This is what happens when shit gets unreal

Urban Homesteading!

I Am A Time Traveling Thought Zombie, Mining Intellectual Property Before It’s Even Conceived.  

No, wait… I mean I Am An Urban Homesteader!!!! 

So… have you ever heard of Jules Dervaes?  The Dervaes Institute?  No?  Not exactly a household name, right?  Well, maybe not for the average American household, but within the urban homesteading community, he was sort of well known.  He and his weirdo kids adult offspring took a pretty small suburban yard, and, starting around the turn of the millennium, turned it into a sort of mini-farm, complete with chickens, crops and compost.  They’ve tried to minimize their electrical usage, through a variety of means.  He read a lot of information on urban homesteading, and they established a pretty popular self-aggrandizement rant website.  He even participated in a VH1 show, which was trying to humiliate selfish hoebags  better Young Americans.

And then he decided that, not only had he accomplished all these admirable things, he had INVENTED them.  Yep, he is now the self-styled “Founder of the Urban Homestead Movement”.  Last fall, Dervaes and his family, under the name The Dervaes Institute (a non-profit, listed as a church) filed for and received a trademark for the terms ‘urban homestead’ and ‘urban homesteading’. (Please note, I refuse to put the little R in a circle after these terms, or a TM, or whatever the hell they want.)  This, despite a not-trifling number of publications which use the term, either in their title or in the meat of the writing.  Despite the enormous number of blogs and businesses which use the term.  Clearly someone in the US trademark department was brain dead,  asleep at the wheel, certifiably deficient… oh hell, they were brain dead, asleep at the wheel, and certifiably deficient. But this isn’t even the worst part!  Last week, the Dervaes family successfully petitioned Facebook to take down every page that didn’t credit the Dervaeses with ownership of the term.  (Many of these were business pages, used to communicate with customers.  Check out http://www.denverurbanhomesteading.com/ )  Further, they sent a letter to Google, complaining that an Amazon listing, which advertised a book PUBLISHED MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE TRADEMARK AWARD, was infringing upon their intellectual property, and should be stopped.  

I can hear your thoughts:  “Hahaha!  That’s a funny corporate joke you made there, Elizabeth! Wait… what? You’re SERIOUS?!?” 

 Again, according to his own published timeline, he didn’t start his urban homestead until around the time of the Y2K scare.  While the Dervaes family may have been pioneers in PROMOTING urban homesteading through NEW MEDIA, (they do have a very successful self-promotion website) they are not pioneers in the urban homestead field. In fact, based on their own timeline, they are quite late to the game. In 1975, the mayor of Boston, Kevin White, used the term in his Section 810 Urban Homesteading Proposal. Jules Dervaes himself, in his biography, says he took the first dozen issues of Mother Earth News with him to New Zealand in the mid 70′s, and that publication has been using the term since they began publishing in 1970. In a recent letter the family published, trying to explain their actions, the Dervaes family likens their trademark to Nike and Apple trademarking their names. However, Nike did not trademark “tennis shoe”. THAT is the true equivalent to what the Dervaes family has done. Had they trademarked the name “Dervaes Method of Urban Homesteading”, no one would be upset.  (We’d actually get a giggle out of it.  It sounds really self-helpy, and not in a good way, but in an infomercial for birth control way.) Instead, they have practiced an arrogant revisionist history, declared Jules Dervaes the “Father of Urban Homesteading” (seriously, read his bio) and pretended that all the books. articles, and how-to treatises that came before, when they were still blissfully ignoring the idea, and eating Taco Bell (again, read their self-authored bio) simply never existed, or somehow plagarized a thought process they hadn’t even come to yet. Patently, TRADEMARKEDLY ridiculous.

   I’m an urban homesteader.  Many of my friends and acquaintances are urban homesteaders.  In fact, I personally was growing food and preserving it, sewing clothing for my children, bartering garden labor for services and making soap, years before he had his epiphany. (An epiphany, seriously, that came on an ingredients list for a Taco Bell Taco.  No lie.  On a lunch break from picketing the church that kicked him out.  I couldn’t make this crap up if I tried.)

