[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you, your honor.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
Your honors and may it please the court.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
My name is Andrew Graham of the Digital Justice Foundation on behalf of appellant Jamie Rogozinski.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
I respectfully request two minutes for rebuttal if the honorable court would permit.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
This case presents an important question about the relationship between social media platforms and their users.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
And I think the trademark questions relating to trademark ownership have broad significance beyond the specific dispute at issue, because it implicates the ability of users to start a business online by promoting a brand, using that brand in social media to promote it, and then building a business thereafter.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
And I think the answer and resolution to this appeal can be found by reference to long-standing trademark-first principles under which we respectfully submit this court should reverse or at least vacate on these questions.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
At core, the dispute is this.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
Suppose a Facebook user decides to promote a forthcoming food truck by creating a Facebook group that uses the food truck's name.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
On the defendant's position, the food truck doesn't own the brand.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
The difference with this hypo that you also used in your brief, though, is that the food truck exists in the world, totally separate from the website.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
And here, the problem that I'm struggling with is how this discussion group exists separately from Reddit.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
It seems like it's actually part of Reddit.

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
So it's not like a food truck somewhere else.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
Isn't that Reddit providing this service?

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
I think that's a great question, Your Honor, and I think it goes to the central crux of their answering brief.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
And the answer is very simple in that the service here is content moderation services.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
So that's the service provided.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
And there's no dispute that Mr. Rogozinski was providing the content moderation services.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
Well, but isn't it also providing an interface for typing things in and the formatting that they appear in and the server space to store the messages?

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
Sure, and so yeah, that's a separate service.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
So for example, suppose if you want to create a website and notice that the same would apply to Facebook.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
If you go on Facebook and create a Facebook group and then according to defendant's position later make a food truck, Facebook owns the trademark.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
So here what we have is they were simultaneously created.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
He's doing

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
he's using the medium.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
So there's web hosting services like GoDaddy.com.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
You go there, you create a website.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
The fact that GoDaddy.com is hosting the website for you, that you're using their software and functionality to create it, that doesn't mean that GoDaddy.com is understood by the users.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
And I want to clarify something really important.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
We're fighting over

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
the trademark name WallStreetBets without any dash R, without any reference to Reddit whatsoever.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
So the dispute has nothing to do with dash R or WallStreetBets.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
The dispute is not over Reddit's trademark.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
The question is, and it's a fundamental one, because we're asking where do the Reddit users understand the WallStreetBets mark to have come from?

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
And so the service is the content moderation.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
Wait, but what in trademark law says that that's the question?

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
I thought trademark asks when was this providing a service in commerce with this mark?

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
That's not the same question as what you just said about users and what they understand.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
Right, so sure.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
When was he providing it?

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
Whenever he was on Reddit's website promoting a brand, in the same way that if a Reddit user went on to Reddit and started promoting a food truck.

[00:04:16] Speaker 04:
Right, counsel, but isn't that the case?

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
I mean, the first use was in Reddit.

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
Why isn't that dispositive, frankly?

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
Well, because I think the question here is, what is the service and who?

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
So we need to identify the service.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
The service is not read its website.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
The service is the content moderation and it's undisputed that the content moderation was provided by Mr. Rogozinski.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
And this is really important because it presents massive monopolization concerns.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
If you say,

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
that anything posted on Reddit, the mark is immediately owned by Reddit, you're essentially saying if you go to a media platform and use the media platform in promoting a service while you're doing it.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
So for example, if I first advertise on the product or good of service on the page of the New York Times, you would all understand that that's a separate product from

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
the Mark New York Times or Wall Street Journal or whatever, and that's the same thing.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
The service being provided, there's a web hosting service, Reddit owns a trademark to that, and they have a telecommunications trademark.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
The same thing happens when you go onto your web browser and you type in a website and you post on Facebook.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
You're using a telecommunications provider's network, services, etc.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
Council, you agree that you would have a better case if this Wall Street bets had been created before on some other platform or some other location, not on Reddit.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
If it had been used in commerce in some other location elsewhere, then your position would be stronger, wouldn't it, based on our law?

