The Times Higher Education correspondence

Posted by Tim Ireland at 3 June 2011

Category: Consume!, Old Media, Teh Interwebs, The Political Weblog Movement

This entry was posted on
Friday, June 3rd, 2011
at
10:33 am and is filed
under Consume!, Old Media, Teh Interwebs, The Political Weblog Movement.

(Psst! If you are new to this issue, please read this first.)

The following is the guts of my correspondence with staff from Times Higher Education after they tried to claim ownership of the name ‘bloggerheads’, the name I created in 2001 (see screen capture below).

John Elmes and 'THE BLOGGERHEADS'

The correspondence clearly shows that their argument switches from a question of copyright to one of trade mark, and that they begin to seriously stonewall from the moment I called the latter bluff and registered the name as a trade mark. These key points have been highlighted (by me) in bold.

The overall exchange has been edited for brevity, and one individual email has been subject to a minor edit to remove details that should remain private for personal security reasons. As usual, any such edits (and/or corrections of minor typos etc.) are marked [like so]. The exchange up until the point they accuse me of bad manners is complete and unedited so you might make a judgement about my manners for yourself.

I’d like to think I showed considerable restraint when they offered to re-label it ‘THE Bloggerheads’. I made the mistake of assuming good faith, and I was confident the issue would make itself apparent almost immediately. I was wrong, obviously. John Elmes made a particular point of switching his use of the name to ‘The Bloggerheads’ at a key point in this dispute.

From: Tim Ireland
To: john.elmes@tsleducation.com
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Subject: ‘bloggerheads’

Please consider a [using] new name. This one’s taken.

Cheers

Tim

From: John.Elmes@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Subject: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your email, I appreciate your concern.

I just wanted to know if you had any copyright to the name. I only ask because my column is a small addition to a specialist higher education magazine, and the subject areas tend to differ drastically from yours.

I was having a look around the net and found this:
http://www.abeano.com/bloggerheads-new-for-2011-transparent-dummy-mag-tropical-waste/

It seems as though we aren’t the only ones to have utilised the expression ‘Bloggerheads’.

Kind regards,

John

John Elmes
Editorial Assistant
Times Higher Education
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: +44 (0)203 194 3315
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

From: Tim Ireland
To: John.Elmes@tsleducation.com
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:27 PM
Subject: ‘bloggerheads’

I raise the issue as a matter of manners. I am aware that others have shown poor manners, thanks.

Will you consider using your own, unique name?

T

From: John.Elmes@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:55 PM
Subject: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Tim,

I will raise it with my editors, but their view (they are the ones that came up with the name) was your site is distinctive enough to my column to remove any conflict. It is certainly different in terms of aesthetics, font and motivation, so we believe it won’t be an issue

Best,

John

John Elmes
Editorial Assistant
Times Higher Education
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: +44 (0)203 194 3315
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

From: Tim Ireland
To: John.Elmes@tsleducation.com
Sent: 13 May 2011 15:27
Subject: Re: ‘bloggerheads’

Please advise your editors that if you intend to promote yourself through Twitter, any hashtag you use will be the same as my username. We will most definitely intersect in a way that is an issue for me, and I will ask you again if you (or your editors) will seriously consider using a unique name of your/their own invention instead of hijacking the one I have been using since 2001.

T

From: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your emails to John Elmes.

We were not aware of your blog and I assure you that there is no attempt to hi-jack.

Times Higher Education (THE) is a specialist higher education magazine, and our “bloggerheads” is dedicated entirely to scholarly/higher education policy debates on line, covering blogs and social media. It is quite clearly distinct from your blog, with a clearly separate audience.

It is clearly labeled with the strap: “A weekly round up of the best on the scholarly web”.

We have no intention to promote this column on Twitter using the “bloggerheads” hashtag.

