 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote in message
news:46e79654$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
As long as you don't use it in any way, then sit back and wait for the
offers. You have every right to register that domain if you want.
>
> Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
> Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?
You couldn't start a company with the word 'Nokia' in it, and if you
chose any variation of the word because of this, it still might be trouble
for 'sounding' too close to their (trade)name.
Do they have more right to it
> than be just because they are a bigger well-known multi-national company?
No, they have no more right to it than you, but you just couldn't use it
in any way, unless it would be to their benefit, and they give you the right
to use it.
That's my understanding anyway.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As long as you don't use it in any way, then sit back and wait for the
> offers. You have every right to register that domain if you want.
That's what I thought.
>> Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
>> Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?
>
> You couldn't start a company with the word 'Nokia' in it, and if
> you chose any variation of the word because of this, it still might be
> trouble for 'sounding' too close to their (trade)name.
OK but assume the 2nd company already exists and just happens to have the
word Nokia in it's name (totally legally). It has registered and is using
www.nokia.com to promote its own business, it registered this before Nokia
realised that it needed a .com website.
I just wondered if there is anything the "real" Nokia can do, apart from
having to pay the small Nokia Blah Blah (that nobody has heard of) enough
money to change their minds...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
46e79654$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
Good luck with that...
http://www.ncchelp.org/The_Story/the_story.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348585.stm
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:46e7a733$1@news.povray.org...
>> As long as you don't use it in any way, then sit back and wait for the
>> offers. You have every right to register that domain if you want.
>
> That's what I thought.
>
>>> Would it make any difference if I ran a small company called 'Nokia
>>> Gizmos' or something that nobody had every heard of?
>>
>> You couldn't start a company with the word 'Nokia' in it, and if
>> you chose any variation of the word because of this, it still might be
>> trouble for 'sounding' too close to their (trade)name.
>
> OK but assume the 2nd company already exists and just happens to have the
> word Nokia in it's name (totally legally). It has registered and is using
> www.nokia.com to promote its own business, it registered this before Nokia
> realised that it needed a .com website.
>
> I just wondered if there is anything the "real" Nokia can do, apart from
> having to pay the small Nokia Blah Blah (that nobody has heard of) enough
> money to change their minds...
Well, before Gilles posted the Nissan link, I was going to suggest that
yes, you could probably still use the domain, BUT, you would have to be
*very careful* in what you publish to the website. It seems that I'm correct
with this, (e.g. the restrictions that the courts laid down to Mr. Nissan in
continuing to use those domains), but after reading what he says, I would
think of some other domain name, and just sit on the original and see what
happens. 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~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. With Gilles examples the
French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir wasn't
selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association and had a
legimate reason to use the name; Kraft's fault for not registering it
first. As for Mr Nissan the case could be made that as he was dealing with
cars as was Nissan it boils down to if Nissan existed as a car seller
prior to his enterprise and was well known in that fact, (which they
weren't) as for the other companies he set again a large sod off is in
order for the same reason as Milka.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two were
> operating in different spheres hence no problem. With Gilles examples the
> French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir wasn't
> selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association
I'm sure she got a few more hits by people searching for Milka Chocolate...
> Kraft's fault for not registering it first.
Yep, that was my first thoughts too, but once I started thinking about it,
the woman would have likely been making more profit as a direct result of
Kraft's effort to build the Milka brand. It doesn't matter that they aren't
the same type of goods, no doubt *some* people who are looking for chocolate
would have taken an interest in whatever she was selling. I haven't decided
yet whether I think that should be allowed or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: op.tyjfwfzyc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two were
> operating in different spheres hence no problem. With Gilles examples the
> French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir wasn't
> selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association and had a
> legimate reason to use the name; Kraft's fault for not registering it
> first.
The problem is that individuals usually can't afford this kind of fight,
unlike corporations.
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.
Another problem is that Kraft accused her to have used the mauve colour for
her website background, something they claimed was a proof of malicious
intent. Mrs Budmir said that colour was fuschia, not mauve. The court still
maintained that the colour was a problem, even though they said that a
"chromatic analysis" was no longer possible. Of course, said colour is 1
second away at archive.org, and the "chromatic analysis" consists in reading
the HTML code (#0080FF fuschia while Kraft is #706DB2 mauve), something
nobody did apparently. So Kraft benefited from Budmir's, her lawyer's and
the court's poor technological knowledge.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:24:57 +0100, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two were
>> operating in different spheres hence no problem. With Gilles examples
>> the French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir
>> wasn't selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association
>
> I'm sure she got a few more hits by people searching for Milka
> Chocolate...
But it would be difficult to show that was intentful. Do people who want
to buy chocolate likely to be looking for clothes too? Is she misleading
people into thinking she's associated with Kraft Foods? As Gilles has said
they've tried to prove malicious intent and presumably succeeded.
>> Kraft's fault for not registering it first.
>
> Yep, that was my first thoughts too, but once I started thinking about
> it, the woman would have likely been making more profit as a direct
> result of Kraft's effort to build the Milka brand. It doesn't matter
> that they aren't the same type of goods, no doubt *some* people who are
> looking for chocolate would have taken an interest in whatever she was
> selling. I haven't decided yet whether I think that should be allowed
> or not.
But it's the trading on a name via association, which is how the trademark
law is applied. How likely is it for people to associate Milka Couture
with Milka Chocolate? If she started selling clothes with an image of the
bar on them then sure; otherwise...? Likewise I could set up McDonald's
Refuse Collection, but McDonald's Chippie might cause brand confusion.
What's to stop me registering harrrods.com or microsft.com, the answer is
that it would be difficult for me to show I did so for 'innocent' reasons.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> You're heading into trademark land. Remember Apple, the two were
>> operating in different spheres hence no problem. With Gilles examples
>> the French courts should have told Kraft to bugger off, Milka Budmir
>> wasn't selling chocolate, wasn't profiting from the association
>
> I'm sure she got a few more hits by people searching for Milka Chocolate...
>
>> Kraft's fault for not registering it first.
>
> Yep, that was my first thoughts too, but once I started thinking about
> it, the woman would have likely been making more profit as a direct
> result of Kraft's effort to build the Milka brand. It doesn't matter
> that they aren't the same type of goods, no doubt *some* people who are
> looking for chocolate would have taken an interest in whatever she was
> selling.
Women that have to order chocolate on-line because they are unable to go
to the shop next door generally don't fit in fashion clothes.
> I haven't decided yet whether I think that should be allowed
> or not.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