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
No, and defendants' position, if they had started it on Facebook, it would be the same problem.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
Facebook would own it.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
So essentially, their position is that the media... So, Your Honors, if you believe... So you go to a grocery store.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
We all understand that the grocery store provides a service.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
I saw the grocery store hypo in the briefs.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
What are you asking Reddit to do or not do?

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
What do you want them to do or not do?

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
not sue my client if he founds a website called rawlstreetbats.com.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
Has he done that?

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
I mean has he done such a thing and is he being sued for that?

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
I mean, yes, when you tried to register ownership of the trademark, they're challenging that.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
They're asserting that.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
So my client would be perfectly happy if he won the ownership issue and no other issue.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Because then he can go on and create a website where he can moderate a forum independent of Reddit.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
So if you're liable to affirm, it means you're not taking seriously

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
the meaningful contributions and services provided by a moderator, which is not meaningfully different than, let's say, an editor at the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times who chooses what articles to publish.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
We should take people's contributions, and those are factual questions.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
I thought Reddit had some language in their user agreements that sort of supervises the moderators and, in fact, indicates that they can

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
you know, come in.

[00:07:28] Speaker 04:
In fact, what happened here is that they can take over the subreddit.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
Well, sure, they can cease.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
Those are different questions.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
So, of course, Reddit can kick Mr. Rogozinski off the website and they could even possibly sue him for breach of contract if they wanted.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
That doesn't answer trademark questions.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
They're just different legal regimes.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
No, they can remove moderators, I thought.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Yes, they can remove moderators.

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
Well, then why can't they just simply remove the moderator, keep the Wall Street bets?

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
Because they're fundamentally different questions, Your Honor.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
That's like asking in a tort case why a contract question would apply.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
I mean, it's a good question.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
It's just that it's simply a different legal regime.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
They can absolutely remove him.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
And I would, again, I think what's getting confused here, and I think it's really important, we're asking ownership questions.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
There's clearly a service being provided.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
That's why they let moderators do it.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
And it's clear, and then the other question is on this record, where would the Reddit users understand the source of the subreddit to be?

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
And at 2ER168, paragraphs 87 to 88, for example, it's clear that people understand Mr. Rogozinski to be the user of and the origin ultimate source of WallStreetBets as a brand.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
Notice, it's not dash R Wall Street bets.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
And again, so the key question is, that would be no different.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
You asked a great question, which is, what if he had used another medium to promote it?

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
Well, on Reddit's theory, if he goes to godaddy.com and he creates a website using their software and subject to their terms and conditions and promotes his brand there, GoDaddy, not Mr. Rogozinski, would own the brand.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
their position is that they've created a platform and they own all the marks that first appear on that platform.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
I guess the question is, is it different here because you've essentially created, your client has created this through their mechanism.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
It's not like he has some other pre-existing or alternative, he's just using this to promote something.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
He used this to create the very thing and he did so on their platform.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
Sure, Your Honor, go to Facebook.com.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
Do the same thing.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
What medium could he use to create it without using some third party service as a medium to create it?

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
So that question is a great one.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
It just doesn't engage.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
If he went to Facebook, defendant's position would be that Facebook owns the trademark.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
So the question, the problem is, where does a person go to create a brand online?

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
Do you think his ownership is sole ownership

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
He wants, I guess, to be able to go somewhere else and use this name, but can Reddit continue to also use the name?

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
Do you think it's a co-ownership situation?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
Your honor, the way I would think about it is, again, the hostility I'm sensing from the panel is, I think, twofold.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
And I think they're legitimate questions.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
I think what I'm saying here is that's an infringement question.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
And so if Mr. Rogozinski cannot show that the Reddit users are confused about the difference between him, he could never prevail on an infringement claim.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
But there's an ownership question.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
Ownership goes to where do the Reddit users see as the source?

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
And on this record, they see the source as Mr. Rogozinski.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Reddit can challenge that as a matter of fact on remand.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
And so is the answer to your question, you think he's the sole owner?

