Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Take-Two Files Dispute for GTAV.com

167 replies to this topic
r34ld34l
  • r34ld34l

    PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Slovenia

#121

Posted 08 August 2013 - 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Nemesis2252 @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 22:42)
am i the only one who really doesnt care about the website? the game is out in 39 days now. even if we didnt get any new info from now until release, just go outside or read a book, its just over a month away

One month? You serious? Do you know how long did we wait for any info after trailer and few info after it?? DO YOU?!

AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#122

Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:26 PM

QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 13:25)
QUOTE (AtomicPunk @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 17:04)
QUOTE (Geeteeaifive @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 10:57)
QUOTE (Hurrikane @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 00:11)
QUOTE (Jakee. @ Wednesday, Aug 7 2013, 19:32)
They have every right to take the domain. What's to stop the jackass who owns it pointing it to malicious content?

The "jackass" has owned it since 2008. Don't cry me a river, if I buy something it is mine, not some company to come and take it away from me or try and file a complaint. He paid for it, he owns it.

It's not a site like GTAVBETA.com for example.

So if you owned a domain and paid your hard earned money, You "jackass" would be okay with someone taking your property?

Hence why battlefield creators have websites up until battlefield20.com lol. That jackass has no right, it's copyright infringement, rockstar owns the rights to name a website GTAV.com, not some kid from spain who wants a million dollars for it.

There are these parasites out there who make a living, a good living, by black-mailing companies by registering all popular, or famous, brand name things online so that they can leech money. I'm glad that they are getting nothing for their attempts and that the sites are being handed over to their rightful owners. #win for humanity

"Rightful owners" and "#win for humanity" shouldn't put together in same sentece, EVER. You clearly have no idea what you talking about. Go away sheep.

U mad? lol.gif Are you a cyber squatter or sumthin'?
Look Zionist, I call it a win for humanity anytime evil is thwarted. You can call me "sheep" all you want, but trust me....I eat sheep babies for breakfast. Anytime a parasite registers a name that someone else came up with, in order to be bought out by the rightful owner, it's thievery. There is no blurry line between right and wrong, but it always amuses me when people like you try to convince others that there is no right and wrong, that there's only winners and losers. That's the New Yorker mentality and it's a mental illness that one day will be eradicated. Light destroys evil, unless of course, evil destroys itself. *grabs popcorn

Money Over Bullshit
  • Money Over Bullshit

    The Visionary

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Concepts]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2010
    Best Concept Story 2010 "The Code of The Streets"

#123

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:00 AM

QUOTE (LotusRIP @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 04:02)
QUOTE (Magic_Al @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 13:55)
On the other hand, if there's ever GTA X, Rockstar will have no claim whatsoever on gtax.com which is a tax accounting website for Gilman Ciocia, Inc. (GTAX = G. Tax not GTA X).  It's obviously just a coincidence, nothing to do with video games, and this company is totally entitled to it.  Rockstar will have to see if they want to sell it despite the disruption it would be to the accounting firm to have to change domains and risk losing contact with customers.

Dude, slow down, it's taken us 20 years to get from 1 to 5... The housers and all of us will be dead by the time they reach GTA 10. lol.gif jk

Speaking of morbid stuff, I reckon when the Housers know their time is almost up, they'll go absolutely crazy and give us the dream GTA... Every GTA city ever made crammed into their own huge GTA world and you fly to all their different fictional countries.

Kind of off topic but I think this is the way the series is going i.e they will just sell us new maps and content in the future and allow us to play in the maps with our online avatar. Why create a GTA Online brand if there are no plans to connect GTA V's online experience with future games in the series??

MoWGLi
  • MoWGLi

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2003

#124

Posted 09 August 2013 - 04:03 AM

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.

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#125

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:12 AM Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 06:20 AM.