As a courtesy to you, we have also added the THE logo to the name, which is now: “THE BloggerHeads”

Kind regards,

Phil Baty

Deputy Editor, Times Higher Education
Editor, Times Higher Education World University Rankings
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: 0203 194 3298
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/THEWorldUniRank
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TimesHigherEd

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Thank you for that at least. I would prefer there is no room for confusion, and I reserve the right to protect the name ‘bloggerheads’ should it become an issue. I really would prefer that you consider changing the name to a unique name of your own invention, though, and think it would be wisest in the long run.

Tim

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:26 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Phil, despite your assurances, the predictable has happened and users in Twitter are referring to you as ‘bloggerheads’ and not ‘THEbloggerheads’ as promised. I also note that you continue to bill yourself as ‘bloggerheads’ on your site, and this is turning up in the top ten for searches for my website, crowding out other web presence[s] in my name:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416093

I once again request that you create your own unique name instead of using the name I have been using for over 10 years.

(Please don’t embarrass yourself by citing others’ use of the name; this use emerged in the middle of a campaign of harassment, and I fully intend to take the issue up with this other web user, as soon as I am able.)

Bloggerheads is a unique name of my own invention. You have no business using it. I ask you again to stop using it.

Instead, try inventing your own name. Like I did.

From: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Mr Ireland

Please forward me your trademarking documentation and I’m sure we will be happy to comply.

Kind regards

Ann

Ann Mroz
Editor
Times Higher Education
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: 0203 194 3326
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
Follow THE on Twitter: http://twitter.com/timeshighered
Follow Ann Mroz on Twitter: http://twitter.com/AnnMroz

From: Tim Ireland
To: “Mroz, Ann”
Cc: “Baty, Phil”
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:31 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Why not say what you mean? You are happy to trade off a name that I invented if I cannot defend myself with costly legal muscle, and you care nothing for the inconvenience it will cause or the lack of respect it shows.

I can easily prove that I created the name and have been using it on the web for 10 years. That has until recently been good enough for others and it should be good enough for you… unless of course, you are the type of organisation that likes to stamp on the little guy.

Even the New York Times had the good sense to modify their use of the name to ‘bloggINGheads’. They understand that marketing yourself on the web requires some sensitivity to others inhabiting the relevant community.

I will ask you one more time to show me a modicum of respect and engage your mind(s) just long enough to come up with a unique name of your own invention.

Please, show me the respect I am due. You would not like it if someone seized control of your name.

Tim Ireland

From: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Mr Ireland

No, I would not like it if someone seized control of our name which is why I took the trouble to protect it by legal means.

I always show respect to people who are polite.

Kind regards

Ann

Ann Mroz
Editor
Times Higher Education
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: 0203 194 3326
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
Follow THE on Twitter: http://twitter.com/timeshighered
Follow Ann Mroz on Twitter: http://twitter.com/AnnMroz

From: Tim Ireland
To: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Cc: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Please do not pretend that everyone is in a position to defend themselves in this way, and please do not insult me further by calling my manners into question after the way you have treated me.

Do you intend to continue using the unique name that I created, despite my very clear objections?

T

From: Tim Ireland
To: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Cc: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Allow me to explain the situation to you:

I will repeat that I have been subjected to an extended campaign of harassment, targeting myself and my family, causing great distress and considerable financial difficulty. I have never had cause to invest in a trade mark before, as for many years previous to this, simple respect within the web community was enough. I am certainly not in a strong position to rush out and do it now.

You risk compelling me to undertake this expense, and I do not think I am giving anything away by revealing that you may be able to swoop in an register it in your own name, despite your knowledge of my moral claim to it.

Neither move casts you in a good light, and I fully intend to make this dispute public if you refuse to be reasonable. I would remind you that you are seeking a brand to promote yourself in the blogging community, not distance yourself from it by charging in with a steamroller.

I will ask again: Do you intend to continue using the unique name that I created, despite my very clear objections?

T

From: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Tim,

We adopted the name “Bloggerheads” for a small column on page 24 of our magazine, without any awareness of your blog.

