Was my domain taken?

[jberryhill]

"Some trademark legal scholars have speculated that this reverse domain hijacking may be met with cancellation of the company's mark under the doctrine of trademark misuse."

And courts have specifically rejected that speculation. Again, your ignorance is showing, e.g.:

Juno Online Services, LP v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684,
44 USPQ.2d 1913 (ND Ill. 1997)

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Juno_v_Juno.html
(scroll down to the section on "trademark misuse", if you want to know something about the law, instead of Garry's fantasies)

"Perhaps a court may choose to recognize a new cause of action in a situation in which the mark holder does attempt to destroy its competitors through the use of its mark. However, this is not such a case. While, Juno Online does claim that Juno Lighting tried to use its government granted marks to put Juno Online out of business, there is no factual allegation backing up this conclusory statement. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant's purpose in asserting its rights under the NSI policy was to derive a competitive advantage over Juno Online, which, on its face, would be an absurd allegation considering that the two entities are involved in completely different businesses."

---
Back to Garry:

"However, the US Patent and Trademark Office has never canceled a mark yet based on trademark [mis]use. Nonetheless, cancellation of patents and copyrights have occurred based on misuse, and it may be a matter of time before a similar precedent is set in trademark law."

At this point, your display of ignorance becomes monumental. The USPTO can only do what the statute permits it to do, and "trademark misuse" is not a statutory ground for administrative cancellation in the USPTO. Courts, on the hand, can cancel a trademark registration for any reason they choose, and have done so. For example, the Freebies.com UDRP dispute was indeed followed by a court case in which the court decided to cancel the trademark registration (although not based on a "misuse" theory):

http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ptc...2?OpenDocument

The "Freebies" trademark is generic for items that may be obtained freely and thus cannot be infringed by the Internet domain name "freebie.com," the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled Feb. 27 (Retail Services Inc. v. Freebies Publishing, E.D. Va., No. 02-1111-A, 2/27/03).

The court cancelled the term's trademark registration, which was directed to print publishing, based on the owner's use of the mark on the Internet after its print business came to an end. The court also reversed an arbitration finding of a cybersquatting violation by the defendant because generic marks are ineligible for protection under Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act.

-----------

Do you understand that? The court reversed the UDRP decision and cancelled the trademark registration.

If it seems like I am attacking you, rather than the things you say, it is only because you are such a reliable source of reams of absolute misinformed legal nonsense. As Dan pointed out, this has the potential to do actual harm to people who might not know better.

[namedropper]

It is informed opinion - nothing more - nothing less - true or false?

In your case, extremely false. Misinformation doesn't count as an informed opinion.

A case has gone through US courts which used exact name to give reasoned criticism - you may have heard the expression free-speech and of something called the First Amendment.

Which has NOTHING to do with the name in question.

You can have free speech without having a domain name that infringes upon the trademark of someone else. Not being allowed to misuse other people's trademarks in domain names is in no way, shape or form related tot he First Amendment. You can put all the free speech you want on a website without needing a domain that misdirects people.

And for you to even offer free speech up as a possible explanation for how this name isn't an obvious gross violation of Microsoft's trademark just shows that, to you, there is never any case in a domain dispute where anyone's trademark should be seen as valid. You want to throw it all out, ignore the very reasons trademarks were defined, all so you can pump up this little trademark.whatever.whatever.whatever domain scheme of yours.

And you don't seem to care in the slightest that this incredibly bad advice you are giving to people has a very real and very obvious chance of landing them in very hot water, both legally and financially.

You have no shame.

[Garry Anderson]

This was rejected because - "there is no factual allegation backing up this conclusory statement" and a condition based "on its face".

It had not specifically rejected that speculation.

"The court reversed the UDRP decision and cancelled the trademark registration."

This was because "its print business came to an end". The misuse only brought this to light.

Incidently, both the statements came marklaw.com - therefore John says their ignorance is monumental ;-)

Pliam Law Firm sponsors the site - you should tell them John.

"If it seems like I am attacking you" - did you say "seems"? - you are funny.

A dangerous, work-shy, looney and ego maniac with savior complex - I am sure there has been other things you have called me.

I forgive you my son ;-)

All my opinions are reasoned using objective logic - including:

When I said blood would very likely pass vCJD onto others - when experts said this was only a "theoretical" risk. It was years before I was proven correct. Also, when I warned of the under reporting of surgery errors in the UK. Again, it was years before I was proven correct.

How exactly is my reasoning not objective logic on the domain name front?

Why don't you want to answer my VERY SIMPLE questions?

Do you not want people to know which domains belong to registered trademark?

How else can people identify registered trademark domains - unless it has some sort of identifier?

Is it trademark overreach to take domains from owners whom do nothing unlawful?

If so - aren't WIPO panelists aiding and abetting in this corrupt act?

[Garry Anderson]

Dan - Misinformation would imply that I deliberately gave wrong information - I hope you are not accusing me of that.

You are very welcome to comment when you think I have gave a wrong opinion.

"Which has NOTHING to do with the name in question."

We have agreed that - he admitted typosquatting.

"You can have free speech without having a domain name that infringes upon the trademark of someone else."

Infringement is based on the way a trademark is used.

Surely, if the name is used for free speech then it is not being infringed.

"You can put all the free speech you want on a website without needing a domain that misdirects people."

A domain name does not equate to a trademark - does it?

SO - Why you not want people to know which domains belong to registered trademark?

Read http://www.freep.com/money/tech/lawn6x_20040306.htm

"And you don't seem to care in the slightest that this incredibly bad advice you are giving..."

My opinions are reasoned using objective logic - I would always advise people to see a lawyer before going to court.

