The Dark Side of Trademark Law: When “Protection” Becomes Extortion

The latest skirmish in the battle over language has reached a fever pitch with an Etsy seller’s T-shirts featuring the slang term “bruh” being removed at the behest of a trademark holder. However, this story reveals a more sinister tale of exploitation that raises questions about the purpose of trademarks.

At its core is Malik Yawar Abbas, who claims to have trademarked “bruh” in Canada for use on clothing and is seeking to license it to others. But multiple sellers claim that Abbas’s actions amount to trademark squatting – using a trademark as a means of extorting money from those who wish to continue selling legitimate products.

A closer examination of Abbas’s website reveals a disturbing pattern of behavior. His site features mock-ups and promotional materials touting potential commercial applications for the brand, rather than showcasing actual products bearing the “bruh” mark. The language used is telling: “We didn’t invent the word. The streets did. The internet did. But we realized its power.” This attempt to wrap himself in a mantle of authority rings hollow, particularly given Abbas’s willingness to drop his complaint if only Karam would cease selling “bruh” T-shirts.

Abbas denies any wrongdoing, claiming that the trademark was lawfully registered and that he is simply seeking to build a commercial licensing brand. However, experts like Carys Craig, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School specializing in intellectual property law, suggest otherwise. According to Craig, bad faith trademarks can be invalidated under Canadian law – and Abbas’s actions may well meet the threshold for such a designation.

The ease with which Abbas was able to trademark “bruh” raises broader questions about language ownership. Can a word like “apple” truly be trademarked? Or is this simply an attempt to exert control over a term that has taken on a life of its own in popular culture? It’s a slippery slope, one that threatens to stifle creativity and innovation in favor of protectionism.

As Karam prepares to take his case to court – and potentially invalidate the “bruh” trademark on grounds of bad faith – it remains to be seen what will become of this peculiar brand. But Abbas’s actions have already had a chilling effect on free speech, demonstrating how quickly language can be co-opted and exploited for financial gain.

Abbas’s website is filled with mock-ups and promotional materials touting potential commercial applications for the “bruh” brand, including T-shirts, phone cases, and even a line of children’s clothing. These images are accompanied by testimonials from satisfied customers, but it appears that many of these products have yet to be manufactured or sold.

The case has sparked debate about the role of trademarks in society. Some argue that Abbas is simply seeking to protect his intellectual property rights, while others see him as a profiteer who is stifling free speech and creativity. The outcome of Karam’s case may yet determine the course of history for language owners like Abbas.

The damage has already been done – and it will take a concerted effort from lawmakers, entrepreneurs, and citizens alike to prevent such abuses in the future.