We note that the name is not protected by you, and is indeed used by others on the Internet.

We note that the content of the THE column is entirely unrelated to your blog – we look exclusively at social media on higher education issues, a very narrow field.

Our distinct content is clearly marked in a sub-heading to the column: “A weekly round-up of the best on the scholarly web”.

When you alerted us to your blog, as a courtesy, we immediately agreed to re-design the column masthead and change the name of the column to “THE Bloggerheads”, incorporating our protected brand “THE” (Times Higher Education”), to make the clear differences even more explicit.

The website now displays the column as “THE Bloggerheads”: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416254&c=1

We have also agreed, again purely as a courtesy, that we will only promote the column as “THE Bloggerheads” on Twitter and other social media.

We have been courteous and considerate throughout, and have made these clear concessions as a matter of good will, without any obligation on our part at all.

We feel these concessions are quite sufficient and entirely reasonable.

I trust that in the event that you decide to make this “dispute” public, you will reproduce this response in full.

Thank you for your correspondence,

Phil Baty

Deputy Editor, Times Higher Education
Editor, Times Higher Education World University Rankings
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: 0203 194 3298
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/THEWorldUniRank
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TimesHigherEd

And, as you will note, that is exactly what I have done. I have reproduced their response in full. In fact the full exchange above is entirely unedited, and I am really pissed off about being compelled to have to take it to this step because it necessitates a public acknowledgement of specific difficulty my stalker has caused me. Normally, this is something to be avoided with people engaging in this type of harassment, as it tends to encourage them.

Unfortunately, to protect my sole source of income, a site I have invested 10 years of my life in, the point must be made publicly that both Ann Mroz and Phil Baty were made aware of the issues surrounding an immediate investment in a trade mark registration.

Back to the correspondence:

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

How am I back talking to you now, Phil? Is it because you were the person who claimed to have invented the name, thereby causing this dispute?

I have already explained that I was in no position to protect myself from the small number of two-bit operations who also sought to capitalise on my name. I have been in contact with these other parties since you sought to capitalise on my name yourself and use their hijacking as an excuse. Please don’t embarrass yourself further by using these people as cover (or by excusing your ‘mere’ use of it in the back pages of your magazine). You already admit that you chose to use the name to promote your web initiative without first determining if someone else in the web community was using the name (a simple search in Google would have alerted you to my blog and the various other web presences in my name using this same name) so you cannot now defend its continued use by pretending that you were always aware of this.

I am bloggerheads. It is my creation, I use the name to blog about blogging, and I have done so for 10 years.

Specialised arena or not, you seek to blog about blogging, and despite your assurances/concessions, people are already using my name to refer to your web round-up.

Oh, and we are most certainly in dispute, despite what your scare quotes might imply, and I would welcome the opportunity to air this matter in full, as well as your earlier correspondence and the arrogance it reveals:

I trust that in the event that you decide to make this “dispute” public, you will reproduce this response in full.

Despite your tangential defence about what may appear in page 24 of your magazine, you are using my name, you are using it on the web as well as in print, you did not even have enough regard for the web community to check if someone was using the name ‘bloggerheads’ before committing to it, and you have been stubborn, evasive and unreasonable since I called you on it.

I have repeatedly stated that I would much prefer it if you created your own name. This challenge appears to be beyond you, or perhaps you are the type of person who refuses to back down even when they know they have made a mistake.

I will ask you again:

Do you intend to continue using the unique name that I created, despite my very clear objections?

T

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

I might also add this [snipped for security reasons]

In short, you compel me to commit to considerable expense and inconvenience at a time of great difficulty.

I would really rather that you were reasonable about the matter. Why not use a name of your own invention? Where is the problem here? Have you foolishly invested money in use of the name without doing so much as a Google search for any other instances of it? Is that why you compel me to commit to considerable expense and inconvenience? Or are you merely being stubborn because of the arrogance this suggests?

