Stitch v. Bitch
This is a listing of all posts filed under “stitch v. bitch”, the category dedicated to the evolution of stitching and bitching from grassroots crafty socializing to lucrative commercial brand.
More specifically, this category focuses on the dispute between Deb Stoller, author of the popular “Stitch ‘N Bitch” series of craft-related books, and Sew Fast Sew Easy (SFSE), the New York sewing shop that happened to have a registered US trademark for STITCH & BITCH CAFE, and the online knitting groups that got dragged into the spat as SFSE had ISPs shut down groups using variants of “stitch and bitch” in their monikers.
In a nutshell:
“Stitch & bitch” was a term used to describe gatherings of women who came together to sew or knit. Anecdotally and by secondary sources, the terminology was used at least as early as WWII. By the 1990s, the phrase might have fallen from frequent usage, but it was still commonly used by groups, on- and offline, in North America to describe their gatherings.
In the late 1990s, SFSE set up a website guestbook under the name STITCH & BITCH CAFE then obtained a registered US trademark.
In 2003, Stoller’s first book, Stitch ‘N Bitch: The Knitter’s Handbook was published. The book rode the crest of the wave, as knitting popularity had slowly started to increase prior to 2003; Stoller’s work helped push knitting into the mainstream. Stoller advocated the creation of stitch and bitch groups to help promote the craft of knitting. As a result, more people started using the phrase “stitch and bitch” and set up online and offline groups called “stitch and bitch” or variants thereof.
Stoller applied for trademark registrations for STITCH ‘N BITCH intended for use in association with various goods and services, such as books, knitting kits, and television shows. The applications were initially rejected because of the STITCH & BITCH CAFE registration.
At some point, SFSE became aware of the existence of the STITCH ‘N BITCH phenom and trademark application, and started shutting down online stitch and bitch groups that called themselves by names involving “stitch” and “bitch”. Those groups, however, were not using the word “cafe”. (The trademark infringement policies of various Internet service providers, such as Yahoo! or CafePress, results in the cutoff of a service and/or subscriber if a somewhat legitimate allegation of infringement is submitted — but the ISP’s action does not confirm that there is infringement.) The groups were not actually affiliated with Stoller or her publisher, but looked to Stoller for guidance.
Stoller initiated cancellation proceedings against SFSE’s registered trademark — in order to obtain her own STITCH ‘N BITCH registration, it was more or less necessary. SFSE continued shutting down online groups, then began “using” the mark STITCH & BITCH and applied for its own trademark registration for that phrase (or something like it, without “cafe”). That application was provisionally rejected for confusion with Stoller’s pending applications.
In the meantime, SFSE continued to have online groups shut down (and embarked on some questionable publicity campaigns to promote their position and their own online forum). In response, knitters (and sewers, too) retaliated by compiling evidence that “stitch and bitch” was a descriptive phrase used for decades, and advocated a boycott against SFSE, which is ongoing.
Popular support of the parties, based on online reaction of crafters in various forums, is decidedly against SFSE, but not completely behind Stoller. While popular opinion tends to support the theory that SFSE is scheming to extract a beneficial settlement out of Stoller or drum up business among crafters for its own forum (with a few dissenters who believe that SFSE is merely trying to defend its rights (if any), although it’s generally believed that those dissenters are employed by SFSE), it’s unclear whether Stoller intends to practise her trademark rights (if any) within the specifically defined scope of her trademark applications, or to effectively extend her brand to other products and services. Of course, the best way to find out would be to ask her directly… or wait and see.
This listing was last updated on January 12, 2007. Note that the dates below are occasionally the dates of the posts, and not the actual date of the activity reported therein.
- May 10, 2005: introducing the controversy, via MetaFilter; and please, it’s not about copyright, it’s about trademarks
- May 12, 2005: discussion about the nature of trademarks: Stoller didn’t claim to coin the phrase “stitch and bitch”, and trademarks can consist of common phrases used in association with particular goods and services; and didn’t I say this wasn’t about copyright?
- May 24, 2005: SFSE makes an offer to license STITCH & BITCH and STITCH & BITCH CAFE on its website
- May 30, 2005: you’re not helping
- June 13, 2005: SFSE files a US trademark application for STITCH AND BITCH, providing images of a booklet and a circular retractable tape measure as evidence of use… of STITCH & BITCH with an ampersand
- June 13, 2005: how a trademark grows up to become registered
- July 2, 2005: tallying another CafePress shop shut down by SFSE
- July 15, 2005: Stoller’s STITCH ‘N BITCH trademark applications initially refused as confusing with SFSE’s registered STITCH & BITCH CAFE
- December 4, 2005: the circular retractable tape measure claimed by SFSE as a specimen of use for their trademark application, previously shown on their website, turns into a square
- January 12, 2006: Yahoo! asks some online stitch and bitch groups to change their name
- January 15, 2006: how much are knitting trademarks worth?
- January 16, 2006: minor glitch, please ignore
- January 17, 2006: Stoller initiates cancellation proceedings against STITCH & BITCH CAFE
- January 18, 2006: is the Sarah Lawrence yearbook story really true? and more evidence of usage prior to the late 1990s in the comments
- January 27, 2006: extension of time in settlement proceedings; idle speculation about various forms of settlement
- January 28, 2006: an ill-advised appeal for public sympathy by the marketing manager of SFSE
- January 30, 2006: how not to write a letter, and spellcheck isn’t foolproof
- January 31, 2006: Yahoo! starts using “stitch ‘n’ bitch” itself; this is what happens when you have more than one department running things
- January 31, 2006: how I try to remain neutral
- February 1, 2006: oh yeah, I used to have a section on my website called “stitch & bitch”, but I forgot
- February 4, 2006: the dispute gets a mention in The Economist
- February 6, 2006: the dispute also discussed in Cast On
- February 16, 2006: someone offers stitchandbitch.ca for sale
- March 8, 2006: the Yahoo! campaign expanded; brief description of the DMCA and ISP trademark infringement policies
- March 15, 2006: SFSE posts “sample pages” of its online STITCH & BITCH CAFE forum dating back to 1998 to demonstrate use of “stitch and bitch”
- April 7, 2006: developments in the cancellation proceedings as documentary discovery reveals issue of non-use, contrary to the assertions made in SFSE’s trademark application
- April 12, 2006: further filings in the cancellation proceedings provide more information regarding the legal correspondence between Stoller and SFSE
- April 18, 2006: not necessarily SFW comic relief
- May 2, 2006: SFSE expands its offerings to “Stitch & Bitch University”; Tyra Banks wants to brand your knitting needles?
- September 1, 2006: cancellation deadlines get extended; new SFSE application gets suspended
- September 4, 2006: this page created. Woo!
- November 6, 2006: the parties jointly request an extension, which to some of us hints that they’ve been putting off doing anything substantial
- December 12, 2006: the TTAB rules on the motion to amend the petition (allowed); new dates for getting things done in the cancellation proceeding are set
- January 10, 2007: SFSE files a reply to the amended petition to cancel; nothing of note to report