News, I'm sure Hannity or Cavuto are waiting for you.

Re:Maybe she's not a politician (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111236)

As an entertainer, it's fitting that she trademark her name like other with the same act, such as Lady Bunny and Jackie Beat.

Dammit (1)

Goody (23843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110790)

Does this mean I can't use the Sarah Palin name on my brand of specially-bred mutant jackasses I'm going to sell?

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110796)

She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.

She's also one of many recent political figures to be an IP maximalist.

Re:Simple (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110878)

Or Obama.

Re:Simple (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110966)

She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.

The rise of the professional politician, who needs an armload of qualifications before he is welcome in office, is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established a country in which the political process was open to all (well, except slaves and women). Many early congressmen were pretty simple folks, not much more clued-up than Palin.

Re:Simple (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111058)

The founding fathers failed when they did not regulate political parties in the constitution. Now we have them anyway, and there's not enough limits on what they are able to do.

Yawn (1)

avtchillsboro (986655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110810)

yawn....

Trademarking her name... (1, Funny)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110828)

...is an effort at branding herself. And I'd be happy to help her. Can I start the fire and hold the branding iron, dear Sarah?

The Summary Answers Itself... (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110898)

From the front page summary:

more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports

She is clearly in entertainment - how many TV shows are about her right now?

She is also in fashion - we all heard about her massive wardrobe budget when she was campaigning with McCain.

And her entertainment is sport - at least to her. She tells us about her heroic helicopter hunting trips, and her husbands awesome snowmobile races. Those definitely count as sport where she is.

Prior art (0)

einar2 (784078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35110944)

Would not the principle of prior art still permit you to speak about "failin Palin"?


Disclaimer: Swiss and therefore neutral about US politics :-)

Re:Prior art (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111194)

Prior art relates to patents. Trademarks are a whole other IP ball game. Patents expire, trademarks do not. You must vigorously defend your trademark, or risk losing it, but you can sit on patents or copyrights for years and then suddenly decide to sue everyone who's distributed your material. Trademarks can only be registered in a certain area, hence the Apple Music/Apple Computer troubles when Apple Computer went into the music industry. I'm not sure how much room there is for parody when trademarks are involved.

There is some wiggle room in the area the mark is registered though, so if you still want to register a "Sarah Palin Goat Breeding Service", you probably can.

need different icon for this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110954)

I humbly suggest that the American flag be removed as the icon for this submission and replaced with something associated with stupidity, such as a dunce cap.

It's all that woman deserves, anyway.

Additionally, trademarking has nothing to do with her activity in government, so it seems a slightly inappropriate icon in that respect as well, in my opinion.

Can we update Slashdots tagline PLEASE? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110958)

News for (Liberal) Nerds. (No longer covering...) Stuff that matters.

Re:Can we update Slashdots tagline PLEASE? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111078)

God forbid you conservatards have to see an opinion that differs from yours.

Running for Billionaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35110978)

Beauty Queen, VP and now Billionaire...

In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111016)

In other news, timothy seeks to ruin slashdot with bullshit stories like this posted on the front page.

Please Stop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111080)

She will never go away if everyone keeps clicking on every headline that contains her name.

Join me in avoiding her, and let's start talking about real issues.

Her daughter too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111082)

Under the little-known trademark category: Hypocritical Speakers.

Can we breathe a sigh of relief now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35111104)

Does this mean she's not planning on running for President? Can discount that nightmare scenario from happening (although her odds of winning were fairly bad anyways). No doubt she'll try to brand herself as the Republican version of Oprah and try to get her own tv talk show to counter the liberal-biased media that she has no problem being an attention-whore for. How is she a "tea party darling" again? "Constitutional scholar" aren't words I would ever use to describe Sarah Palin (tm).

Trade marking names (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111106)

What does Michael Palin say about this? - He has been around as an entertainer for a long time.

Sarah is a common womans name - I am sure there was one in the Bible.

Re:Trade marking names (1)

wylf (657051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111228)

I'm pretty sure Michael wouldn't care less about "Sarah Palin" being a trademark, just like my cousin Sarah.

Re:Trade marking names (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111280)

"I am sure there was one in the Bible."

After a quick read of the GOP/T-Bag Abridged Bible, I can categorically refudiate that. It has only one page with the text: "God hates fags."

A proud moment (2)

twoears (1514043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111178)

A proud moment for the Palin family. Scumbag Levi Johnston must be very happy he got the hell out of Dodge. Problem is, he didn't get out of Bristol in time.

Remember now... (1)

ProfanityHead (198878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35111246)

This is one of the early supporters of the "Teabaggers", yes, you know, the ridiculous right wing nut jobs who called themselves "teabaggers" until one of their kids showed them urbandictionary.com and they realized it meant laying your testicles on a passed out person's face and snapping pics.

Should we expect any different from her?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?