T

It was at this stage I considered the only way to end the matter without wasting days/weeks of my time was to meet the trade mark challenge. We had a lonnnng discussion about it in this house. We couldn’t really afford the expense, but Bloggerheads was a vital source of income. How could we not protect this asset from someone who was so obviously hostile in their seizure of it?

After the trade mark registration process was completed and relevant documentation secured, I called their bluff:


From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Congratulations. You have compelled me to undergo the expense or registering my unique name as a trademark at a time when we can ill-afford it.

Now, are you going to be so difficult that you continue to use the name in the ~6 months it will take to process the application, or are you going to finally decide to play-act at being reasonable now you’ve put us through this major inconvenience?

Tim

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Well? I’ve called your bluff. What’s your response?

T

From: Tim Ireland
To: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

To be clear; I expect a response this afternoon.

Putting aside the patronising way you dismiss my moral claim to this name, you gave me the impression that if the name was protected as a trade mark you would comply with my wishes. I have today begun the registration process, and now you refuse to budge from your existing position, even though you appear to have NO CLUE about the circumstances in which the name came to be used in your magazine and on your website. You can’t even name the sub-editor you imply presented the name as an original piece of work.

Did you mean what you said about trade mark, or was it merely a bluff? I have cause to be upset with you either way, but I will be especially upset if it is the latter, after I explained my circumstances to you.

Do you intend to continue using the unique name that I created, despite my very clear objections?

Tim

From: Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Dear Tim,

Can you please direct all further correspondence (and phone calls) on this matter to our Information Assurance Officer, Arshid Bashir.

He is on arshid.bashir@tsleducation.com
Or 020 3194 3384

Thank you.

Phil Baty

Deputy Editor, Times Higher Education
Editor, Times Higher Education World University Rankings
26 Red Lion Square
London WC1R 4HQ
Tel: 0203 194 3298
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/THEWorldUniRank
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TimesHigherEd

After offering a summary of the issue that was complete bollocks, Arshid Bashir refused to engage on the matter of trade mark (and tort, as raised in the email that followed his summary):


Bashir, Arshid Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM
To: Tim Ireland

Dear Mr Ireland,

If I can first of all very briefly introduce myself: I am responsible for independently assuring to the TSL board that all functions and activities comply with all legal and regularity requirements and obligations.

Looking at your concerns expressed over the exchange of emails, can I suggest that we limit ourselves to the core issue and not become embroiled or distracted by side-issues or assumptions and conjecture.

If I can summarise your position:

1. It is your contention that you have prior rights on the title ‘Bloggerheads’ which you have used on your website for a number of years, but which had not been registered as a trademark.

2. And, although an accommodation was mutually and informally agreed a few weeks back by prefixing our use of the word ‘Bloggerheads’ with the word ‘THE’, you have subsequently became dissatisfied based on search engines results ranking our content too highly, relative to yours.

3. You are also unhappy we may use ‘Bloggerheads’ as a Twitter hashtag as this is your Twitter user name. We have clarified this is not our intent.

Whilst I can appreciate your views on ‘ownership’ of this word and subsequent discontent that your web presence may have been impacted; it is clear that TSL is not, and has not been in breach of any trademarks or any other proprietary rights.

I am sorry that our position may not be one that you would like, however TSL has neither sought nor would wish to seek to undermine the rights of others. In my opinion I also think it is highly unlikely that consumers or visitors to our respective content would confuse either web site with the other and therefore unlikely to be detrimental to you or us.

Can I also advise you that all future communication from within TSL will be by myself.

Yours sincerely

Arshid Bashir

From: Tim Ireland
To: Arshid.Bashir@tsleducation.com
Cc: Ann.Mroz@tsleducation.com, Phil.Baty@tsleducation.com
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM
Subject: FW: ‘bloggerheads’

Your summary of my position is rife with assumption and conjecture, but happily I do not have to explain myself any further to protect my rights.