 So… should a common term be the fodder for trademark?  If so, I trademark ‘Mom’.  After all, I bring something different to the term.  Using the logic followed by Dervaes and his family, I can trademark ‘Mom’ because I have a unique spin on motherhood.  I do ‘Mom’ like no one else has ever done ‘Mom’.  As a matter of fact, those who filled a maternal role before me were obviously not quite there, know what I mean? They were ALMOST ‘Mom’, but really, were they as good as me?  Ugh… that’s exactly how stupid this is.

Jules Dervaes is NOT the father of MY Urban Homestead.  His seed ain’t anywhere around here.  I refuse to recognize this trademark.  And I am an Urban Homesteader.


36 responses to “Urban Homesteading!

  1. Jessica February 21, 2011 at 8:02 AM

    Great post! We’ll take back the term.

  2. Pingback: No Trademarks: URBAN HOMESTEAD & URBAN HOMESTEADING « DragonflyHill Urban Farm/The WE Project

  3. Pingback: NO TRADEMARK: URBAN HOMESTEAD AND URBAN HOMESTEADERS « ¡Cafe Intifada! -Uniting Art With Critical Consciousness

  4. Shelly February 21, 2011 at 9:45 AM

    Ha! Love the Mom bit. It’s so true it’s hilarious and sad all at the same time.

  5. Stone Cottage Mama February 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM

    Hi, I am now a new faithful reader! Go Urban Homesteaders!

  6. Judy Gex February 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    Great post!!It’s funny ’cause it’s true!

  7. Pingback: So you say you want a revolution? | Seasons in the Soil

  8. growandresist February 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM

    Woot! Fun post! I’m going to trademark “Queer” “Ladyfriend” and “Babylady” =)

  9. Heidi February 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM


    when he read that Taco Bell label, he was out picketing with his kids against the church that kicked him out for prophesying that the church had entered “the end times”. He wrote seven scrolls that eerily bring to mind David Koresh’s writings. Even weirder is that someone from that same church STOLE some of J.D.’s scroll writings and published them as their own. seriously, who the heck would want to do that? you can read the whole meticulously documented story, published by JD himeself, here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080310011302/http://thehiddenyears.org/ .

  10. Ollamha Anne February 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM

    These folks are seriously out of touch with reality. Check out Canadian Doomer’s blog on this topic:


  11. dervaestrademark March 30, 2013 at 8:10 AM

    dervaestrademark on wordpressfor updates. PS. the mark is a service mark for their blog which has been informing/educating people of their Urban Homestead Project (green city living not rehabbing old homes as the generic term Urban Homesteading has been used for over 40 years, They use it in another sense in trademark class 41 commercially)

    • lavandulagirl April 3, 2013 at 8:49 AM

      That’s cute. The term, and the meaning of it, that they are trying to trademark has been in common usage in that iteration for years. It’s a money grab, aimed at ruining other urban homesteaders, like the folks who were using it as a book title, and the folks who’s business (the Denver Urban Homesteading group, for example) was severely impacted, when the Dervaes chuckleheads insisted that the Facebook Page promoting their market was removed. Then, the Dervaes folks continue to drag their feet, switching lawyers, asking for extensions, etc, while the court case proceeds like cold molasses through the process. They are looking to wait out their less moneyed competition, similar to the way Monsanto waits out the small farmer. It’s really sweet that you are so attached to these charlatans, but I would hitch my star to a different wagon, if I were you. Their credibility within the community is nil.

    • lavandulagirl April 3, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      PS – I edited the link to your propaganda site. The name is still there, but I will not allow you to hyperlink from here, as your blog is apparently there simply to spread disinformation, and to trash April. It’s time for the Dervaes family to crawl back into obscurity. The idea that you are somehow “protecting” the urban homesteading movement from big ag is patently idiotic. But it certainly does play right into Jules’ opinion of himself, as the patriarch of a movement that was born while he was still railing religious treatises and reading about Urban Homesteading in magazines. His myth, and that of the entire family, is unraveling. We’d prefer you unraveled in private.

      • dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 5:37 AM

        You have not substantiated any of your claims with proof but used merely hearsay/rumors/opinions. For instance, ,Dervaes never took down any facebook pages according to legal papers (See Bertini’s motion to compel which states another person did it without the authority of JD) The court process is slow by nature and because of Bertini who keeps harassing the court with untimely motions–read the papers yourself. Recently, both EFF and Bertini disobeyed orders and got their MSJ thrown out by the court. Also, Bertini’s motion to compel last year was rejected by the court because it was untimely and the court reprimanded Bertini for not understanding the law. It also told him his fraud claim was incorrectly pleaded. This delayed the proceedings for 6 months! This year Bertini tries to fix his fraud claim pleading which is again untimely (too late) and, get this, he doesn’t do it the way the Board told him to do it (he ignores it) PLUS he disobeyed the Board’s order not to file any motions but he went ahead anyway and blasted the Board about throwing out his MSJ and the consolidation order made 21 months ago! He should have objected 1 months ago about that. Again, these recent motions by Bertini are untimely, full of ross misunderstandings of the law and legal process itself and are against the Board’s specific orders, all of which delay the proceedings (for another 6 months?–yet to be seen). So, who is dragging whose feet, especially when Bertini/EFF refuse to speed of the process by using email notifications, etc.? As for the mark having been in common usage for a long time, this comment shows your gross misunderstanding of trademark law. As a descriptive term, it has been used but it NEVER was used as a trademark until the Ds used it as such and that is all that matters under the law. Perhaps you need to study the law (or open up your mind). The best thing this has done is to separate those who are intellectually honest from those who are ignorant and wish to remain so who merely are whining about something they know nothing about and wish to bash a family’s reputation (defamation is a serious tort under the law). As for the others who are using the terms for profit, you need to read my wordpress blog which shows how another wanted to trademark too while using the Ds then common law trademarkS (plural) in an attempt to ride on the Ds coattails. Stay tuned…more revealing facts to come.Ps. I’d prefer that you keep to the facts and not pretend that you understand what the Ds motives are as that is a very dangerous game. It is very unbecoming, not to mention defamatory, when someone writes falsehoods as truths.

      • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 7:09 AM

        Actually, court statements show it’s been the Dervaes faction that’s been dragging their feet. They were seriously misguided, in their ideas that an entire community would see their money grab as protective, and it seems that now they are scrambling to find something to back up their claims of ownership, on a term that has been in common usage for decades. As to your claim about the email, you will find that the courts still value the old way of mailing items. Most of trademark law cases are handled via USPS. Further, when a summary judgement order was requested in October of ’12, your group was to respond within 20 days. Instead, your lawyer asked to be released from the case, and you got an extension. Then you asked for an extension for the holidays (needed to go picket a church, did you?) Then your new lawyer didn’t file papers with the opposing side. which is required. Then it was discovered that he’d filed, but sent the papers to the opposition “postage due”. How very professional! Did he learn that tactic, or come up with it himself? Perhaps he should trademark “intellectual property attorney” as clearly he is doing it in a way heretofore unknown in law circles. Pssht. Your are running dangerously close to being considered spam, with this level of disinformation.

        By the way, your “you clearly don’t understand the law” diatribe sounds very familiar in tone. As does the “that wasn’t me, that was a different person who got all those pages removed from social media” line. (which, by the way, is NOT what the family was claiming, in the early days, now was it?) Is this Jules, himself, or another of the immediate family, we’re dealing with? If only there was a font for self-importance, right? We’d be able to tell, right away. That patronizing tone is quite familiar, though, to those of us who used to occasionally catch your sad little forays into film-based media. Interestingly, I was urban homesteading far before I’d heard of motley band of Dervaes backyard farmers. Even had a farmstand (called Urban Farmstand) on my porch, in Seattle, back when Jules’ focus was still on that church. Did they tell him he wasn’t God, too? Of course, I don’t know Jules’ writing style, I only suspect that he rambles on. Call it an educated guess.

  12. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 6:00 AM

    Correction: “21” months ago not “1” and “gross” but you can get my drift (if you want).

    • dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

      Still distorted and unsubstantiated arguments and spun in a wicked distortion of the law and facts. Obviously, you have not read any of the rules at the trademark office or the papers on file.So, that is a dead end argument with you. The court, not you or the detractors, know what is the law and what is the truth in this case anyway. The family never said that they took down the FB pages. NEVER. At least, I have never seen it All they would say is that there is misinformation going around. They never came out publicly and said whether they did or didn’t. Only Bertini and perhaps the others involved know for sure. BTW, when the truth comes publicly (and it will, I am suspecting) will anyone ever admit they have been wrong? FYI, it is very apparent from your comments that you NEVER read the court papers as the DI told the court he sent the papers overnight prepaid for $19.95 to both EFF and Bertini. Bertini’s was refused and EFF’s was accepted and delivered. Why is that ? And why , if Bertini was asked for postage, did he not send in proof to the Board , but, instead, only put it on his Fb page?And, yes, at the TTAB email notifications are allowed if parties are agreed which Bertini and EFf won’t agree to and I am guessing that they won’t agree to the Accelerated Case Resolution for a faster disposition of the case as the Board recently recommended as they appear to be dragging their feet on this case. I am sure since the forty days for this agreement are now up for this faster resolution that IF the Ds had said “no” to it that Bertini, et al, would be screaming about it on Fb.. Why is there no ranting about this? Because it is they who dont want it, not DI. In any event, another round of mailings went out since to both EFF and Bertini. Now, there is no excuse. Bertini, himself, is the one who said that the Ds did not take down the pages and has correspondence to show that fact. This is a FACT in the court papers. However, he has not shared it publicly? Why? Your statements about your activity of uhing is NOT the issue and again shows your ignorance of trademark law. Organic gardening has been done for millennia but , even so, Rodale trademarked it. I feel sorry that you have been duped by some who want to win in the court of public opinion sensing that there case is very weak, if not downright non existent, Surely, someone as articulate and intelligent as you would be embarrassed to find out that you have been conned.I hope that you find peace in your life because you sound very angry over nothing but a bunch of falsehoods. As for me, I only want to know the truth and, if that makes me seem unreasonable or driven, then that is something I can live with. Good day.

      • dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

        P.S. When this whole thing broke out , I did not know trademark law nor did I understand that the Ds had all on the Principal Register and one on Supplemental Register. As a fan,of the Ds, I researched the info out as best I could. FYI, trademark law is not rocket science but it is “strange” and seems almost counter- intuitive. When a person gets a trademark, it attaches to something like a blog or magazine or goods and services, etc. It never attaches to the activity itself as is the case here or with Organic Gardening. Rodale trademarked a term and attached it to his magazine, not the activity The Ds did the same for their blog. It does not mean that no one else can not use the term but that one has to be careful on how and where one uses it, especially commercially, which is another long issue under the law. Best to let an attorney explain it. That is a brief explanation and by do means goes into all the nuances of the law. Just thought this may help you as it did me to understand

      • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM

        You must be a member of their church… good luck with that. You need to open your eyes to the money grab at play. If the DI had trademarked “Dervaes Method of Urban Homesteading”, no one would have blinked. They tried to own it all. It is a blatant attempt to patronize a movement that existed far before Jules et al had ever heard of it. Megalomania is unbecoming, and, trademark or no, he will have a hard time winning this battle. No one respects them, in the real community anymore. Those of us who used to just smile and shake our heads when we heard about his self-promotion now scoff in derision. Jules and his DI can have all the ridiculous self-promo… the VH1 gigs, the Doomsday Prepper crap. Just go tell your little Napoleon to leave the real Urban Homesteading to the ones who understand what it really is. He doesn’t own it.

  13. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    So sorry to see that you are just not “hearing” me.. Your mind is closed and it seems to me to be such a waste as a person who was at one time so advanced as to have done what you did in the past. For example, you should have kept up your farm stand. This always happens to me: When I point out the facts to someone and also the law, they, as you have just done, and knowing that you can;t argue with it, begin to attack the person, in this case, JD, attributing motives, etc., in an ad hominem attack. I have been in lawsuits myself and have seen that happen when the losing side cannot maintain intelligent, legal arguments on the merits of a case, they begin to attack the character of their opposition. It always fails in the court of law (as it is only meant to be heard in the court of public opinion) to take such an unsubstantiated and baseless approach. Yes, I agree that the Ds may have lost some of its former followers but I can only say that those who listen to lies are better off somewhere else as that is totally, diametrically opposed to all the Ds stand for. And, they have grained many new followers who can see this and respect them. Your comments about their films and media attention also revealed a lot about yourself and seems so unrelated to what I have been telling you regarding the facts and the law. Your anger against the family seems so unjustified (IMO) and I can only surmise what your real underlying issue is. And, contrary to how you and others handle their “opinions” which are really assessing something (the UNSEEN “heart” or motive) as if you possess some “inhuman” power humans don”t have without really knowing/asking them or having them reveal the reason (true), I will , as always, refrain from expressing it.

    • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM

      Oh, I hear you. Your babble is deafening. I’m not angry at the family. I pity them. They are hiding behind a facade; one created by a man who is clearly intelligent, but just as clearly selfish, and possibly a bit unhinged in his understanding of what he represents to a group of people who’d barely heard of him until he tried to co-opt their way of life. I reference his media appearances, because until he tried to put a trademark on something he hadn’t either invented or improved, I’d barely heard of him. Once I tried to look him up for more info, I was assaulted by the pseudo-glamor of his script. What real urban homesteader has time to participate in reality shows? As I said, it is not a question of WHO will win the trademark issue. It’s a question of WHO is a real urban homesteader. The idea that the Dervaes family brought something new and different to the table is laughable, and that’s exactly what the movement told them. The fact that they even chose this path shows that they do not understand the heart of the Urban Homesteading movement. (Which, again, predates them). Blatant self-promotion, corporate name grabs, and revisionist history may cloud some people’s judgement, and I am sorry for them.

  14. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    The heart of the urban homesteading movement is self-sufficiency and community, both of which the Ds do. No, you are not hearing me–the Ds never claimed to have invented it. They just brought it to the forefront and made it mainstream. You can’t trademark an invention. That is what patents do,You only lay claim to a trademark for goods and/or services. The Ds do have their own version/brand of UHing. It includes the 10 elements they use to describe them. Who is a real uher is subject to interpretation by who is assessing it anyway. You obviously did not read my wordpress which shows that trademarking prevents corporate takeover just like OWS did. It was not to become corporate themselves but to prevent corporations from misuing it. Too long to go into all that here.

    • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      “Brought it to the forefront and made it mainstream”… see, that’s right where you lose the whole point. They brought their style of it to the forefront of a limited circle of people, and it is still, dear, not mainstream. And Jules Dervaes certainly did style himself as the founder of the movement. If the Dervaes family has they own version/brand, as you say, then that’s what they should have applied to trademark. The Dervaes Method. Not what they did. Not at all. (PS -FYI, Jules Dervaes admits that he was the one who sent the letters to all the other entities using the term, telling them that it was trademarked, and saying they should not us it, but change their name, instead. And he acknowledged that he was behind the letter that resulted in the FB pages for businesses being taken down. So, yeah… the whole backstory of “greenwashing” is pretty much a joke, unless he says those Urban Homesteaders were not what they say they were. He even said that if he didn’t do it, he felt his 10 years worth of work would be in jeopardy, somehow. 10 years… sounds like he was already riding some multi-decade coattails.) It’s all about the money.

      • dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        You are correct , JD did admit sending the letters. My point is that Bertini publicly says DI took down the pages but tells the Board it was someone else unauthorized.JDdid say that his 10 years would be in jeopardy. You are correct there, too. Put the shoe on your foot–wouldn’t you like to protect what you spent 10 years promoting for free. Others were trying to use the Ds to gain a following/money/branding for themselves. And they appear not to be doing uhing but I won’t go into that as I do not have the facts there. When you get on Oprah and the media that is going mainstream in one fashion or another and that must be what the Ds hope to do. it is a Creation Care Ministry bringing this green lifestyle to others. But the Ds saw a need to protect it from the misuse that others (possibly non secular and whatever else) were doing with it. Really now, someone using the Ds trademark Homegrown Revolution to sell thongs! See my wordpress page. What next? Urban Homestead(ing) thongs and , excuse me for this, sex toys!!! A Creation Care Ministry would object to their hard work being confused with the likes of that! I am not speaking for the Ds when I say that but from my reading I have seen trademarks being trashed like that. And this is EXACTLY what OWS did to protect the movement. They protected form misuse and the stuff that was going up for sale using their term.Also, I found out that Fb asks trademark owners for their brands and asks them to submit the info. Don’t know much about the process though.

      • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        They should have rebranded as Creation Care Ministry, then. They have a tax exemption, as a church. BUT… if a church said “We use these 10 Commandments in a Christian way, and we are clearly at the forefront of doing so, so we’re going to trademark the term ‘Christian’, and insist it only be used if we are given credit, because we’ve been working with the term for X years now, and we are worried that our brand may be damaged if we don’t” we would all laugh. And… we’re all laughing. It’s a grab. It’s an attention thing. And good on them, they got the attention. Funny thing about that, though, you can’t control what people think of your grabby behavior. Some folks like Gordon Gecko, too.

  15. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    You still do not understand.BTW, the new KJV of ;the Bible is trademarked! You have to understand what it is that is being trademarked. You need to educate yourself and read either my urban Homesteading Trademark Controversy page or WordPress which explains the Ds letter that was sent (and more) which does NOT say what people say it says. Do some research online there and elsewhere and maybe you will understand. FYI: the terms “Whassup” Let’s Roll” and many other regular phrases are trademarked.Permaculture was, too, by Mollison but the let it go when he was pressured. Now, someone else picked it up with a design element . To make sure one is getting the “real deal” in permaculture course, since it is NOT trademarked, one has to pay $1000. But there are many counterfeits around and the permaculture group suffers from that and doesn’t like it either. They should have kept the trademark in place as it would have been better and there couldn’t be any imitators/counterfeiters. Trademarking is the wise thing to do.and protect everyone on either side, i.e., owners and the public.It also allows the public to either buy a brand or avoid a brand. Think about and do some research. You will be surprised. Better, yet, ask an attorney. I went to online forums..

    • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM

      You still don’t understand. We’re talking apples and oranges. It isn’t about the fact that they CAN get a trademark an entire movement, it’s that they chose to. And the difference between a VERSION of the Bible being trademarked, (as the KJV is… V stands for VERSION, dontcha know) and the TERM Urban Homesteading being trademarked, is that the owners of the tm on the KJV are not sending cease and desist letters to the printers of other versions of the Bible, insisting that they not use the term “Bible”. I could AVOID a brand, like “Dervaes Brand”, or “Dervaes Method”, but to say that I can avoid “Urban Homesteading” or pay them is ridiculous. KJV can be trademarked, and if I don’t want that one, I can buy the New American Bible. But If the tm disallowed the use of “Bible” by anyone else, that would be an overreach. And this Urban Homesteading trademark is, indeed, an overreach. They should have trademarked their version, not an entire concept. The problem continues to be that they felt that they owned the right to tell others that those people’s version of Urban Homesteading was not, in fact, Urban Homesteading, unless they wanted to refer to people who had nothing to do with it (the Dervaes family)and give them credit for something that had nothing to do with them. So… Denver Urban Homesteading? Not the Dervaes method, so no worries. The Coyne book? Not the Dervaes method, so no worries. Acolytes of the Dervaes Institute could find their version easily, as it would be trademarked as the Dervaes method. But, in a grab, they chose to try to trademark ALL of a movement, even the parts they had no right to claim. And that is the part you’re not hearing.

  16. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM

    You are wrong. Just do a little research online or ask an IP attorney to help you understand. You and non one else, not even the Ds, can trademark a movement because that is impossible under the law. OWS did NOT trademark a movement and anyone who says they did is wrong. They have attached it to something though I really can’;t remember if it was Tshirts or something else. Because you still want to believe that you are misguided and will never understand.If the new KJV wants to keep its trademark it has to send out letter to inform others , even sending out a C&D IF others are using the translation wrongly without attribution since it is on the Principal Reg. I think that you still misunderstand that the Coyne book used the UH trademark which is on the Principal Register and is, thus ,definitely legally infringing, especially since they live in the same area , providing the same services and have used other marks from the Ds and used the Ds domain url in their advert. Both DUH an Coyne, under the law ,are junior users of the mark since they use it commercially and are infringing. I didn’t make the law, just telling you the law.Take issue with the USPTO, not the Ds or me. Take the issue up with Rodale for Organic Gardening (they do send out letters to others and have been involved in many lawsuits for other tms they have like Runners World, I think, and others.) The Ds have followed the law, were legally granted the marks and I think that people are just angry because their cash cow is gone! My opinion. of course, although others have also stated this ,too. This would be a perfect opportunity for those in opposition to this issue to find a new term and go for it and, thus, disassociate themselves from the Ds. Thank you.

    • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      The Dervaes Family is a “junior user” of the term itself. They are grabbing for a brass ring. They are clearly more involved in self promotion than many others, who have been living the life for far longer than they’ve known about. It’s fine. They will bankrupt themselves, chasing down those who continue to use the term. They are a version of urban homesteading, not urban homesteading itself, one that has become less and less relevant with each passing day. The DI should have stuck with religion. He could write his own, like L. Ron Hubbard.

      • dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        Wrong. It doesn’t matter who lived like this first as it means nothing under tm law.It is IRRELEVANT; otherwise, Rodale could not have trademarked OG. I am using legal terminology when I state senior user . Under the law , the senior user of a trademark is one who used the term commercially across state lines and.or for business first. . Briefly, this means that once the Ds used it on their website (commercially for educational services) to promote green city living it became a trademark under educational services or class 41.. They used first before the others since around 2001. The others, like Coyne, didn’t use it until 2006 on its blog and then 2009 for its book, DUH used it first as his business name in 2009. The Integral Urban House never used it to refer to itself and the MEN article did but it meant rehabbing old homes at the time. Info on my wordpress..Attorney James Bertini of all people should have done research for his business name to check out trademarks.. Much more, when I have the time, will be coming out on my wordpress. DI and everyone else do not have to worry about descriptive use of the term under Fair Use or for non commercial reasons The First Amendment protects everyone’s rights. If you knew the law and understood it, we would not be having this discussion.Sadly, many in the community are ignorant of the law, willfully blind or something else more sinister. Yes, I agree, the Ds have their own brand and that is the point of trademarks. I do not discuss other people’s religion or mock someone’s sincerely held beliefs.

      • lavandulagirl April 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM

        “They used first before the others since around 2001.” Yes, The Dervaes family started urban homesteading because of the Y2K farce. We know. Are you seriously trying to say that it wasn’t a term before that? That there weren’t businesses using it? That there weren’t methods that they learned from, in print and otherwise, termed “urban homesteading”? That he coined the term, or truly brought something new to the table? New besides a penchant for self-promotion, I mean. He read about it in old copies of magazines like MEN, for pete’s sake. As to your Crunchy Chicken comment… she tm’d “Crunchy Chicken”, yes. Which, again, is why they should have tm’d “Dervaes”. Again, we’re talking apples and oranges. You use a statement regarding the NAME of someone’s business (eg: Crunchy Chicken) as proof that they had some sort of right to tm a term, eg: urban homesteading. Just like you used a statement regarding a VERSION (eg: the KJV Bible). Not the same thing. Clearly, however, you will continue to post the same set of disinformation, in the hopes that I will eventually come around to that point of view. It’s not going to happen. The overreach was astronomical. The push back is warranted. Implying now that there is something sinister at play, or that they did it for the good of the community (to save us from Monsanto, really?! Hahaha) is patently ridiculous. Trademarkedly so, even. Let the trademarks fall where they may, the Dervaes Institute is not the standard bearer for urban homesteading. Never has been, never will be. They are upstarts with an eye to the money and the fame they think they might get. We’ll all still be urban homesteading when they’re gone. Honestly, if they cared as much about building the UH community as they did about building their presence in it, we’d all be better off. Now, my suggestion is to stop dredging up blog posts from 2+ years ago, in an effort to whitewash their name. What they ought to do, rather than pick fights with the UH community, is tm their name, and go back to what UHers do best: homestead. And so should you.

  17. dervaestrademark April 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

    Clarification: once someone uses a term it automatically becomes a tm (common law). for instance, once Crunchy Chicken used her name commercially (on her website across state lines) and offered educational services it is protected under TM law. Applying for federal reg is just added protection but not necessary.

%d bloggers like this: