|QUOTE (MoWGLi @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 07:41)|
|QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 06:12)|
|QUOTE (MoWGLi @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 04:03)|
| Wow this thread makes my head hurt. So much pseudo "knowledge." There is no "extortion" going on here. The gentleman has registered the domain, for himself, for many years. He's not saying he will start a slanderous website if Rockstar/T2 does not buy it off of him, he merely offered it for sale. RS/T2 is well within their rights to not purchase it. The only issue that would come up, is if the individual was using the trademarks to prosper for himself. So if he offered services or products that related to proprietary property owned by the aforementioned RS/T2, then they would have a copyright/trademark lawsuit. Otherwise they have no ground to seize the domain as it has not been used for nefarious intent or to profit from. |
The owner of the domain was using it as a fan site for Grand Theft Auto. This has already been established. So one he is using the domain that he purchased to facilitate a site that holds intellectual properties that belong to Take Two & not him. This also means that the Domain name "GTA" which take two has already trademarked is not being used independently of Grand Theft Auto but instead to drawn in views by people searching for Grand Theft Auto information another issue that falls under intellectual properties. So again this is infringement on Takes Two's copyright and trademark of the GTA name.
It matters not whether the domain user was selling anything or offering anything, all that is required of Take Two to prove that they have ownership of the intellectual properties of both the Domain name and the site on it is show that it held information on the domain pertained to their franchise and thus intent was to use Take Two's intellectual property for whatever reason, the reason ultimately doesn't matter. So yes they have a right to the domain regardless of "if something is being sold or being acquired for profit".
This is copyright and trademark law.
If you have no understanding of the law then refer to the following links. Notice how "profit" or "the offering of services" has nothing to do with infringement charges.
Yes, their are quite a few definitions of the Trademark laws. What it would go under for this particular site would be for the laws that deal with noncommercial usage, specifically trademark infringement. Now having a website that diverts people away from another website may constitute "use in connection with a good or service." Other courts have rejected this view, but found that hosting advertisements or linking to commercial websites is sufficient to create "use in connection with a good or service."
For example, in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005), the court held that a gripe site that hosted no advertising, did not directly link to any commercial websites, and was devoted to critical commentary was not "a use in connection with a good or service." It therefore dismissed the plaintiff's trademark infringement lawsuit against the gripe site operator.
I would also like to turn your attention to this case. In TMI Inc. v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a trademark dilution claim based on the defendant's use of a developer's trademarked name in her gripe site's domain name. The court determined that the defendant's site was noncommercial because it was dedicated to critical consumer commentary and did not host advertising or links to commercial sites. The court did not treat the domain name as separate from the underlying website, and so it dismissed the entire dilution claim.
I could go on, but this is enough to debate about. The fact of the matter, is that Goods & Services does indeed come into play in this situation. I don't think you could convince any judge that there is a case for ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)). A cybersquatting claim is related to trademark infringement and trademark dilution, and seeing as how the gentleman has used that site for a blog, then anything he has said based on his own experiences is covered under his first amendment right, and any images used on the site that are of the game and have been released by RS/T2 would make them public use. As long as he does not alter the pictures with deceptive intent, he is well within his rights. But then you get into other legal areas of determining the "protected attributes."
Sorry If it's a little wonky. It's 3:30 am here and I took my Ambian an hour ago. I will read it again in the morning to see if I have slipped somewhere.
you left out a few details that set these cases apart from what we are seeing here.
TMI Inc. v. Maxwell - The domain name was not exactly the same name as the defendants trademarked property. It was off by one letter.
And in the Bosley vs. kremer the court verdict was first subject to scrutiny of other courts and law officials & then overturn by the ninth circuit court so it didn't even hold water. In other words Kremer did indeed infringe on trademark rights. The initial court showed incompetence in handling the case. Refer to the quotes that criticize how it was initially processed.
|Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act[edit source | editbeta]|
Using the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") passed by Congress in 1999, the Circuit Court reversed the district courts dismissal of Bosley's ACPA claim. The district court dismissed the claim "for the same reasons that it dismissed the infringement and dilution claims - namely, because Kremer did not make commercial use of Bosley's mark."
The Circuit Court found that the district court was wrong in applying the commercial use requirement to Bosley's ACPA claim. The district court should have instead focused on "whether Kremer had a bad faith intent to profit from his use of Bosley's mark in his site's domain name"
The Circuit Court also found that the district court was wrong in granting summary judgement for Kremer on the ACPA claim due to the fact that the court did not notify Bosley that it would rule on this claim and in turn did not provide them a chance to conduct discovery on the issue.
|California's Anti-SLAPP Law[edit source | editbeta]|
The Circuit Court found that in an infringement lawsuit by a trademark owner over a defendant's unauthorized use of the mark as his domain, the defendant's free speech rights are not necessarily impaired. The Court reversed the district court's granting Kermer anti-SLAAP motion to strike Bosley's state law trademark claims because they had ruled that Bosley was seeking to limit Kremer's free speech.
|Reinstatement of the ACPA[edit source | editbeta]|
The Circuit court's decision to reverse the district court's claim that Bosley did not violate the Anti-SLAPP law, a law created with the intent of preventing big companies from chilling individual's free speech rights, sets the precedent that ACPA takes precedence over Anti-SLAPP. In simple terms, a company may silence free speech if the person they are silencing is a cyber-squatter directly using their name to exercise his or her free speech even without commercial gain.
So You have actually offered nothing that contradicts the trademark infringement laws. You linked to cyber squatting laws. I read it and according to the bullet points on your own source.
|(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if—|
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection
This section from the first link I provided clears this up pretty nicely.
|It is very likely that you would lose right of your domain name registration if:|
You have intentionally chosen a name that is similar to another domain name or trademark to create consumer confusion
You do not carry business under that name
Neither you nor any other individuals in your company carry a name that is same or similar
You are planning to sell that domain name to your competitor for financial gain
For more information on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy -
For the said man to keep ownership of the domain name it would have to have no relation to the already trademarked "GTA" name. However it does. Take Two owns the GTA acronym for Grand Theft Auto. It belongs to them, they bought the rights to it. So no one can frivolously choose to claim it and use it as a representation of their opinions or anything else because it does not belong to him.
The contents of his blog and how he used information pertaining to GTA is irrelevant because any information pertaining to GTA under a domain name that is trademarked by Take Two is not under control of the said individual. His opinion pieces would have to be hosted on a domain that had no affiliation with a trademarked, copyrighted, and bought Title.
Because this is not the case and he was using Take Two's trademarked name "GTA" to host a site that pertains to Grand Theft Auto and thus involves their intellectual properties, again the trademarked name, Take two has intellectual rights to the domain name. The law is very clear on this and has been upheld in even in the cases you offered as an example.
|Oh, I missunderstand first sentence. Sorry.|
But then that makes no sense :S
Because of "(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."
Your uS law is retarded.
Take Two's contention with this is someone using their name to host their opinions is considered defamation of their image and their company positions on varying topics.
Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 09:25 AM.