I have now approached an experienced intellectual property lawyer and I have been informed that it appears that the THE is committing the tort of “passing off” in respect of “Bloggerheads” and that it appears you would not have a sensible defence to a claim. I have a substantial and prior trading reputation in respect of my expertise of blogging and web-related matters that pre-dates your entire website by many years.

Accordingly, please remove the references to “Bloggerheads” from your site immediately.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

PS – Both the Editor and Deputy Editor have been CCed, because it was they who (a) gave me the false impression that I needed a registered trade mark to protect my rights, and (b) gave me the false impression that they would cooperate were such a trade mark registered. With all due respect, this matter has been needlessly complicated by these organ grinders playing lawyer, and I have every right to inform them of their error and expect an apology to go with their immediate cooperation.

Arshid Bashir answered this challenge… by refusing to address it in any way. In a phone call (that I recorded) I asked Bashir if he had a response to the tort issue. He replied; “we do not have to answer every email you send us”. I pressed him further, and he responded; “I do not think it would be productive for us to debate the matter”. Then he hung up on me.

Arshid Bashir now refuses to answer my emails or take my calls. Any attempt to reach Ann Mroz, Phil Baty or John Elmes results in my being referred to Arshid Bashir (who now refuses to answer my emails or take my calls).

I think it’s safe to interpret not only the copyright and trade mark challenges as a bluff, but the ‘concessions’ also. Here I will remind you that the ‘concession’ of referring to themselves as ‘THE Bloggerheads’ (i.e. T.H.E. Bloggerheads) quickly changed to their use of the name as ‘The Bloggerheads’ (i.e. the one, only and original accept-no-substitutes bloggerheads) at a peak moment in this dispute.

As for some of what they claim in mitigation, most of it is laughable and contradictory in places (e.g. senior editors blamed an un-named junior editor for the decision to use the name, the junior editor I spoke to blamed senior editors), plus it clearly paints a picture where the matter is mainly insignificant from their point of view. If this were the case, then it would be an insignificant matter for them to stop using my name.

However, they refuse to stop using my name, and I think this correspondence includes several instances revealing bad faith on their part. Key to this was the stark bluff from Ann Mroz that she would respect my rights if I went through with the trade mark paperwork.

After compelling me to reinforce my ownership with trade mark, they now appear to be waiting for me to engage lawyers, at further expense they know I will have difficulty meeting.

(Instead of using a rude word here, I will let you choose your own, but I ask that you not repeat it under comments. Let’s not do these people any favours.)

UPDATE (2pm) – Times Higher Education have just emailed to say that they “can confirm we have decided to change the name of our column in THE”. Unfortunately, they offer very little detail beyond this apart from some apparent conditions (!) so I have responded to the relevant requests, and will let you know of any outcome in due course.

UPDATE (damn near 5pm) – Times Higher Education have ignored my response to their conditions/requests, and have instead referred me to their lawyer, who has not yet been in touch. It looks like they mean to leave me hanging all weekend. Charming.

UPDATE (11:45pm) – Their lawyer might not have managed to make contact today, but Times Higher Education have late this afternoon removed from sight every page on their site that used the title ‘bloggerheads’. So we’re on our way to a resolution at last.

By the way, you may note in this correspondence that THE claimed to have been unaware of Bloggerheads before May 13 (i.e. when I first emailed them, taking issue with their use of my name). About an hour ago, I looked into my site tracking data and detected a visit from before May 13:

Bloggerheads – THE tank on my lawn (and how/when it got there)

I’m a guy who likes to be positive right down to my blood cells, so I am hoping this is not the indication of bad faith it appears to be.








27 Comments

  1. jimh76 says

    On May 13th Elmes confidently asserts that their editors agreed amongst themselves that the THE content is substantially different from yours – making it OK in their eyes.

