Blockchain.io domain owner fights back against Blockchain.com

[hugeblack]

Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US), Inc. which manages the famous wallet "Blockchain.info," that transferred its domain from "Blockchain.info" to "Blockchain.com", filed a lawsuit[1] in December claiming that Paymium's use of the domain "blockchain.io" violated its infringed BL’s “Blockchain” trademark.

Paymium, SAS, has asked the court to reject the case brought by Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US) justified by saying:

The deference standards of Twombly and Iqbal do not obscure the elephant in the room – this lawsuit is an improper grab at trademark exclusivity in the word BLOCKCHAIN, perhaps
the hottest technology buzzword on the planet. While Plaintiffs were prescient and resourceful enough to obtain the domain names blockchain.com and blockchain.info, they may not properly leverage that foresight into an anti-competitive and unearned monopoly in the term.

Read more: Company that uses Blockchain.com faces the challenge of owning a generic domain



[1] https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/blockchain.pdf

[1714614460]

1714614460

[1714614460]

1714614460

[1714614460]

1714614460

[1714614460]

1714614460

[1714614460]

1714614460

[avikz]

It's an incorrect and unjustified claim made by the wallet service provider. Blockchain is a name of the technology and does not signifies any brand or business or service. So ideally no one should hold any copyright on the word "blockchain". If somehow the court favors the wallet provider in this case, it will be incorrect.

Just assume, you are the owner of cat.com and tomorrow someone buys cat.org. You can't simply file a lawsuit for that stating the other person is infringing the copyright. It's just not gonna happen!

[squatter]

I'm curious to see how things turn out. One would think it's impossible to trademark common words like "blockchain" but that's not necessarily true if the word is not descriptive of the company itself. This is the case with arbitrary trademarks. I'm not sure whether "blockchain" is legally considered descriptive of their wallet and exchange services, though. It might be.

I read an earlier legal analysis that suggests Blockchain's argument was on dubious footing. It seems like they are trying to leverage their design trademark (logo) to prevent others from using the word. That sounds pretty weak.

[gulubal]

Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US), Inc. which manages the famous wallet "Blockchain.info," that transferred its domain from "Blockchain.info" to "Blockchain.com", filed a lawsuit[1] in December claiming that Paymium's use of the domain "blockchain.io" violated its infringed BL’s “Blockchain” trademark.

Paymium, SAS, has asked the court to reject the case brought by Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US) justified by saying:

The deference standards of Twombly and Iqbal do not obscure the elephant in the room – this lawsuit is an improper grab at trademark exclusivity in the word BLOCKCHAIN, perhaps
the hottest technology buzzword on the planet. While Plaintiffs were prescient and resourceful enough to obtain the domain names blockchain.com and blockchain.info, they may not properly leverage that foresight into an anti-competitive and unearned monopoly in the term.

Read more: Company that uses Blockchain.com faces the challenge of owning a generic domain



[1] https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/blockchain.pdf

Years ago I had an incident like this. This sites Turkcell.com  Turkcell.com.tr   GSM operator in Turkey I had a site called turkcell.org. and there was nothing about them on the site. however, this domain was taken unlawfully from me.. :S

[jrrsparkles]

Actually the world blockchain doens't owned by anyone because it was a technology but the specific blockchain can be owned by the individuals or organization for example bitcoin blockchain is owned by satoshi,So I don't think this law suit won't stay much longer on the court.

[Oilacris]

How come "Blockchain" do become a trademark? This wont really last long in the court same as said above.

[sheenshane]

How come "Blockchain" do become a trademark? This wont really last long in the court same as said above.

For me, I think they aren't both eligible to use the name "blockchain". They actually seem to claim the blockchain and blockchain is a technology that is really not their possession or ownership. The replied above you were right, It's not a brand and business as well so they need to change their website.

[joniboini]

How come "Blockchain" do become a trademark? This wont really last long in the court same as said above.

For me, I think they aren't both eligible to use the name "blockchain". They actually seem to claim the blockchain and blockchain is a technology that is really not their possession or ownership. The replied above you were right, It's not a brand and business as well so they need to change their website.

Is it be possible for them to claim Blockchain as their trademark though? If it is possible, that will be interesting.

-snip-

Man, don't spam here, make your own thread to shill.