"You have no shame."

You hurt my feelings - do you really want me to give up pointing out the abuse of trademark law and highlighting the theft of domains from owners whom do nothing unlawful?

"You want to throw it all out, ignore the very reasons trademarks were defined"

Trademarks 'raison d'être'?

"They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words."

WIPO.org.uk - Comments on WIPO Interim Report (12 April 2001) to UN WIPO

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/r.../msg00074.html

[namedropper]

Dan - Misinformation would imply that I deliberately gave wrong information - I hope you are not accusing me of that.

Misinformation does not have to be willful. But then you, at the very least, are deliberately choosing to try to make even clear cut cases of TM infringement seem like something the owner might actually be able to win, and also deliberately choosing to remain ignorant of how these cases work.

"Which has NOTHING to do with the name in question."

We have agreed that - he admitted typosquatting.

In other words, you admit to having once again taken another thread hostage and diverted it from what it was intended to discuss so you could use it to harp on about the same old nonsense you spout in every other thread here.

Infringement is based on the way a trademark is used. Surely, if the name is used for free speech then it is not being infringed.

Free speech can happen just as easily without a domain that violates a trademark as it can with it, so there's no sound legal reason why free speech would serve as a defense for trademark infringement.

"You can put all the free speech you want on a website without needing a domain that misdirects people."

A domain name does not equate to a trademark - does it?

No, not automatically, but if it is being used in a way to refer to that trademark then, yes, it is a trademark. I mean, come on, that's obvious. Trying to claim that a trademarked word in a domain being used to route traffic to a site about that trademark isn't a trademark because domains are not equal to trademarks is just stupid. That's like arguing that an apple isn't an apple because an apple is a fruit and not all fruits are apples.

You hurt my feelings - do you really want me to give up pointing out the abuse of trademark law and highlighting the theft of domains from owners whom do nothing unlawful?

I want you to stop telling people who are doing something unlawful that they are not. I want you to stop assuming that any and every claim of trademark infringement is an abuse, especially in cases where it is clearly not. I want you to stop highjacking every thread in this section so you can babble on about your little conspiracy theories.

Of course I know you well enough to know that won't happen, unless the mods decide you are off topic and kill the posts themselves. Since you won't give it up, I'll stick with pointing out your glaring errors (and laughing as John does the same but with the high powered legal citations) so that hopefully people will realize just how dangerous it would be to take you seriously.

[Garry Anderson]

D> "But then you, at the very least, are deliberately choosing to try to make even clear cut cases of TM infringement seem like something the owner might actually be able to win, and also deliberately choosing to remain ignorant of how these cases work."

Show me just one CLEAR CUT CASE of TM infringement that I implied the owner might win.

D> "In other words, you admit to having once again taken another thread hostage..."

NO - go to page 1 - John said "noted legal authority Garry Anderson" - my response, rhetorical question about him not answering simple questions (still not) - I followed thread, said to Hot Dog "shame on you" and advised "every domain you buy will likely be similar to a registered trademark".

D> "Free speech can happen just as easily without a domain that violates a trademark as it can with it, so there's no sound legal reason why free speech would serve as a defense for trademark infringement."

How exactly can any domain name used for free speech violate a trademark?

I will make it very easy for you to understand Dan.

My WIPO.org.uk - how come UN WIPO are not protecting their trademark if I am violating it?

Don't they know the law?

"Long periods of acquiescence to infringing trademark usage by others may weaken or eliminate any trademark rights you own."

http://oncampus.richmond.edu/connect...demark_law.htm

The answer is that I have not infringed trademark.

Dan, every domain you buy will likely be similar to a registered trademark - why do you not want people to know which domains belong to registered trademark?

[gph]

My favorite part of this argument is when the Death Star blows up and the Ewoks dance.

[namedropper]

It was better when it was the first death star blowing up. After that it's just so repetitive.

[jberryhill]

Naw, the best part of the movie is this:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/anderson2.wav

[Garry Anderson]

GPH> Why do you do it, Mr. Anderson?

Because nobody else does ;-)

Even though these words are trademarks, it may be possible for you to register them in another class - or even legally use to start a new business without registering as trademark.

But - they will not let you register as a domain name (Sunrise) - or take it away from you (UDRP).

You can have the trademark - but not the domain name.

Indeed, you can use any words for any legal purpose you wish.

Errrr - is it only me that can see this is clearly trademark overreach?

Only crooks would support this corrupt state of affairs.

Not one of our 'betters' has shown this analysis to be flawed.

"Evil Triumphs When Good Men Do Nothing". --Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Star Wars Meets The Matrix?

[bocajohnh]

Interesting discussion, wonderful thread, excellent learning experience for all.

What I want to know is --- Hotdog, It's been over two weeks since you started this thread. What kind of money are you making at sedo? I'd like to compare your results with 9bm.com, m9chaeljackson.com, and 0prah.com...

[options]

""

If you liked that, Mole, be sure to check out who owns bbc.org, about which Garry was venting in that 2000 usenet article. He was wrong about how that would turn out, too.

I am sorry to bring this heat back, but can someone explain the story around bbc.org?
The only thing I could find is this:
http://domainnotes.com/news/article/...4271_2,00.html
BBC paid #(pounds?)200,000 for it, however the name was bbc.com, not .org as article says.

The .org name resolves to "Big Blue & Cousins" and I can't find anything strange about it.

[FineE]

I did find one article on this from 1999.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11..._from_canadian

Basically BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, in London, United Kingdom) tried to take bbc.org, in 1999, away from BBC (Big Blue and Cousins, in Victoria, BC, Canada) and failed.

[Banned: lopramine45]

fierce! and of course, sex.com and their saga