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
Well, I mean, no one's raised or briefed that.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, I would respectfully request an opportunity for supplemental briefing on joint authorship if that's something you would like, because no one's raised or briefed joint authorship questions.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
But I think what you're getting at here, which is an important issue, is

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
uh... the distinction so i think you know but it has a very very strong defense to any infringement claim and because infringement member is ready can keep using this as long as no one's confused as long as read it is adding our dash which is the reference to read it wall street that's then read it's got a really strong defense to infringement but as long as people understand will wall street that's originated was content moderation that originated with uh...

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
with Mr. Rogozinski.

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
I also think Reddit would have really strong claims against Mr. Rogozinski if he used dash R Wall Street bets because that's a reference and possibly might be dilution or infringement as to Reddit's mark.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
So I think the key thing though.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
Okay, I think I should cut you off because you're over your time.

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
We'll still give you two minutes for rebuttal, but let's hear from the other side.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
I'm Michael Houston of Perkins Coie.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
I'm here on behalf of the Appellee Reddit.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
A party does not acquire trademark rights in isolation simply by inventing a mark or a brand.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
Trademark rights are gained instead by using the relevant mark in connection with a commercial good or service.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
That follows from the statutory text

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
which says that the owner of a mark, quote, used in commerce may request registration.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
So the important first question is what commercial good or service are we talking about here?

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
Then my friend says correctly, we need to identify that service before you can know who is the owner of the mark.

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
I would encourage the court to take a look at plaintiff's own application for trademark registration.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
This is found at 2ER,

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
156.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
His description of the service at issue, it differs a little bit from the account given by my friend here at the podium today.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
He says in his application, we are talking about using the name Wall Street Bets in connection with the service of quote, providing an online forum for financial trading information.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
And so really the question at the heart of the case is, who is it that provided an online forum for financial trading information?

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
And the answer is Reddit.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
Reddit owns the servers.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
Reddit employs the employees.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Reddit owns both the physical and digital infrastructure that makes it possible for a forum of many millions of Reddit users to come together and engage with each other to discuss financial treatment.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you, Mr. Houston, what is the

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
The implication of this for Mr. Rogozinski's other uses of Wall Street bets, so he has a book, he's seemingly doing other things, can he do that consistent with Reddit's IP rights?

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor, as so long as he's not using those other, he's not attempting to trademark those other classifications in a way that would create confusion.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
But let me just take a specific example from his own application.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
He wants to trademark the name Wall Street Bets in connection with the book that he is going to write.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
There's no conflict between his ability to do that and the trademark ownership that Reddit possesses in the provision of an online forum, because those are distinct services.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
One is obviously a commercial good, a book.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
One is an online service.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
So long as he's not attempting to generate consumer confusion and lead consumers to believe that his book is affiliated with Reddit, then the answer to your question is yes.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
Now his actual application,

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
for trademark rights with respect to a book was denied by the examiner, but it wasn't because of Reddit.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
It was just because he didn't meet the standard.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
And so I think that would also apply with respect to things like potentially clothing that he is that he is interested in developing using the name Wall Street Bets.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
And the fact that we are the proper owner of the name Wall Street Bets in connection with providing an online forum service

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
Doesn't in any way limit his ability to do what he has been doing, to describe himself as the founder of the forum, as the first moderator.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
He goes on television.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
And so the limits on this would eventually just be a likelihood of confusion.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
That would be what would, like if Reddit saw something out in the marketplace that said, all right, this is just too much.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
He's making it, this is too connected to our product.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
Then what?

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
A court is going to look at this and evaluate, you know,

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
Is there a likelihood of confusion of the book as compared to the subreddit?

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
Well, yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's relatively common that you would have marks in different classes for fundamentally different services.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
And the examiner always, when you're attempting to register a mark, so if Mr. Rogozinski wants to try and register the name Wall Street Bets in connection with a book,

[00:16:25] Speaker 03:
First, he's going to have to just satisfy the standards for that product.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
If he can do that, the next question is going to be for the examiner, whether there's a likelihood of confusion.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
And he would submit samples to the examiner about how he's to demonstrate his use.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
And yes, the examiner would consider whether there's a likelihood of confusion.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
And if there was an infringement action later, then yes, potentially Reddit would be able to assert that he was

[00:16:50] Speaker 03:
manipulating his trademark in the book, if he could get one, in a way that infringed our mark.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
But really, at the heart of this case, as I think plaintiff himself acknowledges in this appeal, really the only question is, who is the provider of the online forum service, WallStreetBets?

