Prior Art claim

So Greenberg Traurig the multimillion firm coming after me for "Copyright" just filed "Trademarks" for LEFT SHARK , RIGHT SHARK, DRUNK SHARK and awkwardly BASKING SHARK. Three Terms i been using in my products before they even filled their trademark applications. I wonder what this means and if they will come after me after for "Trademark" infringement using this well known Trademark Trolling technique. Will they come after National geographic and any other company interested in using the words BASKING SHARK? (thanks to @proofofUse for links to these applications)

Edit: Actually i talked to numerous IP lawyers and they claim that this move is very common. unscrupulous firms usually send nastygrams (letters meant to scare you using fancy lawyer terms without any legal backing) These nastygrams scare small business out of production until they can attain trademarks and then use this to protect a brand or item they actually never had copyright to. Welcome to the way Free market America works now where the guy with the deepest pockets win.

However, things have started to get a little bit juicier and disturbingly interesting. Looks like GT law firm is now trying to trademark "standing shark in right profile; the shark's body is blue; the shark's snout is white."  and "shark standing on two legs; the shark's body is blue; the underside of the shark's fins are white" In another attempt to capitalize on something they have yet to prove is "copyrighted" and that was created by the internet not them. (please note the date of the filling)

thanks @V_of_tReason

Will they switch their Copyright Nastygrams to  Trademark nastygrams? will this copyright trolling evolve into trademark trolling? this is getting out of hand for something that is dying down day by day. But i'm pretty sure GT law firm doesn't care. They probably billed thousands of dollars in hours to Katy Perry right about now. So it's a win win for them and a lose lose for us artists and the internet  that created this meme.

These guys aren't backing down not even after my lawyer  (name has been deleted) responded and responded AGAIN!! will this GT Firm take this to trial? not sure.. but if they do i'm asking my lawyer if it's possible to get left shark and right shark to testify in court wearing their outfits of course!!. (if that happens please donate to my legal fund here)

Well Anyways this post is about prior Art and who has the right to copyright and therefore capitalize on this un copyrightable piece of clothing. These GT lawyers state that they should be making all the money... i mean Katy Perry should. You know because of prior sketches that they have yet failed to publicize or prove copyright.

So thanks to the internet, artists, and people following this case i have been informed of dozens of prior art. MTV reported that Tacocat claimed the whole beach shark thing was their idea. Then @robertcopper found this link between jaws, Back to the future and Katy perry. And Finally @shanleygem claims that this "Standing shark art" was used by him in months before the super bowl.

However if these lawyers claim that a "Standing shark with two legs" is copyrightable then will they come after me for my Sad Sham-U the Orca toy art piece made in response of #blackfish?.  If you think about it my Aquatic figure has fins and a dorsal fin that might be confused with a shark. My figure has a white belly, is also standing and has two legs!! a frowny mouth and seems sad he is a slave of a waterpark..  oh my god! i'm definitely screwed.

Sad Sham-U the Orca Toy

Oh wait.. shouldn't I be doing Copyright Trolling to Katy Perry.. since i had this piece out way before Katy Perry's lawfirm started copyright trolling artists like myself.

Anyways i'm resuming sales of my Left shark at etsy.com/shop/amznfx and selling a lot more politically oriented and not so political stuff at Shapeways.com/shops/amznfx