Someone Random Trademarked "bitcoin" : Now we can't use the term?

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

[1715514239]

1715514239

[1715514239]

1715514239

[1715514239]

1715514239

[1715514239]

1715514239

[1715514239]

1715514239

[Alex Beckenham]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Ah yes of course you're right... just like http://paypalsucks.com/

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Ah yes of course you're right... just like http://paypalsucks.com/

Actually parody and protest sites are carved out special exceptions that do not apply in other uses.

But since of course he is right,  I think it is getting to be time to bow out of this thread for now.

[SgtSpike]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.


You also do indeed, accept an agreement when you register domains,  it requires you to keep up to date whois information and agree to accept this arbitration panel among other things.

[SgtSpike]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

[twobits]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

It is not a court, it is an arbitration panel.  And yes.

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

I am sure I can dig them up,  used to keep track of this stuff a lot more 5-6 years ago.  If you really want me to dig out my old research and links to exact cases,  I can do so, but will want a btc fee for doing that much work that you could easily do yourself. If you look in some of the archives of the domain name forums when this was first put into place, you will find some posts about some cases of what at the time was called reverse  where the tm holders got domains being used for completely different purposes pulled because individuals still had not figured out how to work the system  to defend.

[SgtSpike]

Well, sure, I could easily do it myself, if I even had the slightest clue what the name of the arbitration panel was or where their history of resolutions is kept.

Can anyone appeal the arbitration result?  Can it be brought to a court of law to fight further?

[twobits]

Well, sure, I could easily do it myself, if I even had the slightest clue what the name of the arbitration panel was or where their history of resolutions is kept.

Can anyone appeal the arbitration result?  Can it be brought to a court of law to fight further?

I actually already said before,  it is a wipo panel (usually).  

I don't know the current terms,  that was in flux at the time I got out of domaining.   Should be in the registration  agreement though, if you have agreed to binding arbitration or not.    Last I looked,  it had not been made binding yet but that was 5 years back now.

Edit: Does look like the right to contest the decision in court is present though it needs to be done quickly to prevent the transfer of the domain from already being done.  For the fan sites btw, they are often considered commerical sites if they display any ads or charge memberships etc, they have a much better chance of winning if they avoid any attempts to monetarize their traffic.

[phillipsjk]

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

Forget if it was the courts or an arbitration panel, but Canadian Tire sued for the Crappytire.ca domain name. The original domain holder had a parody site complaining about crappy goods he bought at Canadian Tire.

Code:

Domain name:           crappytire.ca
Domain status:         registered
Creation date:         2000/10/11
Expiry date:           2016/07/06
Updated date:          2011/06/14

Registrar:
    Name:              Webnames.ca Inc.
    Number:            70

Registrant:
    Name:              Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

Administrative contact:
    Name:              DNSadmin CTC
    Postal address:    8550 Goreway Dr.
                       Brampton ON L6T5J8 Canada
    Phone:             +1.4164803000x

Edit: The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center considered the complaint from Canadian Tire and Dismissed it.

Not sure what happened after that.

[twobits]

Any examples?  Or links to examples?

Forget if it was the courts or an arbitration panel, but Canadian Tire sued for the Crappytire.ca domain name. The original domain holder had a parody site complaining about crappy goods he bought at Canadian Tire.

Code:

Domain name:           crappytire.ca
Domain status:         registered
Creation date:         2000/10/11
Expiry date:           2016/07/06
Updated date:          2011/06/14

Registrar:
    Name:              Webnames.ca Inc.
    Number:            70

Registrant:
    Name:              Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

Administrative contact:
    Name:              DNSadmin CTC
    Postal address:    8550 Goreway Dr.
                       Brampton ON L6T5J8 Canada
    Phone:             +1.4164803000x

Hmmm... does Canada not protect the protest sites and parody sites like the US law does?Or did the owner not put in any response? If you don't defend yourself , you will almost always lose.

In any case, while an interesting topic, maybe we should move this part of it to another thread and let this get back to the bitcoin trademark issue itself.

[joepie91]

No one with a domain name aside from bitcoin.xxx should worry.  There are plenty of trademarked names used in URL's all over the place.

For example, the Gears of War 2 forum.
http://www.gearsofwar2forums.com/

Gears of War is a trademarked name, yet it is being used in a URL by a 3rd party.  This is allowed.

Cybersquatting could come in to play with a domain like bitcoin.com.  Even bitcoin.org should be fine though, as it is an established site and doesn't "look" like an intended cyber squat.  The laws regarding trademarks and URLs are only meant to protect companies who are basically being bribed to use the domain name that should rightfully be theirs.

Fan sites are usually explicitly allowed in the ToS  of games,   and they usually do reserve the right to tell them to c&d if the ToS is not met.   Really depends on what the content of the sites are too.  While an obvious cyber squatting site is an almost sure loss in the arbitration, it is not the only way to lose.   While that was the intent as to why the rules got put in place, like most things they can be strectched beyone that if the attacked party does not have resources to defend themselves.   The fact a domain has more words in it then just bitcoin would not be a sure defence.

