For whatever it's worth, I hang around this forum because there are rules, because it is well moderated, and because the mods are intelligent and fair-minded individuals. I've visited (but not for very long) a forum that was unmoderated and became complete anarchy, and a forum run by a "forum host" who had to be the expert on everything and would slap down the people who didn't bow at her feet. When I first showed up here, I couldn't believe that someone had finally struck the right balance, and that's why I enjoy this place so much.

Every decision that has been made in the H&E matter was done so using very openly-stated rules and guidelines, gathering facts in a thorough and logical progression, and giving the offending party every opportunity to comply. QS and all the mods refused to be manipulated. Because of that, the you are painted as being "mean," when quite simply, you're enforcing the rules that make this forum a pleasant place to visit.

I'd also wager that my opinon is a fairly common one among people who visit this forum. There are lot of people who may take your work for granted, but there's also members who do appreciate what's going on behind the scenes.

*ding ding ding*

And Macha gets to be the winner of my response post! (seriously, thanks--it's been looking for a home ) <--- In case it's not coming across properly, that was all totally snark-free. I'm not upset here. In fact I'd love to discuss this and have it over and done with. I like all of you mod-people (I have no idea what y'all think of me--for all I know you guys can't stand me--but that's the breaks of having a semi-big mouth when it comes to this stuff, and I accept that). Just know that I'm not bringing this up out of hostility in any way.

I will preface this by saying that in terms of rules, policies, IP issues, etc., I think you guys have been in the right and very reasonable in your enforcement measures. My only issue is with occasionally the manner in which it is done, and nothing more.

I can't fix my links, so if you want to see the posts to which I'm trying to link you'll have to scroll down. sorry

Okay, so moderators, double-standards and the notion of power...here we go: just to set the record straight, the numbers I gave as an example of the "bully perception" threshold were three, four, and five, so considering we had three and at one time four involved, I don't think I was exaggerating. The specific incident I had in mind at the time of my post was a different one and involved six mods by the time I finally spoke up. At that point this was, by the way, the only time I'd ever entered the fray in the H&E thread. andrabell posted a reminder in the thread that people not use the term frimp for non-bpal products. On paper it sounds great, and was perfectly within in the description of her duties. But it quoted Crescentmoon's post (who is a relative newbie), so it gave the appearance it was directly addressing her, and it also had what several perceived as a snippy tone, one that I know I would've felt a little embarassed to be the recipient of (that's some of that mod-power thing you guys may forget you have sometimes--that sort of thing is going to vary from person to person, but who can tell who is thick-skinned and who isn't?).

An aside: I'm not saying andrabell meant it in a snippy way, only andrabell knows that. She seems very adored by her friends and I imagine she is an incredibly nice person to her friends. If she doesn't want to be perceived as rude, especially in the course of moderation duties, she may want to consider refraining from closing her posts with "that is all." I've always seen it used in a light-hearted but snarky context, like for example of TelevsionWithoutPity, and if you use it in a serious one, it has the potential for looking, well....snarky.

Okay, so what followed (after PilotKitten--admittedly IMO--had a very hostile and over-the-top reaction) was eventually six moderators coming in to defend andrabell's post, and IP stuff, and who's being rude to who, etc. At one point they were quoting each other's post with "clapping" emoticons, which is just short of coming in to hi-five each other after some "oh, snap" moment. This is getting long enough, so I'll just leave it at that example, but I mean seriously...you guys are mods: is that really necessary, and can you see how that could be perceived as intimidating?

I know you guys are people too, and I'm not unsympathetic--I would've answered clover's post about that in the H&E thread this morning if I'd had time. And like I said, I like you guys, I don't think you're evil or tyrants, or anything like that. This is the only issue I've ever had with this board here, and I think you all do a terrific job. But the fact is is that you're not like everyone else in terms of your role here. I know there's a double-standard when it comes to your freedom to post and participate here; there's also a real (and also a perceived) imbalance of power. A certain amount of discretion may just be the trade-off for taking on a "mod hat".

