Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ? ™ © ® ™

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Warner Music Pays $14 Million to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit

Universal Pictures/ Courtesy: Everett Collection

The music publisher will also not stand in the way for a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain.
Sing the song, blow out the candles, eat the cake and unwrap the gifts.

According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You." Additionally, the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain. A memorandum in support of the settlement sings the praises of the deal as "truly, an historic result." U.S. District Judge George H. King will have to sign off on it.

The revelation of the settlement terms comes after King came to the conclusion this past September that Warner and its predecessor didn't hold any valid copyright to the song and never acquired the rights to the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. At the time, the judge stopped short of declaring that the song was in the public domain, and just before a trial was set to begin in December exploring the history of a song dating back to a 19th century schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill, the sides reached an agreement.

Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years.

"The judicial determination that 'Happy Birthday' is in the public domain also has substantial value," states the memorandum in support of the settlement. "Because Defendants have charged for use of the Song, untold thousands of people chose not to use the Song in their own performances and artistic works or to perform the Song in public. This has limited the number of times the Song was performed and used. After the Settlement is approved, that restraint will be removed and the Song will be performed and used far more often than it has been in the past. While there is no way to make a reliable estimate of the increase that will result, there can be no dispute that the increase will be substantial."

An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review.

But for now, the settlement provides a big final act to the class action lawsuit brought by film director Jennifer Nelson, who was making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and was asked to pay a $1,500 license fee. She sued to hinder Warners from ever forcing film and TV producers, or others, to pay again. The plaintiffs argued that a song appearing in early 20th-century children's textbooks had to be in the public domain because of general publication, abandonment or the length of the copyright term.

By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades. The music publisher also forgoes an appeal that it teased. The defendant continues to believe that a 1935 copyright registration should have entitled it to a presumption of copyright validity and that the song isn't in the public domain, but it has agreed to a judgment that states otherwise.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys led by Mark Rifkin, who according to the settlement terms will be seeking a $4.62 million fee, a third of the $14 million settlement fund. The rest would go to those who have paid to license "Happy Birthday" and meet the definition of the proposed class. Those folks are estimated to have spent more than $50 million on licensing fees on "Happy Birthday" over the years.

Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled in March.

next Year no Happy Birthday

Click to expand...

Amazing....

Stop Believing The NFL's Lies About Trademark Law And Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl

from the suck-it-up,-weenies dept

For years now, we've mocked how the NFL insists that no one can use the term "Super Bowl" in an advertisement unless they're an official sponsor of the event. That's why it's become so typical to see advertisers using "the big game" instead -- though, five years ago, the NFL even sought the trademark on "The Big Game" because so many advertisers were using it. However, Paul Levy rightly takes advertisers to task for being "weenies" and not standing up to the NFL on this. As he says: Of course, the NFL's position is nonsense -- this is a nominative use that is just as permissible as, for example, referring to the "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the two-time world champions" or "the professional basketball team from Chicago" (Judge Kozinski's example from a different era, when the Bulls mattered). Basically, the game is called the Super Bowl, and calling it that isn't trademark infringement, so long as you don't imply that you're an official sponsor or otherwise officially associated with the game. Of course, where it gets even more ridiculous is when news organizations heed the NFL's warnings over this -- such as the email Levy received from the Boston Globe (pdf) about the Super Bowl, where the term doesn't appear at all. Levy points out that it's simply ridiculous that a news organization (and a big one with plenty of lawyers who get this) would still not use "Super Bowl." Levy suggests we start calling such ridiculousness out: Instead of praising retailers who skate close to the edge, we should take a page from David Bollier’s excellent Brand Name Bullies and call them Brand Name Weenies. Indeed, it is disappointing that a major metropolitan newspaper that belongs to an 800 pound gorilla like the New York Times Company is unwilling to defy the NFL by using the term in in its advertising. The Times and the Globe certainly advertise their coverage of the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, also trademarked names. If big players like the Times don’t have the cojones to stand up for bullying from the NFL, they make it harder for everybody else.

In their recent book Reclaiming Fair Use, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi warn that when we refrain from exercising our fair use rights, and act as if those rights do not exist, we help create a culture in which fair use loses ground to overly aggressive copyright enforcement. The same is true in the trademark realm. We can only hope that when the next Superbowl rolls around, the Times and its brethren, and even the HDTV sellers, will have shed their timidity. It's the Super Bowl. Call it the Super Bowl. Just... uh... don't have too many friends over to watch it on a big screen. Because that's copyright infringement.

