Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court

[Brett Lewis]

trademark holders will have to fight their cases carefully. one tear jerker story of joe bloggs loosing his house and family because of the almighty corporation could seed enough bad press to do some serious bottom line damage to a company.

If you are talking about a situation where someone registers 20 or 40 or 100 misspellings of a famous, registered trademark, and pockets money from the resulting traffic, I don't know how much sympathy the press or public would have for that person when they are sued by a corporation. That said, there are many overly aggressive trademark holders out there that try to bully people into giving up domains -- usually dictionary words or free speech sites -- over which the domain holders have legitimate rights.

If you are talking about descriptive or dictionary word domains, or typos of descriptive word domains, then I agree with you.

[namestrands]

Yeah not talking Blatant squatters, talking about the likes of MikeRoweSoft or the owner of Katie.com

[Brett Lewis]

Agree. There is another site, http://fedexfurniture.com/, that drew the ire of my favorite shipping company. Come to think of it, maybe we should switch to UPS.

[barefoot]

Well, no wonder it drew ire. The text logo, "FedEx Furniture", near the top of the page is very similar to the FedEx logo -- same use of upper and lower-case letters in the phrase "FedEx", and similar (but not identical) color differences in the excerpts "Fed" and "Ex".

And there are photos at the bottom of the page showing "furniture" made from FedEx boxes. At first glance, I just thought the "furniture" was piles of empty FedEx boxes, which validated my initial assumption that this site had something to do with FedEx the package delivery company.

If it weren't for the disclaimer at the very top, I'm sure other folks would also initially assume that FedEx Furniture had an affiliation with Federal Express. Pretty misleading, IMO.

If they wanted to build and sell "furniture" created with empty package delivery boxes, it would have smarter to call their product "Empty Box Furniture" or something to that effect, and register the domain emptyboxfurniture.com. They should use boxes that don't have identifying logos or other copyrighted text/imagery and avoid creating "derivative works" that infringe registered copyrights.

Hopefully, FedEx will eventually shut this site down and take the domain away from these morons. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done already, given the amount of time that has passed between the date of the letter sent by Fedex legal counsel (8/3/2005) which is posted on the site, and now.

[jberryhill]

it would have smarter to call their product "Empty Box Furniture"

It's not a "product", it's a noncommercial funny website.

Hopefully, FedEx will eventually shut this site down and take the domain away from these morons. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done already, given the amount of time that has passed between the date of the letter sent by Fedex legal counsel (8/3/2005) which is posted on the site, and now.

Having fun making furniture out of FedEx boxes, and posting pictures of the furniture on a website called "FedEx Furniture" is perfectly fine.

Mattel learned this the hard way when they sued a photographer who took pictures of Barbie dolls in poses they didn't like.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...ews&id=1793935

As to the delusions of grandeur under which such lawsuits will somehow harm a company, I'm willing to bet you never heard of that case.

[namestrands]

I totally agree.. I would find in favour of the respondent, its satirical.

I for one did not even consider that the site was associated with Fedex, and I would assume any intelligent person out there would realise the satire.

I read somewhere about a guy building a house out of Dominos Pizza Boxes, same context applies.

[barefoot]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

It's not a "product", it's a noncommercial funny website.

Having fun making furniture out of FedEx boxes, and posting pictures of the furniture on a website called "FedEx Furniture" is perfectly fine.

Weren't they seeking "donations" by including a link to Paypal on their site? Isn't that attempting to profit from someone else's trademark and/or copyright? I don't see the link now, but it's referenced in the 2005 letter from FedEx which is posted on their site.

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Mattel learned this the hard way when they sued a photographer who took pictures of Barbie dolls in poses they didn't like.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...ews&id=1793935

I'm willing to bet you never heard of that case.

In fact, I did hear about that case some years ago (I'm a photographer myself) and I don't think it can be applied to this situation. My understanding is that FedExFurniture was profiting or attempting to profit from creating derivative works using copyrighted materials and posting a "donations" link to Paypal to "support the site". What possible justification or motivation is there for seeking "donations" here?

Selling photos of a company's product (in this case, Barbie dolls) unclothed and in provocative positions, as artwork -- without resorting to creating a website presence featuring company names and logos that are confusingly similar to the company in question -- doesn't seem to be quite the same as creating "furniture" from a company's copyrighted materials, building a website that could confuse visitors into thinking it is related to that company in some way, and seeking "donations" for its endeavors. I don't see the Paypal link now, but I'm sure if it returned FedEx would take notice once again.

