BanklessDAO Multisig: Funding Pause and BDAO Reorganization

[DAOlexa]

@Oakfloors

2. I don’t understand how we can continue exploring legal questions in parallel with the identity crisis we’re currently in. This is probably due to my lack of knowledge regarding law so I’d appreciate some insights here. @DAOlexa

My experience with lawyers is that they generally refuse to explore my questions until I know precisely what question I need answered. It’s the chicken or egg discussion that I often find myself in.

Hi @Oakfloors,

The 2 legal questions emerged as hot: 1. legal entity, so we have the ability to negotiate the 2. branding.

We need the entity so we can enter into IP agreement with the HQ. Some projects are using the name “Bankless”, and the HQ brought up the need for the entity to be able to do so. HQ is proposing to allow some projects to keep the name with 1-year license, that is to be reviewed every year with the possibility to further allow it or revoke.

The Guild acted on what was discussed and stated as a requirement. We organized an AMA to dicuss the legal entity, and the branding one was discussed (seeking external contributor to do so). If the DAO decides to stop the work and ops until further notice, then yes - you’re right, we dont need any legal work for the time being. But we need to be aware of the risks.

Happy to answer any follow up if you have.

[Oakfloors]

Hi @DAOlexa,

Thank you for explaining! This makes sense and clarifies your previous posts well.

A comment on my behalf is that I have not been able to participate in the governance meetings and do not have a clear understanding of our status. My understanding as of now is that we have returned to the question of whether or not to continue as Bankless DAO or rebrand under a new name.

So that’s why I was asking if this is the time to pursue clarity about IP in the case that we rebrand.

It seems smart to continue the legal process regarding IP if we continue as Bankless DAO.

Thanks again:)

[drllau]

[quote=“Oakfloors, post:42, topic:10469”]
If the DAO decides to stop the work and ops until further notice, then yes - you’re right, we dont need any legal work for the time being. But we need to be aware the the risks. [/quote]

This IMO falls into the category of malfeasance.

1. There was no check of the legal claims and assertions by BanklessHQ. A cursory glance at the USPTO trademark registry would have found that of the 8 claims, the only classes pertinent to the word Bankless impacting bDAO was 25 (apparel) & 31 (news/entertainment). Yet a namemark could have been challenged on the grounds of being purely descriptive as per TMEM §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. or the permissible scope compared against the reclassifications in “proposal”

Providing news and entertainment information in the fields of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology; Providing podcasts, videos, online newsletters and online content in the fields of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology

2. As a general policy, USPTO disapproves of submarine trademark activities.

Trade-off between allowing company to secure some form of exclusivity and forcing it to notify the public about the scope of its property right

3. Without professional legal advice (of which I’m not qualified to offer) your subsequent opportunities to bargain in good faith has been seriously diminished. LexDAO used to operate a LexClinic which provided subsidised services to non-profits, so despite attempts on a personal basis as a disinterested bystander (affiliated but not authorised by LexDAO) to give some alternatives (without any opinion on the legalities as I’m not licensed to practice) it was like talking into an empty hole.