Getting sooo many issues on Trademark claims; this because most people that own a trademark name THINKS they own the entire universe letters and phrases after trademarking a single name. Then followed by trademark co. need to make money... so they allow to trademark words and phrases that create issue and mind bugging...
Keep in mind, there is a lot of ways to get a 1 answer.

we should trade mark ( zuckerberg )

There are many of that name. But as usual, as a stereotype they go by who is famous and has cash. Leaving the other Zuckerberg worthless and broke.

Trade, or commerce, involves the transfer of the ownership of goods or services, from one person or entity to another, in exchange for money, goods or services. A network that allows trade is called a market.

lets trade mark

Many people always adored with people who's famous and wealthy. Hoping they can have some of that...
Famous and wealthy people gets a lots of "Yes" answers million times. While zero money people will have to earn a single "YES".

I have a surprise for you "Wealthy Man" if you tell me you have a million dollar for me if I say "Yes" you are "Right" even if You are "Wrong" my anwer will be "You Are Wrong"

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Trade, or commerce, involves the transfer of the ownership of goods or services, from one person or entity to another, in exchange for money, goods or services. A network that allows trade is called a market.

lets trade mark

Click to expand...

All names are created to fits its spefic needs; and its more likely derives from its roots.

Can Taylor Swift Really Trademark “This Sick Beat”?
Yes, and Here’s Why

Michael Stewart—WireImage Taylor Swift has also trademarked our hearts.
Taylor Swift just tried to trademark "This Sick Beat." Here's why she can, and why it makes a whole lot of financial sense.

The internet almost exploded Thursday over news that pop star (and freshly minted New Yorker) Taylor Swift has trademarked the phrases “This Sick Beat,” “Nice to Meet You. Where You Been?,” and “Party Like It’s 1989,” among others.

Actually, that’s not quite true. Contrary to many reports, Swift has not yet been granted any of these trademarks—she’s merely applied for them and is awaiting approval by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

But we still had a lot of questions, like “Can you really trademark a greeting?,” “Would Taylor actually sue me? We’re like besties…,” and “Can I trademark my own ridiculous catch phrases?”

For answers to these pressing issues, we called Christopher Sprigman, a professor at NYU Law School specializing in trademark law, and a man way too knowledgeable and respected to address this nonsense. But instead of hanging up the phone, the professor kindly took us on a magical tour through some of the basic rules of intellectual property.

Turns out, you can pretty much trademark anything you want as long as you follow a few guidelines. First, your trademark can’t be a “generic” term, i.e. the commonly used name of the product you’re trying to sell. An obvious example is that no one can get a trademark for the exclusive use of the word “salt” to sell salt shakers.

Next, your trademark can’t be something that’s entirely descriptive. So, to use Sprigman’s example, you can’t trademark “salty” to use on boxes of Saltine-style crackers. That wouldn’t be fair to someone else who wants to tell customers their snack is salty, too.

But if your trademark is “arbitrary” (meaning it has no connection with the good or service it’s being affixed to) or “fanciful” (meaning it has no inherent meaning at all, like Kodak) you’re generally in the clear.

That’s why, for example, Apple can trademark the word “Apple” to sell computers. (The company couldn’t, on the other hand, trademark Apple brand apples because that would probably be considered both generic and descriptive.)

Just as the word Apple is arbitrary when applied to a laptop, Taylor Swift’s lyrics are equally arbitrary when placed on a Christmas stocking or a “non-medicated preparation for the care of skin”—two of the products that T-Swift has applied for trademarks on.

“I don’t think ‘This Sick Beat’ is descriptive of Christmas stockings,'” Sprigman observes.

The professor also thinks Swift is ahead of the curve when it comes to trademarking random song lyrics. The rise of streaming makes it increasingly difficult for artists to monetize their music, leaving musicians to look for new ways to make money. “The music industry isn’t dying,” says Sprigman, “the music industry is changing. And different revenue sources are coming to the fore, and one of them is merchandise.”

That’s especially true for Taylor Swift, who recently removed her music from Spotify, the largest streaming music provider. “She’s no dummy,” Sprigman adds. “This strategy for her makes quite a bit of sense.”

