|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.