I found this very interesting from SlashDot:
"Groklaw has written in detail about the lawyer trying to get a servicemark on the term 'cyberlaw'. (Slashdot discussed this here a few days back.) First, Groklaw notes that it's only a trademark application at this point. Furthermore, 'cyberlaw' is a generic term with 300,000+ hits on Google AND an entry in some dictionaries & reference sites. In other words, while it's silly for a law firm that should know better to file a trademark application, it shouldn't and probably won't be granted if the law is followed. The article is very interesting because it spells out the difference between & servicemarks (®©™), as well as explaining the law surrounding them; a law that differs significantly from copyright law.
It was the attorney for Bidzirk who had a gross misunderstanding of servicemark and trademark law in my blogger case. In my case, the assertions made by the Plaintiff attorney bordered on stupidity of circular logic trying to claim that no post here was news or news commentary (when just about every post here is just that). The Plaintiff attorney for Bidzirk also wanted to make the argument because I didn't belong to any of the voluntary journalist organizations that I wasn't allowed to report news or news commentary even if the court deemed it as such.