»Trademarks vs. Freedom of speech«
|
|||
 I think the internet laws should go back to the roots and apply the "first come first served" rule more strictly. It cannot be that somebody registers a domain name and others can take it away for dubious reasons. You have a website regarding walmart, named walmartsucks.com and then waltmart decides to sue you because THEY have the trademark "Walmart". There wouldn't be any freedom of press if every company sued a newspaper that the use of their name is trademark'ed and thus forbidden. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Trademarks vs. Freedom of speech |
|
|||
 While I agree with the overall principal of what you say, I can't help feeling that this kinda gives into the lame ass people who would do such a thing. What I would go for is a stricter enforcement of Top Levels It used to be; .COM for Commercial .ORG for non-profit .NET For Internet / ISP and Network companies .GOV for governmental etc. But that all went out of the window with cheap domains. I for one would like to see at least this level of control. But in general, the Internet should be free to evolve free of Governmental limitation. But perhaps a health warning to protect against letigious no-brains seeing something they don't like and suiing everyone for it. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
In that above mentioned case the guys who ran walmartsucks.com registered a trademark "walmartsucks" to sue back. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 German Telecom once won a lawsuit against the guy who owned the domain T-Offline.de. Only to prevent that someone will make fun of their T-Online data service. I really don't understand what justifies that. Is the 'T' their trademark or what? posted by anonymyus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 the most ridiculous example i have heard was non internet related it was the makers of the james bond franchise making the car manufacturer peugot tell tv jounalists that they had to refer to their new model car(the 1007) as the onethousand and seven and not call it the one double 0 seven as they had copyright on that number...how can you have legal ownership of a fucking number for christs sake posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: as they had copyright on that number...how can you have legal ownership of a fucking number for christs sake That was the reason why Intel started to call their cpus 'Pentium'. If there hadn't been any concurrents, they'd called it i586. Actually, 'Pentium' is a greek word and the translation is 'five'. Maybe in some countries it's possible to protect numbers. But that 007 thing is still ridiculous cause normally the ownership of a trademark depends on the context. For example, a discounter is selling cheap cigarettes with the brand 'Commodore' although Tulip still owns the rights for that trademark. Cigarettes aren't computer-related and therefore it's ok. Likewise cars don't have anything to do with James Bond movies and therefore it shouldn't play any role. posted by anonymyus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Cigarettes aren't computer-related and
therefore it's ok. Likewise cars don't have anything to do with James Bond movies and therefore it shouldn't play any role. Not quite. There is in fact this rule that both marks must be competitors in the same field. But there is another rule: If you are VERY famous then this rule doens't apply. In other words: It would be forbidden to name your computers McComputer, because McDonald's has the right for "Mc". The same applies to "Coca Cola" (you couldn't name red socks "Coke Socks") and to Mercedes etc... Moreover some judges decide that a trademark related to computers ("Intel") means that everybody is a competitor who has something to do with computers (e.g. furniture moving companies, because they use computers to present themselves in the internet) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 May 2012, 05:42 php B.B. |