Any instances of this actually holding up in court?  As in, a company successfully took down a domain name of someone for a reason other than cyber squatting, or due to ToS, etc?  I mean, you don't have to accept any ToS to create a domain name, so I'm not sure how that applies...

I agree it is not a sure defense (what defense is, really?), but unless there are instances of courts seizing domain names for a reason other than cybersquatting, I am not worried.

While not sure if it's relevant to trademarks... JaGeX (the company behind Runescape) has a history of trying to get sites shut down (specifically cheating sites and sites that offer tools like custom clients). I believed they've relaxed their stance now, but this used to be a serious issue.

[Anonymous]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

[proudhon]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

lol

[w1R903]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

Yeah, I don't think this guy is as tech savvy as he fancies himself.  This may all be a good learning experience for him.

[Anonymous]

Youd think a lawyer involved with trademarks would be smart enough to get his own  name michaelspascazi.com before someone buys it using privacyshark with an anonymous currency and redirects it to 4chan....

 

Yeah, I don't think this guy is as tech savvy as he fancies himself.  This may all be a good learning experience for him.

http://www.shitsenders.com/  (another good service ripe for bitcoin integration)

 

[sadpandatech]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

[epi 1:10,000]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

Wow...   The community really needs to come together to defend themselves against this Asshole.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml

[joepie91]

Just wanted to post a small news update for this guy with a 'real' lawyer commenting in it.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=michael+pascazi


funny stuffs.

Wow...   The community really needs to come together to defend themselves against this Asshole.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml


Michael S. Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:11pm

Dear Bloggers: If trademarking the term “Bitcoin” is impossible, stupid, ignorant, outrageous etc.; Why all the fuss on this blog, and others? Does any one really care about an action that will never come to fruition? Of course not. But what they do care about, and care deeply, is an action that may come to pass, and moreover, that may hurt them in the wallet. Looking out for number one, pure and simple; that is the name of the game. So let’s not have any illusions about the motives of the blog moderator, and/or the various astute commenters.

Now if you care for a reality check (I know that the facts sometimes get in the way of the foul language): In most, but not all, “first to file” countries, a trademark application can be defeated if it can be shown that the mark is so notorious, so ubiquitous, and so identified with a particular entity that, registration to another would be improper. I’m sure the bar stool lawyers out there can understand this. So, is the term “Bitcoin” so notorious in Italy, for example, that when the average Italian on the street hears it, he/she immediately thinks of company zeta, and none other? Absolutely not. The same can be said for virtually every other country, including those with very large economies, such as China. In fact, it is virtually assured that no person or entity can claim that the term “Bitcoin” is identified with them in Italy.

Now, thanks to you all in the “bitcoin community”, the term “Bitcoin” is absolutely, positively linked to Pascazi. Wouldn’t you agree? Just check the Internet. How many pages upon pages, posts upon posts link Pascazi to the term “Bitcoin”. Interesting evidence to present to a tribunal vis a vis “identified with” criteria; don’t you think?

Moreover, none of the bar stool lawyers or investigators out there in cyberville really know what is going on behind closed law office doors. Perhaps, there is a new crypto-currency under development, one that has a feature to prevent hoarding; one whose money supply attributes are tied to actual publicly reported, worldwide inflationary metrics? Or tied to the Gold Standard? Trade secrets are just that; secret. Perhaps the developer(s) of this new lucre want their currency associated with the term “Bitcoin”? And why not? Because the blogosphere thinks it is a bad idea. To that proposition I reply, as Lt. Gen. Harry W. O. Kinnard did, to a German surrender ultimatum during the Battle of the Bulge, as follows: “Nuts”.

By the way, thanks to all for the pages of spilled electronic ink. Could not have afforded it without you. P T Barnum once said: "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." Maybe there is more going on than meets the eye? Again, food for thought. Arrivederci.



Michael S. Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

Settled, in a "first to use" country. Amazing. Too bad Torvalds was not represented by the incredible posters on this blog; he would have done better than settled, don't you think? Why not jury verdict for the Plaintiff? It is an easy process; no? Slam dunk don't you think? Throw some words out there about the unfairness of it all, the inhumanity of it all, poor old Torvalds, yada yada yada, and voila you win. I wonder how much Della Croce got to go away? Must have been a pretty penny. Oh, the insanity of it all!

Maybe you want to forward some of the pearls of wisdom over to Torvalds from this blog? Maybe he can get a do over? No res judicata in the blogosphere to worry about. Give it a try. Good Luck with that.


Michael S.Pascazi, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:35pm

How about that "The Face Book" idea from those crazy kids up at Harvard. Think that idea might pan out? No Cali VC worth his/her salt will bet on that crazy idea, don't you think? Do you really think that everyone is a lemming doing exactly what the other guys are doing?

Is there a better crypto-currency under development? Is there no room for improvement? Might a group of former IBMers be working on such a thing?

Well then, somebody better tell those crazy kids up at Harvard to quit their coding because that "The Face Book" thing just won't cut it. Wrong!

Don't assume that is the actual lawyer, and not a troll.

[Raoul Duke]

well you guys should help me bring this website to number 1 on google for his name Michael S. Pascazi

LOL