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
And I think you heard my friend say today, what he really wants is the ability to start a competing online discussion forum under the name WallStreetBets that would compete

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
with Reddit's forum service.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
I think that's really exactly what trademark law exists to prohibit by virtue of all of the work that Reddit's employees and the Reddit community has invested in the creation of this vibrant forum.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
It's really just the factual record does not support the idea that Mr. Rogozinski was like the sole provider of this forum service.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
Millions of users have contributed to this forum.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
There are many other moderators who exist to facilitate this vibrant community.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
Does it matter that here he seemingly created all this through Reddit in the first instance?

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
Let's just imagine that everybody knew him as MrWallstreetBets and this has just always been associated with him.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
Now he then takes that over to Reddit and starts it over there and then things break down with Reddit.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Now he wants to start a new online discussion using his

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
long pre-existing persona, Wall Street Bets.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
You think, can he do that or is that a different case?

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
Your honor, if I understand the question, if you're talking about a hypothetical like the one that you asked my friend about where there's an existing service that predates Reddit and it's an online discussion forum, he's got a message board or he's got Wall Street Bets on Facebook or something like that, and then he brings it over to Reddit, in that situation,

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
I do think potentially it would be quite a different record because he would be able to say, I was the first person using the name WallStreetBets before it ever came onto Reddit, I was using it in the context of an online discussion forum.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
But the record here isn't anything like that.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
His allegation is that the first time the name WallStreetBets appeared in connection with an online forum service, it appeared

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
Now, that makes him a user of the service that Reddit provides.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't make him the provider of that service.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
We are the provider of the service.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
Okay, so in a sense, it's more of a factual question as to what was somebody doing before they got on and started promoting something on Reddit.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
Because if the answer is he was doing all sorts of things beforehand and then started using Reddit as another means of doing that, then maybe it's a different case.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
It's not, Your Honor, I want to be... This is important.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
It's not just that he was doing things.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
In other words, it's not just that he was using the name WallStreetBats.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
That would not be sufficient.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
No, I hear you.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
In connection with this kind of medium.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
In connection with the provision of a good or service.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
And that's what's really missing from this complaint.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
And he says, you know, I wrote down the name Wall Street Bets.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
I talked to people about Wall Street Bets.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
That does not give rise to trademark ownership rights because the service that's at issue, the service or good in commerce has only ever existed on Reddit.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
But if he, in his hypo, say he had a Yahoo chat or whatever with Wall Street bets before, are you saying he would then be able to bring it to Reddit or somehow Yahoo would have a claim against Reddit then?

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Because I'm a little confused by the colloquy you just had, because if having done it before would allow him to bring it to Reddit, I'm a little confused why he can't take it away from Reddit and go somewhere else, which is what he wants to do.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
Well, we, he can, I mean, he can, Your Honor, we are the owner of the mark in connection with, we're the rightful owner of the mark in connection with the service of providing an online discussion forum.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
In a hypothetical where he alone, I don't know if it were on Yahoo or something, where he alone had created an online discussion forum service that predated Reddit, I think that would be a very different case.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
Who owns the mark in that hypothetical world?

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
Very different from these facts.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure.

[00:21:10] Speaker 03:
It would depend on what was the nature of what he had created.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
Hold on, but on your theory then, Yahoo or whoever would have that ownership interest.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
I think it would depend, Your Honor, on how the forum existed.

[00:21:26] Speaker 04:
No, let's assume it existed in the same way that it did in this case.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
Let's say that they started in Yahoo, but maybe they started there a month, and they only had five people that got involved, 10 people, 100 people.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
But then they said, no, I think I'm going to go to Reddit.

[00:21:43] Speaker 04:
And they went to Reddit, and then they had a lot more success there.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
Well, under your analysis then, in that Yahoo or whoever would have that right, that ownership interest.

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
So maybe I think that might well be right, but that also doesn't seem that surprising at all because Yahoo in this hypothetical.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
And again, it's just very different from the facts as there's nothing like this alleged in the complaint.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
I stress, but in that hypothetical Yahoo would be the original.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
Revider of an online forum service under the name Wall Street bats.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
But again, I think I would just want to know more about what were the facts of that discussion forum as it existed before it came to Reddit.