You're all so freaking articulate you only really need one or two of you at a time to hold your own in these things, anyway. Plus, it seems to me that it would serve Beth and BPAL better if it didn't look like people who cause trouble--whether through accidental or intentional asshattery--get the Goon Squad sicced on them. That's how stuff winds up on Fandom Wank (not from here, but you know what I mean....).

And no, I'm not calling you Goons! I was being colloquial. And making a point that you run the risk of looking like bullies. I don't think you're bullies--I think you care about BPAL and this forum and Beth. This is probably my years of customer service stuff kicking in, but I don't see the harm of dialing it back just a little when it comes to these "kerfluffle" things.

I would like to know your thoughts, but I'm going to cut this off at ten-thousand words or whatever I'm at for the moment. Now, if I can only write this much for NaNoWriMo, I'll be all set

Truth is, it was your post asking for a forum to respond to that prompted me to write this particularly little mini-essay, so I feel much better now that you've happily found a place for your own post.

An aside: I'm not saying andrabell meant it in a snippy way, only andrabell knows that. She seems very adored by her friends and I imagine she is an incredibly nice person to her friends. If she doesn't want to be perceived as rude, especially in the course of moderation duties, she may want to consider refraining from closing her posts with "that is all." I've always seen it used in a light-hearted but snarky context, like for example of TelevsionWithoutPity, and if you use it in a serious one, it has the potential for looking, well....snarky.

First, I must admit I personally wouldn't have read "that is all" as snarkiness in a million-gazillion-years, perhaps in part because I don't roam around on TelevisionWithoutPity, and probably equal parts to do the fact that I am well familiar with how Andra sounds in print when she IS being snarky, and that's not it (not by a long shot.) "That is all" is Andra shorthand for: "just setting the record straight, carry on" and it's not necessarily confined to Andra. I might well have used the same language with no snark intended. Perhaps that is why it took all the mods so by surprise when the reaction was very strong. If our reaction was equally strong, well, we're only human too.

_________________

As for the rest of it...well...it's tough. We're all volunteers, and we don't always agree with each other, and we have a wide variety of backgrounds. Maybe if we had no emotional investment — but of course we do. I'm going to approach something from the marketing/advertising angle; other mods are experts on the legal side of things. I don't always bring up the point that Andra wants to make, or Embezel, or Quantum Spice — often because I don't KNOW the information that they know. I'm not sure that stifling mod responses is always to the good — there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on a variety of subjects that is currently not available because a mod has to double-check to make sure that they are not seen as dog-piling responses, and if someone else has responded, not reply. (From this you may surmise that quite a bit of discussion has occurred amongst the mod staff about ways to keep this sort of reaction from happening again.) [Edited to add: I'm going to point back to the difference between my response over on Filigree_shadow's blog, and Shrieking Violet's response, to the same comment. We both answered, and we answered in completely different ways. I like what Diana said, and I think she made an excellent point -- but it's not what _I_ would have said, nor in fact what I did say.]

Believe me, I'm not saying that mods are perfect. I have seen a mod asked to resign her position because she was willfully and purposefully attempting to intimidate certain forum members — I know it can happen, but I also know that we watch for that behavior too. That's part of why we have rules, part of why we can't just ban someone who's being an ass. We don't assume we're always right and infallible.

Honestly, I'm not certain that it matters any longer how we respond, or how many of us respond. I think that there are some members who are so hostile at this point that ANY response will be perceived as intimidation and oppression. Maybe I'm wrong...maybe I'm not giving people enough credit, but that's honestly the way I've felt of late.

I'm just not sure what to do about it.

I just wanted to comment really quickly, as I am the one who brought Disney into the H&E topic...I was not bringing up Disney in the abstract (as in they have a Snow White cartoon or figurine). I was writing specifically of this:

Snow White Perfume

an actual Snow White perfume by Disney that exists. Your comparison touches on Disney in general, whereas I am speaking specifically of a real perfume called Snow White released by Disney that really exists. To me, this speaks to the heart of the trademark debate.

