LittleForBig trying to trademark "Babyfur"

[Deleted member 80397]

HOLD UP.

HOLD UP HOLD UP.

The screenshot. Are they trademarking "Nursery?"

Like usagi I understand it is a character name and a specialized character mascot design ((Japanese for rabbit)) but NURSERY?

 

[NabePup]

HOLD UP.

HOLD UP HOLD UP.

The screenshot. Are they trademarking "Nursery?"

Like usagi I understand it is a character name and a specialized character mascot design ((Japanese for rabbit)) but NURSERY?

Yup, looks like it! At least in regards to adult diapers!

 

[Teddy]

The word Babyfur has been around since at least the 90's.

 

[mistykitty]

I really have no idea what they're thinking when they do things like this. Wow, I just looked up their TM page and they have a lot of very generic and ridiculous tm requests (some are less unreasonable), but things like "Little Furry" and "Sissy". Come on, those are so generic. It looks like they also have a request to trademark "Furrytails".

Spoiler: LittleForBig's trademarks

View attachment 134862

So basically they are trying to steal all these terms and repurpose them for their own use?

 

[NabePup]

So basically they are trying to steal all these terms and repurpose them for their own use?

Based on my little understanding of trademarks, so take it with a grain of salt and I'd definitely suggest confirming any details yourself, but essentially in the adult diaper markets specifically, they're trying to make it so only they're allowed to use these terms, primarily to market and sell diapers (that's really the only reason I cold imagine they'd want to trademark them).

So if they got this trademark, no other adult diaper companies can use the terms with their diapers.

 

[mistykitty]

Based on my little understanding of trademarks, so take it with a grain of salt and I'd definitely suggest confirming any details yourself, but essentially in the adult diaper markets specifically, they're trying to make it so only they're allowed to use these terms, primarily to market and sell diapers (that's really the only reason I cold imagine they'd want to trademark them).

So if they got this trademark, no other adult diaper companies can use the terms with their diapers.

Ok, I understand better now. Thank you.

 

[mistykitty]

@NabePup would that also stop other companies from making their products that can be associated with it? Like, does that mean ABU couldn't make the bunny hops or rearz the critterz ones? Or it's only the term?

 

[Millie]

For sure, It's defiantly concerning when companies try to trademark terms that are widely used within a community. It feel's like an attempt to monopolize something that belongs to everyone. Hopefully, the trademark application gets denied.

 

[mistykitty]

For sure, It's defiantly concerning when companies try to trademark terms that are widely used within a community. It feel's like an attempt to monopolize something that belongs to everyone. Hopefully, the trademark application gets denied.

That's the one thing I feel I have the biggest issue with if i understand the way this works correctly. You're buying the rights to a word that was created for a purpose unrelated to marketing and its annoying. Words and word use should stay neutral unless established specifically by that company and babyfur wasn't by any of them. I'm pretty sure in a prior post someone confirmed my thoughts that it already belongs to a furry convention to.

 

[NabePup]

@NabePup would that also stop other companies from making their products that can be associated with it? Like, does that mean ABU couldn't make the bunny hops or rearz the critterz ones? Or it's only the term?

I'm pretty sure it's specific to the term. So ABU or Rearz couldn't come out with diapers called Babyfurs or have that in the name. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but I think it might also apply in other things too or can lead to potentially grey areas. For instance say Tykables comes out with diapers that aren't called Babyfurs or have that term in the name, but they use Babyfurs in the marketing or description of it. That could maybe give grounds to L4B for taking legal action against Tykables if L4B has the trademark. Or say there's a babyfur event that Tykables is sponsoring so they have their branding alongside the term babyfur, that might also be grounds for a legal dispute. But once again, I'm not 100% certain if that's how it works. So there's a chance I could be spreading misinformation with the above speculations.

 

[lilcamper]

Dang, what is going on at these companies? Pls no copyright the babies. Does having "dinosaur" trademarked(?) for diapers (as mentioned earlier) have any legal weight if the word dinosaur is used on the packaging of a competitor?