So it looks like Swift is going to be fine here. But what about you and me? Can anyone just trademark random symbols and phrases?

The answer is probably yes, assuming you choose a phrase that’s distinctive enough. And as long as it’s not descriptive or generic and no one else has trademarked it or is already using it commercially, you probably will be in the clear. One Brooklyn artist even managed to trademark the pi symbol with a period after it.

Basically, all you need to do is pay an electronic filing fee ($225 to $325, plus maintenance fees), stay within the rules we’ve described, and you can be just like Taylor.

Except not famous or talented. But you both can at least sell Christmas stockings with a trademarked thing on them. And that’s something. Right?

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

Click to expand...

I bet you'd feel differently if you owned a TM and somebody else started using it.

"Trade" and "market" probably the oldest used in e-commerce industry. But then, the new generation word "trade" becoming more than just that meaning.

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Can Taylor Swift Really Trademark “This Sick Beat”?
Yes, and Here’s Why

Michael Stewart—WireImage Taylor Swift has also trademarked our hearts.
Taylor Swift just tried to trademark "This Sick Beat." Here's why she can, and why it makes a whole lot of financial sense.

The internet almost exploded Thursday over news that pop star (and freshly minted New Yorker) Taylor Swift has trademarked the phrases “This Sick Beat,” “Nice to Meet You. Where You Been?,” and “Party Like It’s 1989,” among others.

Actually, that’s not quite true. Contrary to many reports, Swift has not yet been granted any of these trademarks—she’s merely applied for them and is awaiting approval by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

But we still had a lot of questions, like “Can you really trademark a greeting?,” “Would Taylor actually sue me? We’re like besties…,” and “Can I trademark my own ridiculous catch phrases?”

For answers to these pressing issues, we called Christopher Sprigman, a professor at NYU Law School specializing in trademark law, and a man way too knowledgeable and respected to address this nonsense. But instead of hanging up the phone, the professor kindly took us on a magical tour through some of the basic rules of intellectual property.

Turns out, you can pretty much trademark anything you want as long as you follow a few guidelines. First, your trademark can’t be a “generic” term, i.e. the commonly used name of the product you’re trying to sell. An obvious example is that no one can get a trademark for the exclusive use of the word “salt” to sell salt shakers.

Next, your trademark can’t be something that’s entirely descriptive. So, to use Sprigman’s example, you can’t trademark “salty” to use on boxes of Saltine-style crackers. That wouldn’t be fair to someone else who wants to tell customers their snack is salty, too.

But if your trademark is “arbitrary” (meaning it has no connection with the good or service it’s being affixed to) or “fanciful” (meaning it has no inherent meaning at all, like Kodak) you’re generally in the clear.

That’s why, for example, Apple can trademark the word “Apple” to sell computers. (The company couldn’t, on the other hand, trademark Apple brand apples because that would probably be considered both generic and descriptive.)

Just as the word Apple is arbitrary when applied to a laptop, Taylor Swift’s lyrics are equally arbitrary when placed on a Christmas stocking or a “non-medicated preparation for the care of skin”—two of the products that T-Swift has applied for trademarks on.

“I don’t think ‘This Sick Beat’ is descriptive of Christmas stockings,'” Sprigman observes.

The professor also thinks Swift is ahead of the curve when it comes to trademarking random song lyrics. The rise of streaming makes it increasingly difficult for artists to monetize their music, leaving musicians to look for new ways to make money. “The music industry isn’t dying,” says Sprigman, “the music industry is changing. And different revenue sources are coming to the fore, and one of them is merchandise.”

That’s especially true for Taylor Swift, who recently removed her music from Spotify, the largest streaming music provider. “She’s no dummy,” Sprigman adds. “This strategy for her makes quite a bit of sense.”

So it looks like Swift is going to be fine here. But what about you and me? Can anyone just trademark random symbols and phrases?

The answer is probably yes, assuming you choose a phrase that’s distinctive enough. And as long as it’s not descriptive or generic and no one else has trademarked it or is already using it commercially, you probably will be in the clear. One Brooklyn artist even managed to trademark the pi symbol with a period after it.

Basically, all you need to do is pay an electronic filing fee ($225 to $325, plus maintenance fees), stay within the rules we’ve described, and you can be just like Taylor.

Except not famous or talented. But you both can at least sell Christmas stockings with a trademarked thing on them. And that’s something. Right?