A lot of people have been throwing the word "trademark" around in what I would call a "willy nilly" fashion. Just because a company calls a specific product a specific name does not mean they hold trademark to that name. Trademarking is an expensive and lengthy process (as many who have been following the stitch n' bitch debacle know). I find it hard to believe a company that has several hundred products has trademarked all the names. I find it harder still to believe those trademarks would not have been challenged seeing as there are current commercial products on the market with the same names (namely the perfumes I listed in the H&E forum).

With that having been said, I have not seen the lab making these trademarking claims, but some well-meaning people standing up for them. I think in discussions about these matters perhaps the official "legal" announcements should really come from the lab, and not all us junior trademark lawyers.

With all THAT being said, I am a huge fan of BPAL. I haven't even tried H&E...I just find this whole debate very interesting and can't resist a good argument

As unbelievable as it may be, Disney doesn't have an active trademark Snow White for perfume. Just makeup. Different classification.

A lot of people have been throwing the word "trademark" around in what I would call a "willy nilly" fashion. Just because a company calls a specific product a specific name does not mean they hold trademark to that name. Trademarking is an expensive and lengthy process (as many who have been following the stitch n' bitch debacle know). I find it hard to believe a company that has several hundred products has trademarked all the names. I find it harder still to believe those trademarks would not have been challenged seeing as there are current commercial products on the market with the same names (namely the perfumes I listed in the H&E forum).

It is my understanding that while registering a trademark is indeed an expensive and lengthy process, claiming a trademark is a matter a bringing a product to market, just the same way that a copyright protects any work I create whether I have filed the copyright or not. (It's just a LOT easier to prove my claim if I've put in the extra work to file first, plus I get to put the nifty ® next to the name, instead of just ™.)

You're right: you haven't heard from BPAL on this. I would be, not just surprised, but utterly floored, if you ever did. If BPAL wants to take action their attorney will do so, and I'm quite sure no announcement of such will ever be made. It's simply not in their interests to make a statement on this. Personally, I believe they have a case if they wish to pursue it. The companies you've listed may also have a case if they wish to pursue it. Like I said, it wouldn't be the first time the Lab has discovered they needed to remove a perfume from their catalog.

Honestly, I don't find fault with any company for find out someone else got to the cool name first. It's probably happened to every perfume company out there. I've done it myself (and let me tell you, the fact that I had NO idea the other company existed and had come up with the name 100% independently and thought it was original did nothing to change the fact that I didn't get to keep it.) I think Michele has a hard time claiming she didn't know, however.

As unbelievable as it may be, Disney doesn't have an active trademark Snow White for perfume. Just makeup. Different classification.

I found it, QS: they have in fact trademarked their perfume as "Walt Disney's Snow White," not just "Snow White."

(before this business with Pilotkitten & BOMH)

Erm what? There is no "business with PilotKitten & BOMH". I really like you Macha and I think your response was well-thought out and articulated. But neither I, nor I think BOMH, appreciates being called out or insinuating that we're troublemakers. This is an H&E v. BPAL/bpal.org issue. Period. Not a "PK & BOMH" issue. Just because we're the only ones with the courage to speak out against obvious overwhelming opposition doesn't mean we're the only ones that feel this way.

And for the record (not addressed towards you specifically but I've seen NUMEROUS people bring this up and make the statement)... NOT ONE person has ever questioned the actual banning of Michele. She broke the rules, you banned her, fine. The *ONLY* thing any of us have commented on and opposed was all the speculation and mud-slinging surrounding the why. Sure the mods have said the why doesn't matter, but when people bring it up (and the mods actively encourage their dissention), it deserved to be addressed.

a trademark is indeed an expensive and lengthy process, claiming a trademark is a matter a bringing a product to market, just the same way that a copyright protects any work I create whether I have filed the copyright or not. (It's just a LOT easier to prove my claim if I've put in the extra work to file first, plus I get to put the nifty ® next to the name, instead of just ™.)