[00:22:29] Speaker 03:
And again, I just want to emphasize that the allegations in this complaint before the court are that the discussion forum was created on Reddit using Reddit's digital and physical infrastructure that we provide for the benefit of all of our users, not just for Mr. Rogozinski.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
Is he publishing the book right now?

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
Does the book exist?

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
I'm not certain about the answer to that, Your Honor.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
My friend may be better able to answer the question.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
But again, I think the important point for purposes of the case is that he is absolutely free to write a book describing himself as the founder of the Wall Street Bets subreddit, as the first moderator of the subreddit, nothing like that.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
Our rightful ownership

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
of the mark in connection with the online forum will not in any way affect or limit his ability to write that book.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
I'm just wondering if there's room for settlement here because I'm not sure he understood that.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
Like your position is he can have his book and I'm not sure he knew that you thought he could have his book because it seems like he thought your position was that he couldn't.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
So there's at least some room for agreement here and I'm wondering if this case could settle perhaps.

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor,

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
I took my friend here today to say that he's much more interested in not in publishing a book talking about his experience with Wall Street Bets, but in his ability to go out and start a competing online discussion forum to talk about stock trading.

[00:24:01] Speaker 03:
I think that that has been at the heart of what he wants to do.

[00:24:05] Speaker 03:
Our ownership and that's why this lawsuit is here, as I understand it.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
It seems that he's also asking your client to

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
cease using Wall Street bets altogether and in fact to pay him for the prior uses.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
I agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:24:21] Speaker 03:
We obviously cannot acquiesce to that request because we provide the service and we do it for the benefit of the many, many moderators and the millions of users who contribute to make this community vibrant.

[00:24:36] Speaker 03:
So we certainly can't under both principles of trademark law and also under Section 230 be required

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
to take down certain posts that Mr Rogozinski considers objectionable or to change the content of the subreddit to provide him with attribution to it in the way that he has demanded of us.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
Let's hear our two minutes for rebuttal, please.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
I want to be very clear about the origin of this lawsuit.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
Mr. Rogozinski tried to register the mark, and then Reddit showed up in the USPTO and started challenging him.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
His first claim, by far his most important claim, is the declaratory claim as to ownership.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
Mr. Rogozinski, if he

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
And I want to also be clear about room for settlement.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
Well, ownership as to what?

[00:25:36] Speaker 02:
I mean, as to being able to use the marking connection with an online discussion forum or as to be able to use the mark in other ways?

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
to be able to open a website Wall Street Bets for an online discussion forum without being sued in an anti-competitive way that shuts down his ability to ever purify the moderator service he's been providing under that.

[00:25:58] Speaker 01:
And if he could be assured that they wouldn't sue him for trademark infringement to try and shut that website down and shut that brand permanently, this case would be over.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
There would be no other claims.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
He would be fine with it.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
OK, so you're not worried about the book.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
Um, I think there was, you know, I'm not certain I wasn't trial counseled, but I think there were concerns about the book as well, that there was some aggressive maneuvers by Reddit from Mr. Rogozinski's perspective.

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
He didn't want to go to court, but he felt that he had to, or he was going to be pressured.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
But I would note they're not taking off if the, there's a monopolization concern here, which is that essentially they want to be able to block him from ever creating a competing forum.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
He doesn't want to use that's not now and then he can go create a competing for me just can't use the the exact name Wall Street bats.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
He can go on and have a form for whatever he wants.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
The issue is the use of the mark.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
And under trademark law the presumption there's a legal not putting aside the complaint there's a legal presumption

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
that the medium or the mechanism of delivery to the ultimate person is not the source.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
And then I would point out that it creates the Yahoo problem.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
If you went to Yahoo and created it, their position is Yahoo would own the mark.

[00:27:18] Speaker 01:
If you went to Google and did a forum there, Google would own it.

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
So there's no real place that someone could do that in a social media presence.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
And that has drastic consequences for the ability of anyone to promote and create a brand online.

[00:27:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you both sides for the helpful arguments.

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
This case is submitted.