Click to expand...

Look at her closely, who would want to trademark that image?

She look likes in pain... Zero naturality.

mr-x said:

I bet you'd feel differently if you owned a TM and somebody else started using it.

Click to expand...

No
Why ?

i had a great idea in 2010 - try to get a trademark - denied to general
but
the german olympic team got a trademark on the same slogan in 2012
so wtf
i still got the domain

me 2010



olympic team 2012



so i will fight them and delete their TM

Trademark dispute with Sky broadcasting sought name change for No Man’s Sky
Dispute ends after "three years of secret stupid legal nonsense."



93

Did you think that the highly anticipated, procedurally generated space exploration game No Man's Sky was in any way related to British telecommunications and broadcasting giant Sky? Of course you didn't. But it apparently took the legal system three years to come to the same conclusion.

EU court rules “Skype” is too similar to “Sky,” blocks trademark applicationThat's according to Sean Murray, managing director of No Man's Sky maker Hello Games. Over the weekend, Murray tweeted that the company had settled a legal dispute with Sky over the game's name after "3 years of secret stupid legal nonsense." In a follow-up tweet, he added that "this is the same folks who made Microsoft change Skydrive to Onedrive... so it was pretty serious." ("On the plus side perhaps this is the real reason Skynet never happened..." he joked)
Sky did indeed go after Microsoft's Skydrive back in 2014, forcing an abrupt name change from the massive company. Last year, Sky also took legal action against Microsoft's Skype, arguing that the service's logo looked like a cloud "and thus may readily be associated with the word 'sky.'" A European court eventually agreed with that argument.

Atari still exists, thinks no one else can make a “Haunted House” gameArguments over trademarks for common words are rampant in the game industry, including zombie Atari's claim on the term "Haunted House," King's attempt to trademark the word "Candy," Ubisoft and EA's battle over the word Ghost, and Bethesda and Mojang's battle over the word "Scrolls."
No Man's Sky was recently delayed from a planned June 21 launch to August 9, leaving many wondering what was troubling the game's development at this late stage. A legal battle that would have required a last-minute name change would certainly fit the bill for such a delay, though we can't know for sure if this was the cause at this point. If it is, though, then Sky Broadcasting owes us roughly six weeks of freeform space exploration!

mr-x said:

I bet you'd feel differently if you owned a TM and somebody else started using it.

Click to expand...

did you know that even when you own a domain ( TM free ) and someone get a TM later that they can take your domain ?

this is insane

specially : what does a TM have to do with the .com domain ?

look at NIssan.com

Michael Jordan loses China trademark suit: report


A Beijing court has dismissed a trademark case brought by US basketball superstar Michael Jordan against a company using a similar name and logo to his Nike-produced brand, a report said.

The former Chicago Bull is arguably the most popular international basketball star in China and is known in the country as "Qiaodan", a Chinese version of his name.

He asked Chinese authorities in 2012 to revoke the trademark of Qiaodan Sports Co, accusing the sportswear firm of misleading consumers about its ties to the six-time NBA champion.

As well as the name, Qiaodan's products carry a silhouette of a leaping basketball player resembling the "Jumpman" logo used by US sporting goods giant Nike to promote its Air Jordan brand.

Authorities refused Jordan's request, and a lower court in Beijing did the same. He appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court, which has ruled against him, the Chinese news portal Sohu reported.

"'Jordan' is not the only possible reference for 'Qiaodan' in the trademark under dispute," it cited a transcript of the verdict as saying.

"In addition, 'Jordan' is a common surname used by Americans," the court added according to the report Monday, and the logo was in the shape of a person with no facial features, so that it was "hard" for consumers to identify it as Jordan.

There was insufficient evidence to prove the trademark referred to the US star, it concluded.

Jordan retired from the sport in 2003.

China has long been seen as a counterfeiters' haven and has constantly been criticised by its trade partners over lax protection of intellectual property rights.

It remained on this year's US Priority Watch List of trading partners that fail to protect such rights "despite certain improvements".

Qiaodan Sports Co, based in the eastern province of Fujian, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Trademark dispute with Sky broadcasting sought name change for No Man’s Sky
Dispute ends after "three years of secret stupid legal nonsense."

93

Did you think that the highly anticipated, procedurally generated space exploration game No Man's Sky was in any way related to British telecommunications and broadcasting giant Sky? Of course you didn't. But it apparently took the legal system three years to come to the same conclusion.

