AT: Obamas try to muscle little company into handing over its trademark to them

The conservative outrage is palpable in this little story.

It’s ugly, too. Two of the worst excesses of, predominantly, liberal discourse are:

  • Making boneheaded assumptions
  • Making psychological judgements

The Obamas don’t deserve that treatment here, even if they may have earned it, being pretty good at both tactics themselves.

All the same, it’s a fair question: Why don’t the Obama’s just seek a different trademark?

I’ve been involved in a number of business start ups over the years. Not at any expert or high-finance level, but often enough to have seen a pattern: Some of the biggest fights inexperienced principles have amongst themselves are over the company name and logo. More experienced entrepreneurs I have known tend to shrug it off, as long as the name and logo are “good enough.”

But there are, indeed, lofty philosophical and practical considerations to weigh. For example, what kind of e-books does Higher Ground Enterprises publish? Are they ethical? Would their branding and marketing inevitably conflict somehow with any commercial interest the Obamas might pursue, no matter their own business name? Do the Obamas have a moral right to take down a competitor by any legal means available? And how much money had the Obamas already invested in their own corporate identity when they discovered the competing trademark?

These things can be complicated. That’s what piques our interest in them.

11 thoughts on “AT: Obamas try to muscle little company into handing over its trademark to them

  1. The real question is why did the government turn down a trademark that was recognizably different from the one already on file. The existing mark is “Higher Ground Enterprises” which is in the ebook business. The Obama’s rejected mark is “Higher Ground Productions” which is in the film production business. There is no overlap in their businesses and the marks are clearly different. This smacks of Trump’s petty attempts to hurt President Obama in any way that he can.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “There is no overlap in their businesses and the marks are clearly different.”

      You say so, but that’s not much to go on. I’d say, with equal justification, that the trademark office made a defensible judgement. Also, there’s no evidence of tampering from the Whitehouse.

      Not much of a story here, except that trademark law doesn’t make the news every day.


    1. RE: “Do you read anything from a source that’s not on the right fringe?”

      Does it matter? Or, how is that important?


      1. Bias is not important? Really?

        Following your posting I found dozens of articles parroting the original phrase charging the Obamas with “deplorable behavior.” All were on extremist and heavily biased web sites. I read several of them and found almost all were cut and paste jobs with the same damning material and opinions expressed almost identically.

        On NONE of them did I find any attempt to pose or answer a very obvious question . . . Why did the government under Trump deny the trademark in the first place? The trademarks are different and the companies involved in completely unrelated businesses. There is no obvious GOOD reason that the application was denied.

        If this had been a serious story and not something blown out of all proportion it would be covered by someone other than known propaganda sites. If it was, I could not find any such reporting. And, non-biased reporting would look into the question posed above.

        So, IMHO, if the source is biased and you cannot find objective reporting to support it, it DOES matter.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “Bias is not important? Really?”

          How is bias even an issue in the context of my post?

          For example, do you assume I posted the AT piece because I’m trying to promote AT? And if so, why would you make such an assumption?


          1. I think you posted the AT piece because you are a visceral hater of President Obama for some reason and are eager to spread anything that casts him in a bad light. You do so even when the source is known for its dishonesty and bias. It may be reporting accurately but I say again I could find nothing about this story from an actually objective and reliable source.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Of course it matters John, I’ve been in ”echo chambers” that got in the way of more holistic thought patterns and found it was very limiting.

        I force myself to work both sides of the dialogue to stay centered and knowledgeable…works reasonably well….

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: “Of course it matters John, I’ve been in ‘echo chambers’ that got in the way of more holistic thought patterns and found it was very limiting.”

          I get the principle. A more pointed way to ask the same question is, “What does it matter and how is it important in light of how I commented on the AT piece?”


    2. The only source for the “deplorable behavior” phrase was the attorney for the defending company. And that was bounced around like a super ball in a concrete room.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s