Fark.com's move to trademark the widely used internet warning label "NSFW" has many in the blogosphere asking WTF?
Drew Curtis, founder of the off-kilter social news site, filed an application several days ago with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to claim ownership of the acronym, which is standard netspeak for "not safe for work." The filing drew a heaping helping of disbelief, some legal skepticism and a few howls of derision as word filtered out online.
While Curtis couldn't keep from cracking wise about the trademark application ("I originally asked my attorney to send the (application) in, handwritten in crayon, like President Bush does with his legislation," he said) he confirmed that the paperwork was legit. But he coyly declined to elaborate Monday, saying, "It would give away where we're going with this whole thing."
If Fark were granted the trademark, any website tacking on the NSFW label to links or images in hopes of saving a viewer from unexpected workplace embarrassment could, in theory, be slapped with a lawsuit. Future potential trademark infringers range from everyday cautious e-mailers to comedy video sites like FunnyorDie and the gadget gurus at Gizmodo, who use the label generously on their site.
"So let me get this straight," wrote Gizmodo's Adrian Covert about the filing. "Fark wants to take a vague, general acronym they didn't create and receive the online rights to it? Hmm ... good luck with that."
So, exactly how feasible is Fark's trademark request?
According to Frank Pasquale, a professor at Seton Hall University's School of Law who specializes in trademark law, not very. "The trademarking of the actual words 'not safe for work' strikes me as being almost impossible," he said.
"If this is serious, (Fark's operators are) going to have to argue that it has a secondary meaning," he said. "For that, they have to prove that a significant portion, about 15 to 20 percent, of web consumers think of Fark when they see the label 'NSFW.' They'll have to demonstrate that this is happening right now. And I don't think they can do that."
While the blogosphere writhes and roils itself into a tizzy over the trademark application, some regular Fark users seemed content to wait for Curtis' next move.
"Fark is incapable of taking even itself seriously, and to assume diabolical intent behind the 'trademark' application is the height of folly," wrote a Fark forum user. Curtis himself wrote that the "goal couldn't possibly be suing everyone using 'NSFW' out of existence."
Others took offense at the idea. "I can use NSFW all I want and not pay Drew Stinkin' Curtis a dime," wrote Chasie on the Something Awful forums. "You deserve a break today. Have a Coke and a smile. Poor Fark. From fairly decent to money-grubbing shit hole. I never looked back."
When probed as to how vigilant he would be enforcing trademark ownership, Curtis replied in typical Farker fashion. "I drink a lot if that's any indication," he said.