EU court rules “Skype” is too similar to “Sky,” blocks trademark applicationThat's according to Sean Murray, managing director of No Man's Sky maker Hello Games. Over the weekend, Murray tweeted that the company had settled a legal dispute with Sky over the game's name after "3 years of secret stupid legal nonsense." In a follow-up tweet, he added that "this is the same folks who made Microsoft change Skydrive to Onedrive... so it was pretty serious." ("On the plus side perhaps this is the real reason Skynet never happened..." he joked)
Sky did indeed go after Microsoft's Skydrive back in 2014, forcing an abrupt name change from the massive company. Last year, Sky also took legal action against Microsoft's Skype, arguing that the service's logo looked like a cloud "and thus may readily be associated with the word 'sky.'" A European court eventually agreed with that argument.

Atari still exists, thinks no one else can make a “Haunted House” gameArguments over trademarks for common words are rampant in the game industry, including zombie Atari's claim on the term "Haunted House," King's attempt to trademark the word "Candy," Ubisoft and EA's battle over the word Ghost, and Bethesda and Mojang's battle over the word "Scrolls."
No Man's Sky was recently delayed from a planned June 21 launch to August 9, leaving many wondering what was troubling the game's development at this late stage. A legal battle that would have required a last-minute name change would certainly fit the bill for such a delay, though we can't know for sure if this was the cause at this point. If it is, though, then Sky Broadcasting owes us roughly six weeks of freeform space exploration!

Click to expand...

"Arguments over trademarks for common words are rampant in the game indutry" yes and yes; they all like to play.games

Entrepreneur Media
vs.
EntrepreneurPR






By Scott Smith - EntrepreneurPR Founder - Committee Member

In October 1997, and after hiring a professional naming company and conducting extensive trademark searches, I changed the name of my public relations firm for entrepreneurs, from ICON Publications to EntrepreneurPR. I created a booklet of promotional profiles of our entrepreneurial clients and distributed it as source material for news stories to members of the media.

In May 1998, I was sued by Entrepreneur Media, the publisher of Entrepreneur Magazine, for using the term "entrepreneur" in my business, booklet and website names ("…we demand that you deliver up for destruction all physical items bearing any form of the trademark ENTREPRENEUR." Henry M. Bissell, attorney for Entrepreneur Media). In June 2000, a federal court judge awarded Entrepreneur Media an injunction prohibiting me from using the term "entrepreneur" and awarded $337,280 in damages to Entrepreneur Media. Entrepreneur Magazine is a small-business publication with about 500,000 subscribers that trademarked the word "entrepreneur" in 1987. And that, according to the court's decision, means the firm has "exclusive right to use the mark in commerce."

I appealed, and in February 2002 the case was overturned by a three judge panel who unanimously ruled that Entrepreneur Media's trademark was "descriptive and weak." The case was sent back to the same district court judge for a full trial. The judge again ruled against me in June 2003, and awarded Entrepreneur Media a permanent injunction and a mind-boggling $1.4 million in damages and attorneys' fees. Apparently you can call yourself an entrepreneur, but you can no longer include the word in the name of your business, particularly one in publishing, because the term "entrepreneur" was trademarked in 1987! ("According to Entrepreneur Media's legal counsel Mark Finkelstein, Entrepreneur Media even owns "entrepreneur" in Canada and in several sectors outside of magazine and website publishing." Profit Magazine, June 2003)

Isn't there a broad societal interest in preserving common, useful words for the public domain? As the U.S. Court of Appeals has already said about this case, "We do not want to prevent the commercial use of descriptive words … straightforward names are often the most useful identifiers." How is it that a corporate bully with deep pockets can appropriate a common term that they did not invent, has been in use for years, and has no synonym? How many more businesses and organizations that provide products and services for entrepreneurs will now be sued for using the word "entrepreneur"? Does this make any rational sense?

This battle has dragged on for over six years and has cost my small company over $100,000 in legal fees. But we refuse to give up and are again appealing this lower court's bizarre ruling. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn very slowly, so we may not receive a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals until early 2005. Additional information about this subject is available at Entrepreneur.net, a website of one of the many small businesses Entrepreneur Magazine has attacked for using the word "entrepreneur."


Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue. Your collective voice is more compelling than the lobbying power of corporate giants and it is a voice that cannot be ignored.
Together we can make a difference and help keep our freedom intact, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Take a Stand and Make a Difference

Nissan vs. Nissan



Nissan Motor Sued Nissan Computer For Trademark Infringement,
Trademark Dilution And Cyber-Squatting
Seeking 10 Million Dollars In Damages



By Uzi Nissan - founder and president, Nissan Computer Corp.

BACKGROUND
My name is Uzi Nissan. I was born in Jerusalem - Israel. My father's last name was Nissan, his father's last name was Nissan, and so on. Nissan is a biblical term identifying the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar. The term Nissan also is Arabic for the month of April.
Click here for supporting articles

I came to the US in 1976, and have used my surname for years to identify a number of business enterprises. The first was "Nissan Foreign Car" in 1980. When I operated this business, I serviced different makes and models of foreign cars, including cars manufactured by Nissan Motor, back then known as "DATSUN". Contrary to the allegations by Nissan Motor, I did not choose to use my last name "Nissan" for my business in 1980 because of their name. At that time, they and their automobiles were known as "DATSUN" and were not known as "Nissan".
Click here for supporting articles

In December 1987, I started an import/export business known as "Nissan International" At that time, Nissan Motor was not well known as Nissan, but primarily as "DATSUN". As with the earlier business, I chose to use Nissan in my business name because it was my last name.
Click here for supporting articles

On May 14, 1991, "Nissan Computer Corp" was incorporated in the state of North Carolina. I was then, and still am, the company President. I have used Nissan as part of my trade name in connection with the sale of computer hardware, computer maintenance, networking, computer training and other consulting services related to computers. On June 4, 1994, I registered the domain name "nissan.com" and created a web site to promote computer related products and services on the Internet.

In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark registration for Nissan and my logo from the State of North Carolina.
Click here for supporting articles

On March 17, 1996, I registered the domain name "nissan.net" , and began offering Internet services, including dial-up connections and direct data connections to business.

In another example of Nissan Motor's flexing its corporate might, age old eminent domain laws have been rewritten in Mississippi allowing the State to take land and homes from local landowners for the sole private benefit of Nissan Motor. How the State of Mississippi was "convinced" to change these laws is unclear, but it is clear that local individuals are being deprived of their property rights so Nissan Motor can build its own plant.
Click here for supporting articles


UPDATES

DECEMBER - 1999, Initial Filing.
More then five years after I registered nissan.com, legal action was instituted by Nissan Motor seeking $10,000,000 in damages, and to restrain me from the use of MY family name for business purposes on the Internet.

APRIL - 2002, First Round of Summary Judgments.
The court ruled on a summary judgment motions as follows:
1. "Cyber-Squatting" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
2. "Infringement on non-auto-related" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
3. "Infringement on auto-related" claim, in Nissan Motor's favor.
4. "Dilution" claim was sent to trial.
Nissan Motor's intention to make this case as expensive as possible for me was evident from the beginning. Undoubtedly, the notion that my company and me might be forced into bankruptcy rather than fight for my name, given the great expense, must have been a consideration. As if the financial burden incurred by me and Nissan Computers was not enough, Nissan Motor filed a lawsuit against the Internet Center, Inc., a corporation with three shareholders, in which I am the majority shareholder. The Internet Center, Inc. did not and does not utilize the word "NISSAN" in any way.

SEPTEMBER - 2002, Second Round of Summary Judgment.
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motor filed a second round of Summary Judgment Motions, trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial.
The Court, surprisingly, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments
made by many people on this site and my efforts to bring this issue to
the public, actually tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view this case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to transfer nissan.com to them entirely. The potential loss of a domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" by being solely based on "the law of the jungle", and could affect you or someone you know.

DECEMBER - 2002, Final Injunction.
The district court issued a final Judgment (PDF) allowing Nissan Computer to keep its nissan.com and nissan.net domain names, but restricted our rights to do the following:
1. Posting Commercial content at nissan.com and nissan.net;
2. Posting advertising or permitting advertising to be posted by third parties at
nissan.com and nissan.net;
3. Posting disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd. or Nissan North America, Inc. at nissan.com and nissan.net;
4. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
commercial content, including advertising; and
5. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
or Nissan North America.
After reviewing this and other rulings of the district court, we believed that the only practical option was to appeal. One of the reasons for the appeal is that we and other experts considered the injunction and parts of other rulings to be a clear violation of our "First Amendment Rights" as it is to every American citizen's constitutional rights.

