On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:36 +0200, scott wrote:

>>> Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
>>> Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?  Do they have
>>> more right to it than be just because they are a bigger well-known
>>> multi-national company?
>> 
>> Depends on whether you have a basis for choosing the name other than
>> cyber-squatting.
> 
> If my surname was Nokia?

See example of Mike Rowe....But you *might* be able to get away with it, 
depending on how you used it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.tyjfwfzyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:33:40 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
> spake, saying:
>
> > Say for instance I bought www.nokia.com long before Nokia realised they
> > needed a website.  Do they have any right to force me to give-up that
> > domain name, just because they are a huge multi-national company, or is
> > it just tough luck and they have to pay me whatever it will take?
> >
> > Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
> > Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?  Do they have more
> > right to it than be just because they are a bigger well-known
> > multi-national company?
>
> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two  were
> operating in different spheres hence no problem.

Until Apple went into music, right? I thought that is when the Apple -vs-
Apple started.

Post a reply to this message

I think there was a story that some lone inventor genius guy came up with
the name for his company and registered its domain as such: etoys.com.

Then some venture capitalists came up with the idea of an amazon.com-like
internet retail for toys, and wanted etoys.com.  They sued the pants off
the poor bloke.  He relented.

Political lesson: the difference between actual free markets and today's
capitalism-ism.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:14:01 +0100, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>  
did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.tyjfwfzyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:33:40 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
>> spake, saying:
>>
>> > Say for instance I bought www.nokia.com long before Nokia realised  
>> they
>> > needed a website.  Do they have any right to force me to give-up that
>> > domain name, just because they are a huge multi-national company, or  
>> is
>> > it just tough luck and they have to pay me whatever it will take?
>> >
>> > Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
>> > Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?  Do they have  
>> more
>> > right to it than be just because they are a bigger well-known
>> > multi-national company?
>>
>> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two  were
>> operating in different spheres hence no problem.
>
> Until Apple went into music, right? I thought that is when the Apple -vs-
> Apple started.

Yep, the original agreement was that Apple (computers) had nothing to do  
with music and thus couldn't be confused with Apple (records), and lo iPod  
and iTunes were created which reignited the argument.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> I just had a look at the Milka case, btw. While I still feel that she was in 
> her right, I see that she asked 25000 euros because Kraft "tattooed a cow in 
> mauve, thus slandering her name" and another 25000 because of the 
> "commercial usage of a degrading image that she was identified with" 
> (presumably the mauve cow named Milka). This was pretty stupid and I can 
> understand that a judge would find her arguments frivolous.

First time I read this.  If true, probably the idea of a stupid lawyer trying
to counter-attack Kraft in a last attempt, in front of incompetent judges.

BTW, I stopped buying anything named "milka", and mostly (hard, because they

anything produced by Kraft, since it happened.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

46eaaba0@news.povray.org...
> First time I read this.  If true, probably the idea of a stupid lawyer 
> trying
> to counter-attack Kraft in a last attempt, in front of incompetent judges.

Always go to the source (in French).
http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=1413
Even if this braindead idea was her lawyer's, I guess that a client can 
always refuse a defense strategy he/she doesn't approve of (IANAL of course, 
so I could be wrong).

In any case, this illustrates the kind of problems individuals run into when 
trying to fight this kind of thing. She possibly had a good case and she 
could have received help from competent IP lawyers but either she couldn't 
afford them or she didn't even know such lawyers existed.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson a écrit :
> 
> At the same time, consider the case of one Mike Rowe (not the guy from 
> Dirty Jobs) - he went into software development, and set up a website at 
> mikerowesoft.com - Microsoft successfully shut that site down because the 
> name would be confusing and they worked in the same market.

The reason they were succesful in shutting him down was that at one 
point he said "I'll shut it down for $10000".  From that point on, it 
became a cybersquatting case.  They eventually settled out of court.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   sympatico.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:55:51 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> 
>> At the same time, consider the case of one Mike Rowe (not the guy from
>> Dirty Jobs) - he went into software development, and set up a website
>> at mikerowesoft.com - Microsoft successfully shut that site down
>> because the name would be confusing and they worked in the same market.
> 
> The reason they were succesful in shutting him down was that at one
> point he said "I'll shut it down for $10000".  From that point on, it
> became a cybersquatting case.  They eventually settled out of court.

Yeah, I remember something vaguely about that - but still, assuming that 
Microsoft went to him and said "shut it down" in the first place is the 
issue.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> As long as the registrant keeps the domain registered, there is, 
> (in my understanding), no way they can 'force' you to hand it over as long 
> as it's not used it in any non-commercial/commercial way.
> 
>      ~Steve~
> 
> 

Now for something completely different... In Argentina, domain names are 
free if you register them directly in www.nic.ar, the Network 
Information Center (most 3rd parties offering domain registering, with 
or without webhosting, will charge; for example, free hosting services 
that charge if you want a domain (and fries?) with that).

Apparently there isn't much they can do if somebody already has the name 
registered. The recommendation in the FAQ is to basically contact the 
one who registered it :P Only if the contact information is outdated or 
fake they can do something, but it involves a fairly long bureaucratic mess.

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:46e7b170$1@news.povray.org...
>
> As long as the registrant keeps the domain registered, there is,
> (in my understanding), no way they can 'force' you to hand it over as long
> as it's not used it in any non-commercial/commercial way.
>

I think it depends on the domain authority. For the .co.za domain, they
require that you have the intention to use the domain (ie, do something with
it within a month or so of registering) and if you don't, you loose the
domain. Also you can't register a domain like a trademark, unless you own
the trademark.

Post a reply to this message