 

You're right: you haven't heard from BPAL on this. I would be, not just surprised, but utterly floored, if you ever did. If BPAL wants to take action their attorney will do so, and I'm quite sure no announcement of such will ever be made. It's simply not in their interests to make a statement on this. Personally, I believe they have a case if they wish to pursue it. The companies you've listed may also have a case if they wish to pursue it. Like I said, it wouldn't be the first time the Lab has discovered they needed to remove a perfume from their catalog.

exactly...there is information being given on these various threads that runs from kind of true, to dubious, to flat out wrong. it's all speculation by a group of people who are not lawyers, and have little knowledge of the complex trademark system. and I feel that a group of people who are essentially customers, though well-meaning, should not be doling out edicts and "free advice" to another company to change names of products or risk legal issues. Not only is it the lawyer's place to deal with this, there is also the risk of unintentinally putting BPAL at risk by exposing some trademark discrepencies in their own product (such as a 3 minute google search that uncovers commercial products with the same names)

Honestly, I don't find fault with any company for find out someone else got to the cool name first. It's probably happened to every perfume company out there. I've done it myself (and let me tell you, the fact that I had NO idea the other company existed and had come up with the name 100% independently and thought it was original did nothing to change the fact that I didn't get to keep it.) I think Michele has a hard time claiming she didn't know, however.

and not to rankle feathers, but my little web search took exactly 3 minutes and uncovered commercial perfumes for most of the examples sited. There is a such thing as due diligence, and one could claim that bpal is in no better a position than h&e as the information is clearly out there for consumption. or is it your position that because h&e and bpal are more "direct" competitors (vying for the exact same customer base) h&e should have been more respectful of using common names to bpal than bpal should be using a name common to a company like Escada or Bob Mackie? Because someone looking to purchase Disney's Snow White will never mistake BPAL for Disney? (that would not be Disney's position, but just for argument's sake)

As unbelievable as it may be, Disney doesn't have an active trademark Snow White for perfume. Just makeup. Different classification.

I found it, QS: they have in fact trademarked their perfume as "Walt Disney's Snow White," not just "Snow White."

This goes back to my point #1 above...bad information being given. I'm sure innocently, but this is why layman should not be spouting information as if they are experts. I believe you to be correct in that trademark law has a "first use" rule whereby a company can challenge a trademark application based on being able to prove they have first use of the said trademark...which of course if expensive and drawn out, and there are no guarantees the trademark board will see it your way. then of course, there's the bigger company that may want to become involved and say "you may have used Snow White before company B, but WE used it and trademarked it before any of you, so now we'll go ahead and sue you all!" this is increasingly becoming a very slippery slope in this debate.

also, according to Macha's description of trademark law, this would not matter. if Disney released this before bpal and added the little TM mark to it, they would have a claim against bpal regardless of filing status. and I suppose bpal would have a claim against Disney if bpal released THEIR perfume first. something tells me though disney would not be bullied by some harsh criticism on a fan site. more likely bpal would not pursue the case as disney would just bankrupt them through a drawn out legal process.

sorry for the bold and non-quotes..I was having a bear of a time getting the quotes to look right...

Tried to fix your quotes, but I couldn't get them to work right either....don't know why. Sorry! — Macha

I know why they didn't work - the double quote with mine had two end quotes and only one opening quote. --qs

exactly...there is information being given on these various threads that runs from kind of true, to dubious, to flat out wrong. it's all speculation by a group of people who are not lawyers, and have little knowledge of the complex trademark system. and I feel that a group of people who are essentially customers, though well-meaning, should not be doling out edicts and "free advice" to another company to change names of products or risk legal issues.

Point of fact: several of the mods whe responded to this issue ARE lawyers, and IP laywers at that. They largely became involved precisely because incorrect information was being given out. If you're being very polite and sweet about telling ME to STFU, that's cool too, although I'm afraid I must apologize because I don't think I'm going to take that advice.

and not to rankle feathers, but my little web search took exactly 3 minutes and uncovered commercial perfumes for most of the examples sited. There is a such thing as due diligence, and one could claim that bpal is in no better a position than h&e as the information is clearly out there for consumption. or is it your position that because h&e and bpal are more "direct" competitors (vying for the exact same customer base) h&e should have been more respectful of using common names to bpal than bpal should be using a name common to a company like Escada or Bob Mackie? Because someone looking to purchase Disney's Snow White will never mistake BPAL for Disney? (that would not be Disney's position, but just for argument's sake)