OCTOBER - 2003, Appeal Initial Motion.
Nissan Computer filed its Opening Brief (PDF) to the 9th circuit court of appeals, addressing the district court's rulings on:
A. Trademark Dilution
B. Trademark Infringement
C. Final Injunction
NOTE: It's a long brief, but will allow you to better understand the merits of this case.

JANUARY - 2004, Appeal Reply Motion.
Nissan Motor filed a consolidated brief opposing Nissan Computer's opening brief and a cross appeal on:
A. Trademark Infringement.
B. Final Injunction.
C. Requesting the court to force transfer Nissan.com to them.
Nissan Computer filed a Consolidated Brief (PDF) opposing NMC's cross appeal and replying to their opposition.

AUGUST - 2004, Appeal Ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling reversing the case and remanding it back to the District Court. In a Published Opinion (PDF) the Appellant Court rejected Nissan Motor's cross appeal and reversed the District Court's ruling against Nissan Computer on Dilution and the broad scope of the Final Injunction.
Not to our surprise, Nissan Motor filed a motion for rehearing by the 9th Circuit's panel and a rehearing en banc (a rehearing by all of the Court of Appeals Judges). On September 2004, the 9th Circuit issued a Ruling (PDF) denying Nissan Motor's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

DECEMBER - 2004, Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nissan Motor filed a Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari" to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Appellant Court ruling on the Infringement and First Amendment issues.

APRIL - 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an Order, (PDF) Denying Nissan Motor's Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari", thus the dilution claim, which is the only remaining issue was sent back to the district court.

JANUARY - 2007, Motion to strike Jury Demand.
Nissan Motor's intentions to deprive us of a jury trial was evident from the beginning, they always felt that they have a better chance of prevailing in front of the judge rather than the jury. In the 11th hour, after all their efforts to do so was unsuccessful, they pulled their last ace and dropped their $10,000,000 damage claim in exchange for a "bench trial" rather then a "jury Trial".

MARCH - 2007, Trial.
The four-day bench trial occurred between March 27 and March 30 to determine NMC's claims on:
1. Dilution
2. Permanent Injunction re: Dilution.
3. Permanent Injunction re: Infringement.
We are now waiting for the court's ruling on these matters.

SEPTEMBER - 2007, Ruling.
The court has issued a Ruling (PDF) addressing NMC's alleged claims in our favor:
1. Found that Nissan Computer did not Dilute NMC's mark.
2. Denied NMC's requests for Permanent Injunctions.
We are still waiting for the court to issue a final judgment.

JANUARY - 2008, Motion For Attorneys' Fees.
Nissan Motor has been unrelenting in its lawsuit against us and despite that they lost; they subsequently filed a motion asking the court to award them millions of dollars in attorneys' fees.

FEBRUARY - 2008, Ruling on Attorneys' Fees and Final Judgment.
The court has issued a Ruling (PDF) addressing these remaining issues:
1. Nissan Motor is NOT entitled to attorneys' fees.
2. Nissan Computer is entitled to cost under rule 68.
The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less than 2% of what the cost was to defend this case.

You would think this case is over..... but it really isn't.

Nissan Motor's trademark registration.
Nissan Motor is attempting to obtain a Federal Trademark Registration for computers and computer peripherals among other classes of goods and services. We feel that Nissan Motor, in this action, is staging a future case against us in the computer and peripherals market.
We are left with no other course of action but to oppose this registration.



Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue. Your collective voice is more compelling than the lobbying power of corporate giants and it is a voice that cannot be ignored.
Together we can make a difference and help keep our freedom intact, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Take a Stand and Make a Difference

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Entrepreneur Media
vs.
EntrepreneurPR

By Scott Smith - EntrepreneurPR Founder - Committee Member

In October 1997, and after hiring a professional naming company and conducting extensive trademark searches, I changed the name of my public relations firm for entrepreneurs, from ICON Publications to EntrepreneurPR. I created a booklet of promotional profiles of our entrepreneurial clients and distributed it as source material for news stories to members of the media.

