barbitwins.com - Lawyers and billing hours

[dvdrip]

Here is what big law firms are doing to make a living:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1203398.htm

FINDINGS
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has not been registered nor is being used in bad faith.

 

[marcorandazza]

Mattel goes all-out to try and protect their BARBIE trademark.

Nevertheless, Mattel has not been all that successful in its attempts to place Barbie on intellectual lockdown. For example, in 2002, Mattel tried to rid the world of the Aqua song “Barbie Girl.” Mattel lost that case. Mattel also lost a case against artist Tom Forsythe who parodied barbie in a series of artistic works like Cutting Board Barbie and Barbie Enchilada (source). Mattel eventually had to reimburse Forsythe $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees. (source). The Case is here. Mattel also lost in a case with an artist who made “Bondage Barbie.” See Mattel, Inc. v. Pitt, 229 F. Supp. 2d 315, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (”The sale or display of “adult” dolls does not appear to be a use Mattel would likely develop or license others to develop.”). Finally, in a recent case involving an Alberta, Canada sex shop called “Barbie’s Shop,” Mattel lost on jurisdictional grounds. (source). Mattel said that it considers the case to be ongoing, since they didn’t lose on the merits. Nevertheless, in that case, the owner of the shop’s name? Wait for it…. Barbie Anderson-Walley. Mattel’s reaction to that little “bad fact?”

We own the Barbie name, clothing and dolls. Even if your name happens to be Tommy, Ralph or Barbie, in some areas that’s already a trademark. (source)
​

My take on that one is that Mattel is lucky that it only lost on jurisdictional grounds. They should have been sanctioned for filing that case.

But, if you look at this UDRP case, it is nice to see that Mr. Zournas won without representation. I am cheering for him in that respect.


However, he has a new problem. These "Barbi Twins" that he claims he had in mind when he registered the domain (and I believe him) now have their own claim against him. http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/wrong-barbie-mattel-lives-up-to-its-dolls-airhead-image/

 

[DomainsInc]

lol, he doesn't stand a chance. The Barbi Twins have been around forever.

 

[marcorandazza]

Of course, it would be nice to be beaten by the Barbi Twins... in a UDRP action.

 

[dvdrip]

Where did you read that?
There is no claim from the Barbi Twins.

In fact I giving the domain away to them if they reply to my emails.

The domain isn't making any money, I just wanted to win for the principle.
These big firms think they can win anything.
Actually I think this case was the law firm's idea.

However, he has a new problem. These "Barbi Twins" that he claims he had in mind when he registered the domain (and I believe him) now have their own claim against him. http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/wrong-barbie-mattel-lives-up-to-its-dolls-airhead-image/

 

[marcorandazza]

I'm sorry, I meant that they have a claim against you -- in other words, they have a valid UDRP against you if they file one. I did not mean to imply that they had filed one.

As far as you wanting to win on principle: I respect that. I respect that a lot. The case might have been the firm's idea, or it might have been Mattel's idea. Mattel spends a lot of money going after everyone and anyone they can.

In any respect, their case was bunk against you. Good job beating them.