    On May 17th Baty claims to have had no knowledge of your site…

    One word which springs to mind is "mendacious" – another is "disengenous"

    Disgraceful media bullying

    • Tim_Ireland says

      Well spotted. I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that your contribution has been described as 'sycophantic' by an unknown person attempting to leave comments using false details. They further assure me that I should back down because I am insignificant. A direct quote from the series of sock-puppet comments that I do not plan on publishing; "You're an obscure blogger, THE is a large publisher with a large readership."

      • jimh76 says

        If sycophancy is the most serious charge levelled at me when pointing out a glaring inconsistency in an effort to bully you, then I'd surmise that I hit pretty close to the mark with my initial comments.
        I'm intrigued at the general run of the responses from THE, pointing you down the compliance route, and then shutting it down when challenged – not an especially edifying way of going about things.
        As for the assertions of being a "supporter" – guilty as charged. I support your efforts in working to expose the behaviour of my local constituency MP – I also applaud your efforts to stand up for your rights online. However, if you come out to me as being a Wasps or Saracens fan, we'll have a different conversation.

        Shame on the THES – I expected better of it.

  2. Tim_Ireland says

    Hi folks. Pardon what is going to seem like a very odd comment to the uninitiated, but following many, many sock puppet attempts, I am compelled to leave the following public message to ‘Malcolm Kent’ (see comments here http://j.mp/mCEtZk), ‘Johnson’ or whoever they are, because I certainly can’t email them using any of the fake email addresses provided:

    One person, one vote. Sounds fair enough, doesn’t it? I adhere to a similar principle in political debate; one person, one voice. Your bleating about free speech is nonsensical at best. Comments attacking anyone while using false details will NOT be published on this site. Note ‘anyone’; this applies to my supporters as much as it does to my critics. Further, no comment from yourself will ever be published in future, because you are banned for sock-puppeting. Go away, and please stop submitting what only amounts to further straw man arguments anyway. It is not a matter of you being censored merely because you ‘disagree’, and I am sure minimal reflection will be necessary for any reasonable person to understand this. But on the off chance that you are not a reasonable person, I would add that you are wasting your time more than you are wasting mine.

  3. Char says

    They just don't care. And why should they? They've got nothing to lose apart from an insignificant (to them) legal bill and one name that they'll get rid of with a quick 'rebrand and freshen up'. Being up against an expensive lawyer hired by the media is no fun.

    Appalling and I'm really sorry you have to go through this.

  4. Alex says

    As someone who sympathises with your position I should point out that you've handled this very badly.

    An industry very used to legal threats is hardly going to be intimidated by the claim that lawyers are being consulted. They know full well that lawyers talk to other lawyers. If you had been informed that there were grounds for prosecution, your lawyer would be contacting them (or their lawyers) and you would probably be advised not to correspond with them further. By making this mistake (and repeatedly suggesting that you can't afford legal support) you've let them know that you can't touch them.

    Also, your language has been confrontational from the start. I've been in your position several times now, and approaching the issue in a personable and polite way (as an equally confrontational person I am aware that this is a big leap) has always yielded positive results. The truth is people just don't want to listen to someone who charges in with abrupt threats of legal action, and usually they know that they don't have to. If you had been nicer about this, presenting it as a mutual cause for concern rather than an accusation of theft, you might have gotten what you wanted within a couple of emails.

    Best of luck with this – if you want to pursue it further your only option is to consult a lawyer. Sorry :/

    • Tim_Ireland says

      I accept much of your point, but I have long campaigned against the use of lawyers where simple civility should suffice. As for tone, I believe that was set by the 'copyright' bluff, and I make no apologies for being stringent with anyone messing with my livelihood, especially in the current circumstances.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      I might also add; I advised them of my improved awareness of my rights after consultation with a lawyer. IIRC, I have also made references to THE forcing me into a corner where they expected me to take legal action or go away. If I appear to have threatened legal action anywhere, do let me know, and I'll try not to make the same mistake again in future.