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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

Aborted_Fetus
  • Aborted_Fetus

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2007

#126

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:18 AM

QUOTE (Nemesis2252 @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 22:42)
am i the only one who really doesnt care about the website? the game is out in 39 days now. even if we didnt get any new info from now until release, just go outside or read a book, its just over a month away

What is this "outside" that you speak of?

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#127

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:20 AM

QUOTE (Aborted_Fetus @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 01:18)
QUOTE (Nemesis2252 @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 22:42)
am i the only one who really doesnt care about the website? the game is out in 39 days now. even if we didnt get any new info from now until release, just go outside or read a book, its just over a month away

What is this "outside" that you speak of?

You don't wanna go there, it's TERRIBLE. It's full of cancer, swagfags, humidity, and stray cats. Never, under any circumstances, go outside.

MoWGLi
  • MoWGLi

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2003

#128

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:41 AM

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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

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.

r34ld34l
  • r34ld34l

    PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Slovenia

#129

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:10 AM

QUOTE (AtomicPunk @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 23:26)
QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 13:25)
QUOTE (AtomicPunk @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 17:04)
QUOTE (Geeteeaifive @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 10:57)
QUOTE (Hurrikane @ Thursday, Aug 8 2013, 00:11)
QUOTE (Jakee. @ Wednesday, Aug 7 2013, 19:32)
They have every right to take the domain. What's to stop the jackass who owns it pointing it to malicious content?

The "jackass" has owned it since 2008. Don't cry me a river, if I buy something it is mine, not some company to come and take it away from me or try and file a complaint. He paid for it, he owns it.

It's not a site like GTAVBETA.com for example.

So if you owned a domain and paid your hard earned money, You "jackass" would be okay with someone taking your property?

Hence why battlefield creators have websites up until battlefield20.com lol. That jackass has no right, it's copyright infringement, rockstar owns the rights to name a website GTAV.com, not some kid from spain who wants a million dollars for it.

There are these parasites out there who make a living, a good living, by black-mailing companies by registering all popular, or famous, brand name things online so that they can leech money. I'm glad that they are getting nothing for their attempts and that the sites are being handed over to their rightful owners. #win for humanity

"Rightful owners" and "#win for humanity" shouldn't put together in same sentece, EVER. You clearly have no idea what you talking about. Go away sheep.

U mad? lol.gif Are you a cyber squatter or sumthin'?
Look Zionist, I call it a win for humanity anytime evil is thwarted. You can call me "sheep" all you want, but trust me....I eat sheep babies for breakfast. Anytime a parasite registers a name that someone else came up with, in order to be bought out by the rightful owner, it's thievery. There is no blurry line between right and wrong, but it always amuses me when people like you try to convince others that there is no right and wrong, that there's only winners and losers. That's the New Yorker mentality and it's a mental illness that one day will be eradicated. Light destroys evil, unless of course, evil destroys itself. *grabs popcorn

Mad? Ain't nobody got time for that!

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#130

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:17 AM Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 08:51 AM.

.edit.

r34ld34l
  • r34ld34l

    PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Slovenia

#131

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:17)
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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

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.

Yeah I read it and no where does it excuse the particular domain trademark infringement faced here.

This section from the first link clears this up pretty nicely.

QUOTE
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.

We understand you, but it seems you don't understand it.
"You do not carry business under that name"

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#132

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:20)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:17)
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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

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.

Yeah I read it and no where does it excuse the particular domain trademark infringement faced here.

This section from the first link clears this up pretty nicely.

QUOTE
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.

We understand you, but it seems you don't understand it.
"You do not carry business under that name"

actually it seems you don't understand it.

It;s funny maybe you should read clearly what you quote.

It's explicitly saying that if you register a domain name that you do not have a business under then it can be taken from you by a business that does trademark the name.

r34ld34l
  • r34ld34l

    PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Slovenia

#133

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:30 AM

QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:23)
QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:20)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 08:17)
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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

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.

Yeah I read it and no where does it excuse the particular domain trademark infringement faced here.

This section from the first link clears this up pretty nicely.

QUOTE
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.

