Though Wikipedia notes the federal government placed Leo Stoller on a list of "vexatious litigants" in 2005 for repeated abuses of the legal system, Stoller describes himself as an "intellectual property entrepreneur." That means he sues people for trademark infringement – a lot.

One of Stoller’s more recent targets, through his company Central Manufacturing Inc., was Google. In a petition for cancellation of Google’s trademark, Stoller claimed that Google’s mark had entered to vernacular as a verb, giving him "common law" rights to the term.

He also claimed Google had infringed on his right to the mark, which Stoller said was being used for plastic exercise balls made by his company, and that Google had "mutilated" its own mark through dressing up the logo on holidays. The petition was recently dismissed by the US Patent and Trademark Office, but the decision is, of course, being appealed.

But a victory at the Trademark Office isn’t taking Stoller to task quite enough, as far as Google is concerned. The company wants Stoller’s alleged abuse of the system stopped for good and has filed suit against him and his companies for false advertising and unfair competition.

But also, and this is the big one, Google is seeking a judgment that Stoller’s companies are in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which can carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Rebecca Tushnet, law professor at Georgetown University, explains why Google is so aggressive in combating the most famous of so-called "trademark trolls":

[T]here’s no provision in trademark law penalizing false claims of trademark ownership, or even false claims to own a federal registration, in contrast to the rule for patents.

However, she doubts whether Google can make a claim for unfair competition under the Lanham Act:

If the relevant market is the market for licensing trademarks, then Google seems to be a consumer rather than a competitor. If, however, Stoller asserts rights in goods and services sufficient to give him standing to oppose Google’s registrations before the PTO, is he estopped from denying competition? My guess is not; noncompetitors can be operating in categories sufficiently related to justify oppositions, besides which Stoller’s oppositions have all been rejected.

Eric Goldman, whose cyberlaw and intellectual property credentials speak for themselves, sees Google as kind of a white knight in this case:

There have been many attempts to curb Stoller’s activities, but this lawsuit may be the most serious…

Google has the cash and mettle to challenge Stoller, they are sympathetic litigants, and they unquestionably know what it means to fight Stoller but chose to do so anyway. Should they succeed in their efforts, I think it’s likely that other trademark owners who are targeted by Stoller will follow suit.

On his blog, Stoller paints himself as a sort of victim struggling against major corporation – and a "nationally known legal ethics expert." Recently though, his ire seems more directed at Google attorney Michael Zeller, whom he accuses of professional misconduct.

Writing of himself in the third person:

This story has all of the drama of a major motion picture…100 billion dollar company, multi million dollars lawyers…against Leo Stoller….David and Goliath…now playing….

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

She understands mainstream media, I got her to work with bloggers and consumer generated media (or whatever you want to call it) after a lot of ignoring her requests … but she’s no longer with them, so I feel I can write this without any contradictory feelings…

Skype is blowing it, particularly in the public relations department. Yahoo! recently beta launched Yahoo! Messenger with Voice … and nothing really came out from Skype or its PR department or firm. While that might not be true in the mainstream press – and, well, I do read that as well – it was the blogs that first broke the Y! VoIP news, particularly Om Malik, and I read no messaging or statements from Skype. Instead, just radio silence. And, it was the blogs that made Skype ….

Now, Skype is being sued using the RICO Act … something usually reserved for Mafia, drug dealers and other undesirables.

Andy Abramson first broke the story – who says PR people can’t break stories, and here’s a man that shows that Intel sees the importance of bloggers by including his photo in the Intel Developer Conference keynote – and Om quickly reported the news.

Granted, this story just broke … but I wonder how silent Skype PR is going to be this time around. Now that they are part of eBay, they are using a firm that – through personal experience – either does not understand, or is afraid, of blogs.

And, well, I recently took part in a Bulldog Reporter audio conference on blogging and working/pitching bloggers … and it was telling with the silence and number of people that a lot of PR firms and people don’t know what to do and are scared.

What do I expect to see – well, when you are sued under RICO, what can you really do? Skype does have a group of blogs, and could launch a crisis communication blog … but that will really be up to eBay. But, if the silence on Yahoo!’s VoIP product is any indication, the silence on this issue will just be as deafening … and for a voice product, that speaks volumes.

Add to | Digg | Yahoo! My Web

Technorati:

Jeremy Pepper is the CEO and founder of POP! Public Relations, a public relations firm based in Arizona, USA.

He authors the popular Musings from POP! Public Relations blog which offers Jeremy’s opinions and views – on public relations, publicity and other things.

At the RIAA’s behest, MediaSentry cracked her computer, violating federal computer fraud statutes, and the RIAA employed Settlement Support Center to utilize illegal and deceptive debt collection practices to get her to pay up or face an expensive lawsuit for illegal file; these are among the many claims made by attorneys representing Tanya Andersen in a response to Atlantic v. Andersen.

The actions of the RIAA against Ms. Andersen have made her a cause celebre and drew representation from a New York-based law firm specializing in Internet and computer law. They have established a blog about this and other related cases and made a number of allegations at length against the RIAA and its agents.

One point contends the RIAA filed secret lawsuits against people like Ms. Andersen accusing them of illegal file trading. After those suits have been filed, with no notice given to the defendants, the RIAA employs the Settlement Support Center to demand payment.

One part of the legal answer and counterclaim brings up the prospect of Oregon’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) act figuring in the proceedings. Apparently, counsel for Ms. Andersen feel that the RIAA, by virtue of employing MediaSentry and Settlement Support Center to commit what counsel feel are criminal actions, have engaged in the same behavior as the Mafia.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.