But my point is that Beth DOES do diligence, so saying that she obviously hasn't in this case because those perfumes exist is not a convincing argument. You're right. I don't know for a fact if she has contacted those companies and has permission, or if there is some other reason regarding trademark that makes it not a problem. I will admit that I am giving BPAL more of a "pass" than I might give another company, because I know that Beth pays attention. But I _know_ (and know for a fact) that Michele did no such checking with BPAL while playing in BPAL's unofficial sandbox.

There's always a risk. That's the bummer of how the trademark system is set up. A friend of mine once worked for a company who had one of their intellectual properties yanked in a suit by a car manufacturer. No big deal, right? The company in question was a COMIC BOOK COMPANY. Someday someone will explain to me how a character in a Star Wars comic book could ever be confused with a Jeep. Yet the comic book company lost. Like you said, money wins. It happens.

And please allow me to clarify: I don't think Michele should have done this out of respect. I think she should have done it because she was pitching her tent directly in BPAL's back yard, and it was impossible that someone over there wasn't going to notice. Respect is why she should have obeyed the forum rules. Not using the same names as existing BPAL products though — I maintain that should have just been common sense.

It seems to me that you're saying....well, I'm not really sure. That we shouldn't discuss this less BPAL get into trouble too? That we're being hypocrites for pointing out H&E's missteps when BPAL may be doing them too? If BPAL is, then it's still wrong, nor does it excuse H&E's behavior.

The difference is that if next update Beth announces that she's pulling a fragrance or even a bunch of fragrances because of this, she'll likely thank you and whoever else pointed them out to her. I've seen her reaction to finding out something was "taken" and it's not "I'll use it anyway and hope no one notices/objects."

Of course you are right: ultimately this is a matter for lawyers, which is ultimately where anything meaningful about the matter will be decided.

 

I'm not sure that stifling mod responses is always to the good — there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on a variety of subjects that is currently not available because a mod has to double-check to make sure that they are not seen as dog-piling responses, and if someone else has responded, not reply. (From this you may surmise that quite a bit of discussion has occurred amongst the mod staff about ways to keep this sort of reaction from happening again.) [Edited to add: I'm going to point as a last resort if they refuse to liback to the difference between my response over on Filigree_shadow's blog, and Shrieking Violet's response, to the same comment. We both answered, and we answered in completely different ways. I like what Diana said, and I think she made an excellent point -- but it's not what _I_ would have said, nor in fact what I did say.]

 

Yes, shriekingviolet is the Queen of Logic sometimes, isn't she? I'm often in awe.

I'm glad to hear you guys are discussing this issue, and I'm not surprised, because I do know you care. This is not a perfect analogy, but I feel like I know a little of how you guys feel. All through college I was a waitress at this restaurant until they offered me the assistant manager--and then the general manager--position. Very quickly, I went from being a friend and co-worker to the Big Kahuna, and I found it really difficult at times. It's ridiculous how much you have to watch your language and tone (perhaps the difference between "that is all" and "just setting the record straight, carry on..." ?) and that's in face-to-face conversation--obviously, we all know how much more difficult it is on the net. And it's exactly like you said Macha--you guys take up more "space". Maybe it's possible you might have to grit your teeth and click a "smiley" or two if it means it keeps things from blowing up due to misunderstandings.

And that's the thing I've been thinking about the most (and drawing on my old experience with putting out fires and trying to be the "Hungry-and-Irate-Customer Whisperer"). What is the main goal in terms of your interactions with forum members during these "incidents" that arise? Is it to calm the situation, to put people in their place and make sure they know where they are wrong, or hopefully both? Both would be great, but people being the stubborn, sometimes defensive creatures that they are, I think you guys may have to choose which one is more important on a case-by-case basis. There are a couple of times when I watched from the sidelines and thought, "darn, if they would just say 'insert generic phrase of neutral sympathy here, why don't you email the Lab (or whoever) at insert address?'. Repeat as necessary, if they refuse to listen send them a pm with a threat to warn, and maybe the whole thing could be neutralized? (I actually have a specific example in mind with this, but I'm not getting specific for fear of looking like I'm dragging out old dramas or something).