Can photographs of a company's product be classified as "derivative works", no matter how that product is displayed or represented in the photographs? The Barbie guy is selling his images as artwork. Does it matter if the photographs are sold as artwork or used commercially in some way to advertise some other product or service?

Thanks, John. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[jberryhill]

That said, when one accepts FedEx boxes, it is an acceptance of a contract to use them for FedEx shipping purposes.

Their main beef is that they don't want to inspire zillions of people to consume free boxes for this purpose.

USPS had the same problem with people on eBay getting free priority mail boxes and then flipping them inside out to use for parcel post. For a while, they were printing "Priority mail only" on the insides of the boxes and refusing to accept them with regular postage on them.

[warnerms]

Hmm, perhaps all of the parties using the word "Windows", should start a class action suit challenging the validity of Microsofts trademark on "Windows". Funny how Microsoft brought suite against Linspire.com ( formerly known as lindows.com), and in the end ended up essentially paying Lindows.com $24 million to change their name to Linspire.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._Lindows

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Brett Lewis

Agree. There is another site, http://fedexfurniture.com/, that drew the ire of my favorite shipping company. Come to think of it, maybe we should switch to UPS.

At least they have a disclaimer at the top of the page. Oh, and similar colors. And a redirect to FedEx (the real deal).

And a different slogan...Its OK To Be Ghetto!

And they serve a useful purpose and niche and fill this massive void regarding recycling and "save the planet" thingy thing...

FedEx Furniture is furniture put together by empty FedEx Boxes, and held together by fedex packaging supplies. All of the furniture seen here is 100% functional. The couch is standing/sleeping approved, I sleep on the bed every night, I eat at the dining table, and I work at the desk almost 20 hours a day.

And he has someone from Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society's representing him.

I mean, come on...with all the dough he's saving he should hire a real lawyer. (it's a joke...ha ha...funny ha ha)

Actually, a very good article and letters posted by both FedEx & the Stanford Law School Center. Good read to see both sides' claims.

Originally Posted by jberryhill

USPS had the same problem with people on eBay getting free priority mail boxes and then flipping them inside out to use for parcel post. For a while, they were printing "Priority mail only" on the insides of the boxes and refusing to accept them with regular postage on them.

You seriously need to quite going through my trash.

[Ehsan]

this encourages me to challenge there trademarks what do they think they are if ppl have a typo whats the problem surely i will like to take them on lol

[Doc Com]

I am waiting for the C & D to come, at one of the hospitals I work at. It's kind of funny but...

One of the hospitals I work at decided to go with a certain color of scrubs to indentify each department. Well, the respiratory department was last in making the decision so they ended up with the only choice available...brown.

Yes, the same dark brown as the uniforms of...you guessed it...UPS.

So, the Resp Staff are walking around the hospital being mistaken for UPS delivery people...sure, with stethoscopes around their neck.

Well, this has become the joke and needless to say when the nurses or doctors need respiratory, they say "call the UPS man."

Walking down the hall they are addressed as "there's the UPS man" or "when will I get my package?".

Now the Resp people say "I've got your package right here" or "Ask what brown can do for you".

Actually, it is very funny. Just goes to show how even a color can be associated with a firm.

So, does UPS have the TM on that color? Will the RT dept. get a C&D letter? Or will they just adopt a different color...stay tuned.

[Poker]

Originally Posted by GAMEFINEST

Microsoft is one company you dont fcuq with.

Well you can always go Mac

[Focus]

Maybe Apple will started chasing down every version of it's domain names/marks too... RedApple.com, GrannySmith.com, etc

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Focus

Maybe Apple will started chasing down every version of it's domain names/marks too... RedApple.com, GrannySmith.com, etc

Fuji, Roma, Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, Gala, Johnathan...

Microsoft can seize my MicroAnaylses, then go for MicroManager, Microscope...Softee.com....

[Creature]

Originally Posted by Focus

Maybe Apple will started chasing down every version of it's domain names/marks too... RedApple.com, GrannySmith.com, etc

That'll be when Powerbooks start growing in trees. Anyway they would be the first to claim they invented the GrannySmith. Didn't they claim the iphone name a few weeks back?

[hunnam]

eBay sued 2 men from Whitley Bay over the name ne-bay.co.uk, the 2 blokes were on TV saying it was a disgrace BUT they had advertised in farmers fields near the Angel of the North with their logo virtually the same as eBays and they had quoted eBay many times on the site and in articles then they spoke on TV about other sites they had that were similar and ended up having to lose them too because Microsoft and Amazon went after them.