Goldman Sachs Goes After GoldmanSex.com

[DNQuest.com]

If they intended the typos to be used to siphon off traffic from the TM holder, that is typosquatting which we are all well aware of.... then again, look at who is trying to make the point :cheeky:

 

[typist]

All are also somewhat generic

you've probably seen this already:

Glodman, real name Glodi, Is A Fifteen Year Old Former Rapper/MC, Who Is Now Focused On His Work As A DJ,Producer, Singer, Actor And Playwrite. Glodman Has Been Known For His Multitalented Skills Whether It's On The Stage Or In Studio

Glodman™ even affixes a trademark symbol next to his mark on his myspace profile...

We're waiting for a fanpage.

 

[Brett Lewis]

1 - said phonetically... very confusingly similar... TMs aare not just written word only... if the sound the sane when said, then a TM can be enforced.... Do the 2 names sound very similar??? and answer it honestly..

2- The Complainant has greater rights to the TM name, and the respondant has a TM by a questionable entity... it is the same entity that people used to defreaud thousands of domains during pre registartion periods to screw the public out of domains...

3- the indusrty is the porn industry... the TM holder has every right to protect thier mark from dilution... the reality is that industry is looked down upon and TMs are protect from any association from it...

My point exactly. The registrants were being way too cute. Maarten, if you don't like the UDRP, try an action for trademark dilution in federal court, for tarnishing and diluting the GOLDMAN SACHS mark. Do you think that that action would not succeed? The ACPA applies not only to a mark that is confusingly similar, but to one that is dilutive of a registered trademark, as well.

The Goldmansex domain name and site were embarrasing to a long-established and well-respected brand. The site was used for commercial profit in the porn industry, no matter how thinly you slice it, and reduced the ability of the GOLDMAN SACHS mark to function as a sole identifier of source. GoldmanSex is lucky it didn't get sued in court.

It's time to let this one go!

Brett Lewis, Esq.
www.lewishand.com
[email protected]

 

[olebean]

My point exactly. The registrants were being way too cute. Maarten, if you don't like the UDRP, try an action for trademark dilution in federal court, for tarnishing and diluting the GOLDMAN SACHS mark. Do you think that that action would not succeed? The ACPA applies not only to a mark that is confusingly similar, but to one that is dilutive of a registered trademark, as well.

The Goldmansex domain name and site were embarrasing to a long-established and well-respected brand. The site was used for commercial profit in the porn industry, no matter how thinly you slice it, and reduced the ability of the GOLDMAN SACHS mark to function as a sole identifier of source. GoldmanSex is lucky it didn't get sued in court.

It's time to let this one go!

Brett Lewis, Esq.
www.lewishand.com
[email protected]

An interesting point....

Where does the dilution occur? What boundary exists between mark co-existence? Do you firmly believe that a well establish well reputed company could possible be confused with the string of characters that replicate the word sex?

Don't get me wrong I like most people are convinced that this was a play on words.. Is that enough? If you advocate purification of the internet then I guess it will be.


OB

 

[DNQuest.com]

The dilution occurs when the TM holder does not defend its mark. Think about this, zipper used to be a TM, now it is just a part of your clothing...

Marks can co-exsist provided they are legally allow to... Apple Records and Apple Corp, both claim "apple as a TM, but in different catagories. But when Apple Corp went into the data stream business, Apple Records took exception (I still think it was a stupid decision by the judge to call it data stream and not music downloads).

As far as protecting companies name when it comes to the porn industry, courts and panels will rule against the porn industry just about every time. Imagine someone telling a story... I went to "goldmansex" and got some real good porn links from the site... and a person is hearing how "goldmansachs" has porn links, then they file a complaint that "goldmansachs" has porn on it, or they tell a friend, and they tell a friend (and so on and so on)... think about it, we do not go around spelling out words, we say them, that is what TM law protects.

As far as being enough in reference of "play on words", yes it is. If it is confusingly similar written or spoken, a TM holder should be protected.

 

[Brett Lewis]

An interesting point....

Where does the dilution occur? What boundary exists between mark co-existence? Do you firmly believe that a well establish well reputed company could possible be confused with the string of characters that replicate the word sex?

Don't get me wrong I like most people are convinced that this was a play on words.. Is that enough? If you advocate purification of the internet then I guess it will be.

No problem.

Trademark infringement deals with consumer confusion, but trademark dilution law protects property rights in famous trademarks. No confusion is necessary. The theory is that when a trademark attains a certain level of fame, and is exclusively used by a particular company, it weakens the value of the mark if others come along and use it for non-competing or disparaging uses. The value of the trademark, itself, as property, is weakened or diluted. Trademark dilution is written into the ACPA as a basis for bringing a claim but most (or all?) cases have been brought based on confusing similarity. You can Google the Trademark Dilution Act for specifics.

Brett E. Lewis
www.lewishand.com
[email protected]

 

[Dave Zan]

And if you think about it, trademarks are essentially advertising.

 

[olebean]

Cheers Brett etc

It is always interesting having perspectives from the other side of the pond.


OB



[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]