But when you get a big, back and forth arguement instead, well...I don't know. I'm going to try and wrap this up instead of going further (don't ask me how my posts get so long...they just do ). And maybe I just have a different (and inaccurate?) idea of what moderators are supposed to do. I keep thinking, "moderation" and "moderate" are the key words, although that's not to say you guys shouldn't be able to dole out a good smackdown when it's warranted. But like you lamented, Macha--it's not fair, I agree, but the more often you do it, the more defensive and perhaps resentful people feel. Perceptions get warped and then things kindle too easily.

But I feel bad, because I'm making you guys sound like you're terrible, horrible shrews, and you're completely not. The very fact that you're willing to discuss and consider this shows what a great board this is. Other boards might just say, "put up or shut up and leave". But if everyone is truly disturbed about the dramas that occasionally erupt, then at the very least, I'd start with designating a couple of mods per breakout--and it sounds like that's what you all are trying to do. Just riffing here, but maybe having a Drama Blog to send people off to would be a good, neutral-territory sort of thing? (er, maybe don't call it the Drama blog) This place certainly seems more conducive to exchanging long posts with windbags like me

And I am all done telling you how to do your jobs now.

That is all

As unbelievable as it may be, Disney doesn't have an active trademark Snow White for perfume. Just makeup. Different classification.

I found it, QS: they have in fact trademarked their perfume as "Walt Disney's Snow White," not just "Snow White."

As far as the trademark office is concerned... perfume Love Potion #9 is different from perfume Love Potion #13 is different from perfume Love Potion ... and "Walt Disney's Snow White" is not the same as "Snow White" - and for "Snow White" itself, Disney only has a trademark on makeup [and the movie/etc].

I would not be surprised if some of the other pefumes that were mentioned are also trademarked as [x]'s [y] as was the case here.

But a perfume called "Walt Disney's Snow White" is in fact not the same as a perfume as "Snow White" - and for "Snow White" itself, Disney only has a trademark on makeup.

 

And as far as the trademark office is concerned... perfume Love Potion #9 is different from perfume Love Potion #13 is different from perfume Love Potion ... and "Walt Disney's Snow White" is not the same as "Snow White".

My apologies, QS. As a point of order, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was saying, in effect, "I found the trademark, and you're right."

If you're being very polite and sweet about telling ME to STFU, that's cool too, although I'm afraid I must apologize because I don't think I'm going to take that advice.

not in the least...just expressing my concern as there is a lot of misinformation that flies around the internet. It's hard to know what is fact and what is not.

It seems to me that you're saying....well, I'm not really sure. That we shouldn't discuss this less BPAL get into trouble too? That we're being hypocrites for pointing out H&E's missteps when BPAL may be doing them too? If BPAL is, then it's still wrong, nor does it excuse H&E's behavior.

well...kind of I guess. I suppose I just don't get the point of massively piling on this etailer for doing things that many others, including bpal, are doing as well...intentional or not. I love bpal, and have found some wonderful perfumes that I enjoy immensely...but there is a certain fanatical element to this board that ignores commonalities between bpal and other etailers when pointing fingers. I guess I just like to play the Devil's Advocate every once in a while to balance the universe That being said, I understand why feathers have been ruffled. other etailers do not seem as "involved" in their threads on this board. I get it. I just think some bad information started flying around in the ensuing drama.

The difference is that if next update Beth announces that she's pulling a fragrance or even a bunch of fragrances because of this, she'll likely thank you and whoever else pointed them out to her. I've seen her reaction to finding out something was "taken" and it's not "I'll use it anyway and hope no one notices/objects."

 

Of course you are right: ultimately this is a matter for lawyers, which is ultimately where anything meaningful about the matter will be decided.

I've never seen Beth be anything but ethical with her business. I have no doubt she'll continue to be.