 

[Cottontail]

For those who missed the drama back in 2018, Tykables came out with Space Cadet diapers and ABU, who’d trademarked Space, went after them. Tykables ended up changing the name to Galactic. So anyway, these kinds of shenanigans aren’t exactly new. I do wish applications for trademarks received a bit more scrutiny. Considering the target market, trying to trademark terms like ABDL and Babyfur is like P&G trying to trademark Baby.

 

[NabePup]

Dang, what is going on at these companies? Pls no copyright the babies. Does having "dinosaur" trademarked(?) for diapers (as mentioned earlier) have any legal weight if the word dinosaur is used on the packaging of a competitor?

Yup, that's exactly the point of trade marking. To get exclusive rights to a "trade mark". So whoever holds the trademark for "dinosaur" for adult diapers can sue if a competitor comes out with their own brand of diapers named dinosaur. Now, I'm not sure if that means they can't have dinosaur anywhere on the packaging or not.

For instance, Rearz holds the trademark for "Dinosaur" for adult diapers. And then let's say that on the packaging for ABU DinoRawrz, they have small descriptive text that says something along the lines of "Your dinosaur friends will help keep you dry!" or something like that, I'm not sure whether that'd be grounds for Rearz to make a trademark infringement claim or not.

 

[munkey]

Well, LFB won’t ever see my money. Not that they ever did.

 

[JulestheFloof]

I honestly feel gross that I bought their diapers in the past, and recommended them recently. I thought some of their designs were really cute, but this is just greedy company behavior at its finest.

Also finding out that the company owner has a track record of very transphobic sentiments and commentary is the nail in the coffin for me.

Doesn't matter how cute a design is, you can't be tone deaf and hateful towards the very people you create products for. This trademarking thing isn't gonna go over well, and rightfully so.

 

[Turk3y5h007]

It's a branding thing.

Imagine it's your first time taking a plunge into buying diapers with little to no idea. Your looking for a specific type of design a "babyfur" type of look so that's what you google. Now if they have the only rights to the term they slather it on the site and aggressively demand other sites to take it down. Now you have a customer by default. Thus you can lower quality and thus prices making your product look even more appealing and driving competition in a direction to lower prices and quality that you already have the advantage in.

Think Depend quality needs not be there because they are the only ones on the shelf but it wasn't like that over night they bullied and fought there way to the worst possible product in order to lower the prices to keep quality off the shelves.

Someone already mentioned they lowered their quality, which is step 1.

This isn't a strategy for you it's a plan for the 12-17 year babies who have yet to take their first step .

 

[mistykitty]

Well, LFB won’t ever see my money. Not that they ever did.

They recently used to see mine especially for the Bunny Usagis. I think I might have to find someone else though if they persist.

 

[mistykitty]

I honestly feel gross that I bought their diapers in the past, and recommended them recently. I thought some of their designs were really cute, but this is just greedy company behavior at its finest.

Also finding out that the company owner has a track record of very transphobic sentiments and commentary is the nail in the coffin for me.

Doesn't matter how cute a design is, you can't be tone deaf and hateful towards the very people you create products for. This trademarking thing isn't gonna go over well, and rightfully so.

Wait LFB has made anti-trans statements? That's pretty much a personal attack on me because I'm trans. That settles it they're never seeing my funds again.

 

[NabePup]

Wait LFB has made anti-trans statements? That's pretty much a personal attack on me because I'm trans. That settles it they're never seeing my funds again.

This was also news to me. I knew about Rearz's owner making some anti-trans and anti-ABDL statements, but not LFB. I still have yet to directly see the LFB anti-trans statements/sentiment myself though.

 

[JulestheFloof]

Wait LFB has made anti-trans statements? That's pretty much a personal attack on me because I'm trans. That settles it they're never seeing my funds again.

This was also news to me. I knew about Rearz's owner making some anti-trans and anti-ABDL statements, but not LFB. I still have yet to directly see the LFB anti-trans statements/sentiment myself though.

Yes, sadly. Same for me too, since im NB/transmasc. The statements are from a couple years ago, but it has been compiled from chats on Twitter. I wish I had a direct link...I can't seem to find them. I don't like just saying things like this willy-nilly; i want to provide links/sources, so I'm sorry that I don't have them. It's not just a one-time thing, either. ..the owner isn't a good person from when I read over them recently.