We understand you, but it seems you don't understand it.
"You do not carry business under that name"

actually it seems you don't understand it.

It;s funny maybe you should read clearly what you quote.

It's explicitly saying that if you register a domain name that you do not have a business under then it can be taken from you by a business that does trademark the name.

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.

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#134

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:34 AM Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 09:25 AM.

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.
http://www.website.c...infringement.ws
http://www.bitlaw.co...et/webpage.html
http://www.techrepub...the-law-allows/

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.

QUOTE
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."[2]
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"[2]
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.


QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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.[2] 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.


http://en.wikipedia...._Inc._v._Kremer

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.

QUOTE
(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.

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.

jogy
  • jogy

    GTAF Alumni

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2008
  • None

#135

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:18 AM

So the deal is done. GTAV.com links to Rockstargames.com/V

r34ld34l
  • r34ld34l

    PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2012
  • Slovenia

#136

Posted 09 August 2013 - 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Shockenheim @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 11:18)
So the deal is done. GTAV.com links to Rockstargames.com/V

No. It redirected before this news hitted us. Before that it was GTA V blog, when did owner change his mind I don't know or did Take-Two won or lost is also unknown.

Trevor Foreplay
  • Trevor Foreplay

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2013

#137

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:03 PM

Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

Afusensi
  • Afusensi

    BUSTED!

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2012

#138

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:25 PM

QUOTE (Jakee. @ Wednesday, Aug 7 2013, 23:32)
They have every right to take the domain. What's to stop the jackass who owns it pointing it to malicious content?

Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#139

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:24 PM Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 02:37 PM.

QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

Josh410
  • Josh410

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2012
  • None

#140

Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:37 PM

QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

icon14.gif Thank You. T2 owns the trademark GTA. therefore they can sue or take any domains under the GTA franchise.

Mr. Sleepy
  • Mr. Sleepy

    Infamous

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#141

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (Josh410 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 18:37)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

icon14.gif Thank You. T2 owns the trademark GTA. therefore they can sue or take any domains under the GTA franchise.

Therefore they can take over GTAForums.

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#142

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:33 PM Edited by Zinthaniel, 09 August 2013 - 09:34 PM.

QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:25)
QUOTE (Josh410 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 18:37)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

icon14.gif Thank You. T2 owns the trademark GTA. therefore they can sue or take any domains under the GTA franchise.

Therefore they can take over GTAForums.

Yes they can, this has already been established.
I assume the web master for Gtav.net and <strike>Gta forums</strike>most likely asked for permission.
Seeing that it has been here for many years.

DS 17
  • DS 17

    om nom nom

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2008
  • Germany

#143

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:08 PM

Can't believe someone is seriously debatting about they would try taking over GTAForums. This is one of the biggest fan forums of GTA, so they would not be able to afford to scare off that many potential and reliable customers.
And I don't think anybody asked them for permission for any domain, otherwise they would have reserved or bought the domain by themselves right before someone else could or the questioner was able to.

Anyway ... there could be a GTA set in Italy before Jesus, so forum = marketplace which was always the main part (downtown) of these cities, especially in Rome. So this GTA could be named GTA Forums ... just as a title.

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#144

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:20 PM

How long will this take to settle?

lazloisdavrock
  • lazloisdavrock

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2008
  • None

#145

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:23 PM

QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:20)
How long will this take to settle?

could take weeks. I can still smell that delay coming, just like rdr before the remaining month

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#146

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:34 PM

QUOTE (lazloisdavrock @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:23)
QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:20)
How long will this take to settle?

could take weeks. I can still smell that delay coming, just like rdr before the remaining month

RDR was 53 days before, almost 2 months.

Loxley
  • Loxley

    This member is no longer active.

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#147

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:41 PM

QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 11:33)
QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:25)
QUOTE (Josh410 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 18:37)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

icon14.gif Thank You. T2 owns the trademark GTA. therefore they can sue or take any domains under the GTA franchise.

