I’m really trying to finish my book but I can’t stop myself from checking in on the developments in the #cockygate case that went on in NYC this morning mainly because whatever the result is bound to set a good or bad precedent in the world of trademarking single words.
There was also an attempt by the Plaintiff to expose the real identities of the Defendants and that, to me, goes beyond the case at hand. It’s malicious. It’s doxxing.
And that’s lower than low and Faleena Hopkins and her lawyer should be ashamed of herself (but she’s not).
Anyway, while we’re waiting for the court dockets to be posted, here’s a live tweet version of the case where the Plaintiff filed a Temporary Restraining Order on the sale of Cocktales and the filing of a cancellation of the Cocky trademark:
For Plaintiff’s claim that “there is no particular consumer sophistication attached to likely purchasers of the books at issue”:
the judge had this to say:
Regarding the Plaintiffs’ attempted doxxing of a particular pen name:
And finally this although given the track record of the Plaintiff, I’m not going to hold my breath…
Whew! And it’s not even noon! Now I can return to writing!
EDITED TO ADD: For authors out there writing under a pen name, here’s sound advice from a lawyer based on what happened in this case. It’s a full thread and it’s a definite read.
After reviewing many of the supporting documents, I can’t help but conclude that this was a case against one author, Tara Crescent, and one author only. The other authors affected (IMO) almost seemed like collateral damage, but from the way Hopkins aggressively wanted Crescent’s identity revealed (in addition to collect damages), this has more to do with the fact that Crescent refused to back down and change her titles after Hopkins “asked” her to.
I never thought I’d get to say that romance authors, people who supposedly bring so much “feel good” feels in the world, can be vicious, but they sure can… many times over.