      • Alex says

        I would read the claim that they're forcing you into that position as a threat of legal action and I read your initial emails to them as sarcastic and confrontational. Maybe you don't feel that way but it would be pertinent to read the exchange with a role reversal, where Tim Ireland is played by the Monsanto company. Civility would assume as much interest in their concerns as your own, even if you feel like a victim.

        I don't want you to think that I disagree with your position, I get it. Plus I accept that you're under stress to begin with, but this could have been presented as a mutual problem – when I've had to engage in these kinds of disputes, I've let them know that I don't want my business to compromise theirs, and asked if we can work out a solution. Maybe I've just been lucky. But what's happened here is that a situation has been established early on where it is expected that there should be a clear winner or loser. On top of that, you've admitted that you feel threatened by them. There's little or no incentive given for them to listen.

        I think in future, it would be sensible to go in with a view to avoid making enemies, and accept that you're simply choosing between the ideal, where you get what you want, and the mundane, where you just live with it. It really is just mundane, by the way – the bad is where you go to court, lose and have to pay their legal fees.

        • Tim_Ireland says

          Well, I wanted them to stop using my name. That act itself is confrontational, but repeatedly couched as a statement of my preferences. I take on board what you say about what the 'corner' position implies. I'll try to make it clearer in future that when one is in a corner, you are often still left with a remaining direction; up. As for the comments that echo your earlier remarks, PR has value too. I was as open as I was partly in the expectation that an orgnaistaion like this could not afford to be sods about it.

  5. jonsharman says

    Utterly disgraceful behaviour by a company that clearly thinks it can get away with bullying the little guy. With regard to your manners, I think Mroz's objection is related to the tone of your emails. You do make your points rather… forcefully. Correctly, though, it must be said; and I can understand your anger.

    If this does end up going to court, I hope you get your expenses reimbursed too.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      Even if they merely blundered onto the web without first checking if the name was taken, this was a very rude thing to do. And they went downhill from there.

  6. prawn says

    It could be that Arshid Bashir et al have been instructed not to speak to you by their lawyer.

    If it were me, I'd eschew the naming and shaming of individuals and go for the institution instead. And, srsly, ask them if they gain with an accidental association with you and how confusing you [Bloggerheads] with them [THE Bloggerheads] could damage THEIR brand ;-)

    Anyway, keep it up.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      Absolutely, but with previous stonewalling being such an issue here, you would think the lawyer would at least attempt to make initial contact in a timely fashion.

      • prawn says

        Yes, it is bad form.

        Oh, if I were THE, I'd have re-branded and moved on. It's already cost them legal advice.

        What will probably happen is that you get trademark, get a lawyer to invite them to cease and desist and they fold.

        A waste of time and money.

        /molesworth

        chiz

  7. Gestr says

    Grrr.. I had a long comment that apparently is too long. To avoid that this is going to be callously brief (I've got a dinner go to). Apologies.

    Without necessary experience, I think you're morally right in this regard. I really hope it works out for you.
    You weren't aggressive or bad-mannered, certainly not compared to some of the behaviour of those you were dealing with.
    However, I do think you might want to tad careful in the way you write and communicate. It sounds like you have become a bit jaded through previous dealings with others, and sometimes too many emails, with slightly abrasive mannerisms (repeated questions in short clauses can come across is a bit too accusatory, even if you feel this is necessary at times). That was the brief version of the constructive criticism I wanted to make. Feel free to ignore it!
    Finally, your blog is excellent, I thoroughly enjoy reading it, and I hope you enjoy writing it.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      Sorry about that, Gestr. I'm not familiar enough with IntenseDebate to know if this is a shortcoming in their system or what. Thanks very much for the constructive criticism. the only answer I give at the moment is that there is a lot going on that is not public, and I suspect most people would be a bit on edge as a result. I knew this bloke once who had his car stolen (it's happened to me; a horrible, violated feeling), and about a week later a mate/neighbour popped into his shed and borrowed his mower (for the quick strip of land out front of his house not worth buying a mower for), as he had done many times previously. The owner of the car was upset, and I for one did not blame him for it. Kind of the same thing going on here. I was in no mood to be treated like dirt.