Therefore they can take over GTAForums.

Yes they can, this has already been established.
I assume the web master for Gtav.net and <strike>Gta forums</strike>most likely asked for permission.
Seeing that it has been here for many years.

So if I register a website like GTAVI.com and it has nothing to do with videogames or R* do I have a legit claim to the site? Because, AFAIK, GTAIV could be acronym for anything really.

Zinthaniel
  • Zinthaniel

    Master Debater

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012

#148

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:59 PM

QUOTE (elburrosleftnut @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 21:41)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 11:33)
QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 17:25)
QUOTE (Josh410 @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 18:37)
QUOTE (Zinthaniel @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (Trevor Foreplay @ Friday, Aug 9 2013, 12:03)
Isn't it sad how the f*cking internet police have to ruin everything? If the guy PAID MONEY for the domain, R* should have to pay him back for all of the money he has spent. That's like someone claiming blue as their favorite color so they go around confiscating all blue items and call the police if someone doesn't give up their blue sh*t.... pathetic

You can't pay money for something from someone when the product being sold doesn't even belong to the vendor.

It seems that no one understands that Take Two had all ready bought, with money, the trademark of GTA. Grand Theft Auto, and all intellectual Properties that pertains to it. It's there's. They Bought it. They Own it. I don't know hot to make that any more clear.
If they own all things pertaining to their game then random people can't then decide to use their name for their personal use.

If the Guy paid some dubious stranger for a domain named Gta V or Created the name, with the intent to facilitate a site hosting information pertaining to Gta 5 without Take Two's permission, then that is his own fault.


QUOTE
Last time i wanted to make a website for my music, someone else got the domain name for my musician name. Now they are trying to sell me that sh*t for 10k.
So i have every right to take it? Because last time i checked, when i buy a domain name first, its MY domain name.

And by the way, isnt that the way some people make a living for themself, flipping domain names?


Did you pay money to copyright and trademark the name like Take Two did? And is this said domain name hosting a site with your information and music as it sole focus? That's the distinction, because if that's the case then yes you can sue for ownership if the said name that you trademark is being used with the intent in hosting your music. If however it is your name but has nothing to do with you or your music you will have a hard time proving that intellectual properties are being infringed upon rather than a simple a coincidence.

icon14.gif Thank You. T2 owns the trademark GTA. therefore they can sue or take any domains under the GTA franchise.

Therefore they can take over GTAForums.

Yes they can, this has already been established.
I assume the web master for Gtav.net and <strike>Gta forums</strike>most likely asked for permission.
Seeing that it has been here for many years.

So if I register a website like GTAVI.com and it has nothing to do with videogames or R* do I have a legit claim to the site? Because, AFAIK, GTAIV could be acronym for anything really.


Take Two only has a trademark for GTA as an acronym for Grand Theft Auto. So if you purchase a domain name with GTA but it means something totally different and it pertains to your own intellectual properties and your own business then No. Take Two would absolutely not be able to seize your domain.

However if that isn't the case and you purchase a domain with GTA as it's name with any numerical iteration, it doesn't matter, and you do this with the intent to facilitate a site that holds intellectual properties that pertain to the Grand Theft Auto Series and it is clear that the domain name is being used as an acronym for Grand Theft Auto. Then Yes. Take Two would have rights to that domain because they trademarked and copyrighted the name and the intellectual properties that follow it.

M_Roc
  • M_Roc

    Douche of the highest order

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2006

#149

Posted 10 August 2013 - 03:53 AM

I just bought GTAVI.net,GTAVI.com,GTA6.com,GTA6.net smile.gif

TheNextGTAprotag
  • TheNextGTAprotag

    GTA fiend

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#150

Posted 10 August 2013 - 04:50 AM

cant be effed reading all the way through...

could some one be nice enough to tell me whether this means they are only just now getting the official website into gear?

Cos, they could of settled this at the start of production right. so that they are not getting caught up in the courts 37 days before release....




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users