[BOB_THE_ALMIGHTY]

Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US), Inc. seems to be holding the Blockchain.info and Blockchain.com domain from much time now and there name sure sounds like the best emerging tech word on the Planet. The company is providing some of the mostly used wallet services for good sort of time with no issue and hs succeeded in creating a type of monopoly in the field under the most interesting  name "BLOCKCHAIN"

But just claiming a similar name which is owned by other entity makes no sense as they can just buy it by offering a good price to the current owner if they want to protect there branding this much. I think even if the owner of the "blockchain.io" domain refused to sell it to Blockchain Luxembourg S.A. & Blockchain (US), Inc. it should not be much of the problem to them as they are already a giant in the crypto wallet business and anyone using their name for offering services would just be pointed as fake and can be eliminated by the company itself in a very easy way.

[Kehne]

I think there is a rule that says that you can't buy trademarked domain names. Saw it somewhere.

[Harlot]

They do have legal grounds on their claim, blockchain.io is nowhere far from the industry blochchain.com is involved. In trademark battles they tend to always go to who is the oldest who used the name and they also need to prove that the usage of the word "blockchain" will purposedly mislead potential customers of the usage of their business but if blockchain.io has proven that the word itself cannot be owned then the courts will obviously favor them.

[Theb]

But just claiming a similar name which is owned by other entity makes no sense as they can just buy it by offering a good price to the current owner if they want to protect there branding this much.

Yes a lot of big corporations just buy it outright without filing any lawsuits that's if the opposing business accepted to be bought out, blockchain.io might have refused to sell and rebrand their business but its most likely that blockchain.com is going to this route because they are confident on winning the case and the biggest benefit from that is they will officially have a legal claim on the word "Blockchain" itself, a very risky move but it will payoff if given a positive result. And yeah let us not forget that Bitcoin is a trademarked name already by some London-based company.

[squatter]

They do have legal grounds on their claim, blockchain.io is nowhere far from the industry blochchain.com is involved.

Blockchain.com obviously eclipses them in size, but that's not the important issue.

There seem to be two important questions. Is Blockchain.com's brand associated specifically with cryptocurrency exchange services? That's what Blockchain.io is doing. I've always associated Blockchain.com with wallet services.

Second, can the word "blockchain" be trademarked, especially in the context of cryptocurrency services? I doubt it.

I think this whole thing is an effort to shake down Blockchain.io and scare them into submission. I don't think there is a strong legal case.

[magneto]

I think this whole thing is an effort to shake down Blockchain.io and scare them into submission. I don't think there is a strong legal case.

100% correct. I don't think there is really any chance the court is going to rule in blockchain.com's favour, though since blockchain.com is obviously a much bigger company they may be better equipped to fight the case.

I mean, assuming that the use of the domain name "blockchain.io" does violate blockchain.com's trademark, wouldn't that mean as soon as you get a trademark, you own all domain names that are associated with the name, and no one else is able to use it? That's a completely absurd proposition to make, imo.

I'm not sure what blockchain.com is trying to achieve here, but it could potentially be trying to bully an industry competitor for sure. I really doubt that they care that much about the actual trademark dispute, but more about pushing the smaller companies out of the market.

[mrdeposit]

Greed in everywhere, even in Blockchain. At least they want to customize the ''name'' because they can not own the decentralized system.
As a matter of fact so far, we have used .info and .com, after that, if I see anothere, I will think phishing site and stay away.

[marcbitcoins]

Blockchain is anonymous and decentralize system that no one can own it but they can study it on how the systems work like the US pentagon in which they just studied and applied to their system as they acknowledged the fortitude of the blockchain but did not try to own it.

[olliecrypto]

But just claiming a similar name which is owned by other entity makes no sense as they can just buy it by offering a good price to the current owner if they want to protect there branding this much.

Yes a lot of big corporations just buy it outright without filing any lawsuits that's if the opposing business accepted to be bought out, blockchain.io might have refused to sell and rebrand their business but its most likely that blockchain.com is going to this route because they are confident on winning the case and the biggest benefit from that is they will officially have a legal claim on the word "Blockchain" itself, a very risky move but it will payoff if given a positive result. And yeah let us not forget that Bitcoin is a trademarked name already by some London-based company.

yikes
not sure how i missed this news.
that's rather shitty.