      • Gestr says

        From what I do know about some of the things I've seen on your blog then your "only answer" is a very good one. I guess, basically, I'm saying try not to let the bastards get you down :).

        I think IntenseDebate did a good job of stopping me writing a very long/boring comment that clearly could be condensed :)

        Cheers for the reply – always appreciated!

      • Gestr says

        Also – having now read that some of the comments (particularly Alex) make the same point as me more forcefully – its incredibly hard to read "tone" in emails. Its one of the problems of modern life. I personally wouldn't say you were confrontational, I think that's too strong, but Alex would (and he seems like a perfectly amiable and eloquent chap), which just shows how hard it can be. I guess an extra bit of patience is always required.. and also I apologise for not reading previous comments before posting my two cents!

        Having said all the above.. you would have kicked yourself if you had been more forceful and got nowhere – and you would have been saying "darn [that's actually how I talk], why wasn't I more assertive". Sometimes you have to just go for it, even if its not 100% the best thing to do per se!

        Anyway, this is all effectively pointless dribble. Hope THE (which is actually a great publication) backs down!

        • Tim_Ireland says

          Thanks. I felt I was really reigning it in when they came up the with 'THE Bloggerheads' "compromise". I gave them two massive helpings of benefit-of-the-doubt. But later John Elmes showed he was clearly taking the mick when he posted an article titled 'The Bloggerheads'.

  8. Nick Day says

    The phrase "I think it there safe to interpret" did not make sense to me; I suspect a typo.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      It there is, and there it's there now there fixed. There.

  9. Duncan Reynolds says

    The top few results for 'times higher education bloggerheads' are a bunch of links to the THE site, all of which are now unresponsive. A slightly lower result is to their tweet advertising the introduction of Bloggerheads http://twitter.com/#!/timeshighered/statuses/6897… which also features a now-dead link… could it be that they've caved here, or have they just moved everything?

    • Tim_Ireland says

      They do appear to have removed all mention of Bloggerheads from their site by removing the relevant pages from sight. [snip error: tweets were not deleted; cited tweet links to deleted page. duh.] Thanks for the heads-up.

  10. ejh says

    One curious aspect of this is a professional journalist asking whether you have any copyright in the name. A professional journalist should know that copyright exists automatically: it doesn't have to be asserted. Whether copyright is the right term to use for a title, that's another question: but it just seems to me that Mr Elmes doesn't actually know what copyright is.

  11. gem says

    I think you are right, but I would say that the tone of your mails is rude.

  12. Robert says

    Hmm. Surely some sort of internet jujitsu is required here (regardless of whether you pursue the registration of a trademark and the consulting of lawyers).

    If they are using the name for their content, why not make it inconvenient for them to do so? Why not engineer the precise situation that you are worried will happen and they deny can happen, namely a confusion of 'Bloggerheads' with 'THE Bloggerheads', but in a way which affected them? If THE Bloggerheads started taking the flack and reputational hit for something that was written on this site, well, they would change the name quite quickly, no?

    Personally, I am lucky, because Rob Sharp writes good feature articles for the Independent and elsewhere. On occasions people have complimented me on my his work. However, I'd be gutted if he turned into somekind of babbling racist, and people started criticising me. I'm sure he would feel the same!

    An extreme way to do with would be to perpetrate some kind of shocking libel, which your friends online ensure Googlebombs in favour of THE Bloggerheads! That's incredibly irresponsible however. Far better to write a scathingly critical post of THE's core stakeholders or advertisers. Perhaps commission someone else named John Elmes to do so?! When that is RT'd an attributed to @THEbloggerheads (or whatever their twitter handle is), they might at least acknowledge the issue you raised on Day 1.

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion