The article is a bit confusing.

> Ultra Pro International, a case and sleeve company, announced plans to trademark the word “Doge.”

Why does a 'case and sleeve company' want to trademark the term?

> @UltraProIntl June 21, 2014 | 8:29 p.m.

> @DogeCarPR FWIW, we actually sought out the owner, signed a license & are paying royalties & donating to her charities :)

1. Who is this owner? (Don't assume that all readers know everything about Dogecoin or the Doge meme)

2. If they are licensing / paying royalties, how can the get a trademark? Wouldn't the owner be the one with rights to the trademark?

[edit: Reading the Twitter conversation, this seems to be paying for the use of the image of Kabuso (copyright), which has little to do with 'Doge' as a trademark.]

> With Rage Comics, companies were able to use them on their products because the original creator couldn’t quite be proven. The famous picture of Kabuso, the dog, can be found, and it seems as though they have been, but the word “Doge” may have a different creator. That creator would have automatic copyright under the Berne Convention.

This really needs an editor.

- What is the reference to Rage Comics about? Either explain it, or provide a link to more information.

- What does "they have been" refer to? The sentence reads as "The famous picture [...] can be found, and it seems as though they have been." Is this referring to the creator of the famous picture (meaning that some words are missing at the front of the sentence), or is it a typo for 'it' (referring to the picture itself)?

- What does automatic copyright of the 'famous picture of Kabuso, the dog' have to do with the trademark on the 'Doge' term?

> Three years ago this was a much simpler process that would favor their community over the company; however, President Barack Obama signed a law into effect on September 16, 2011 that caused a shift to favor the first company to file.

Is this true? I thought that it only applied to patents.

> 1. Who is this owner? I wonder if this is the owner of the Shiba Inu used in the meme. The dog's name is Kabosu, and the owner is a strong supporter of animal rescue charities. "Doge" is another story.

I could certainly support paying Kabosu's owner for rights to use the image (most certainly it's never crossed the mind of the dogecoin folk, though they have donated to her). However, copyrighting "doge" in conjunction with Kabosu's image is another matter entirely.

And the co-creator's response to the community: http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/the-co-creator-of-dogecoin-...

He has no interest in opposing the trademark. He called Moolah.io's oppositional filing "white knighting the situation." Zing!

In my eyes, it’s a total waste of time and money being spent opposing a very generic trademark that can’t and won’t be enforced

> but the word “Doge” may have a different creator. That creator would have automatic copyright under the Berne Convention.

They are also the creators of Homestar Runner http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/doge

> The tweet was in shorthand, but was transcribed as follows.

I like this and hope other news sites start to do this as well.

I could have sworn this was an onion article. How can this be real?

Right? The dogecoin community is afraid vendors won't want to use their currency now? It's... dogecoin. It's not meant to be taken seriously in the first place. And "doge" is not their invention.

It's not UltraPRO's invention either.

Right, I'm not saying they should get a trademark. I'm commenting on how ridiculous it is that the dogecoin community is worried no one will take them seriously after this. I guess I didn't realize a crypto currency based on an Internet meme was trying to get recognized as a legitimate money replacement.

The reaction is against someone taking it seriously becoming a threat to the people who just wanted to have fun with it.