In May 1998, I was sued by Entrepreneur Media, the publisher of Entrepreneur Magazine, for using the term "entrepreneur" in my business, booklet and website names ("…we demand that you deliver up for destruction all physical items bearing any form of the trademark ENTREPRENEUR." Henry M. Bissell, attorney for Entrepreneur Media). In June 2000, a federal court judge awarded Entrepreneur Media an injunction prohibiting me from using the term "entrepreneur" and awarded $337,280 in damages to Entrepreneur Media. Entrepreneur Magazine is a small-business publication with about 500,000 subscribers that trademarked the word "entrepreneur" in 1987. And that, according to the court's decision, means the firm has "exclusive right to use the mark in commerce."

I appealed, and in February 2002 the case was overturned by a three judge panel who unanimously ruled that Entrepreneur Media's trademark was "descriptive and weak." The case was sent back to the same district court judge for a full trial. The judge again ruled against me in June 2003, and awarded Entrepreneur Media a permanent injunction and a mind-boggling $1.4 million in damages and attorneys' fees. Apparently you can call yourself an entrepreneur, but you can no longer include the word in the name of your business, particularly one in publishing, because the term "entrepreneur" was trademarked in 1987! ("According to Entrepreneur Media's legal counsel Mark Finkelstein, Entrepreneur Media even owns "entrepreneur" in Canada and in several sectors outside of magazine and website publishing." Profit Magazine, June 2003)

Isn't there a broad societal interest in preserving common, useful words for the public domain? As the U.S. Court of Appeals has already said about this case, "We do not want to prevent the commercial use of descriptive words … straightforward names are often the most useful identifiers." How is it that a corporate bully with deep pockets can appropriate a common term that they did not invent, has been in use for years, and has no synonym? How many more businesses and organizations that provide products and services for entrepreneurs will now be sued for using the word "entrepreneur"? Does this make any rational sense?

This battle has dragged on for over six years and has cost my small company over $100,000 in legal fees. But we refuse to give up and are again appealing this lower court's bizarre ruling. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn very slowly, so we may not receive a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals until early 2005. Additional information about this subject is available at Entrepreneur.net, a website of one of the many small businesses Entrepreneur Magazine has attacked for using the word "entrepreneur."


Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue. Your collective voice is more compelling than the lobbying power of corporate giants and it is a voice that cannot be ignored.
Together we can make a difference and help keep our freedom intact, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Take a Stand and Make a Difference

Click to expand...

Sick And money hungry people still exist today; and it will contenue to spread; just like bad weeds in your back yard. Some are easy to pull and some are rooted in.

Michael Ehrhardt said:

Nissan vs. Nissan

Nissan Motor Sued Nissan Computer For Trademark Infringement,
Trademark Dilution And Cyber-Squatting
Seeking 10 Million Dollars In Damages



By Uzi Nissan - founder and president, Nissan Computer Corp.

BACKGROUND
My name is Uzi Nissan. I was born in Jerusalem - Israel. My father's last name was Nissan, his father's last name was Nissan, and so on. Nissan is a biblical term identifying the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar. The term Nissan also is Arabic for the month of April.
Click here for supporting articles

I came to the US in 1976, and have used my surname for years to identify a number of business enterprises. The first was "Nissan Foreign Car" in 1980. When I operated this business, I serviced different makes and models of foreign cars, including cars manufactured by Nissan Motor, back then known as "DATSUN". Contrary to the allegations by Nissan Motor, I did not choose to use my last name "Nissan" for my business in 1980 because of their name. At that time, they and their automobiles were known as "DATSUN" and were not known as "Nissan".
Click here for supporting articles

In December 1987, I started an import/export business known as "Nissan International" At that time, Nissan Motor was not well known as Nissan, but primarily as "DATSUN". As with the earlier business, I chose to use Nissan in my business name because it was my last name.
Click here for supporting articles

On May 14, 1991, "Nissan Computer Corp" was incorporated in the state of North Carolina. I was then, and still am, the company President. I have used Nissan as part of my trade name in connection with the sale of computer hardware, computer maintenance, networking, computer training and other consulting services related to computers. On June 4, 1994, I registered the domain name "nissan.com" and created a web site to promote computer related products and services on the Internet.

In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark registration for Nissan and my logo from the State of North Carolina.
Click here for supporting articles

On March 17, 1996, I registered the domain name "nissan.net" , and began offering Internet services, including dial-up connections and direct data connections to business.

In another example of Nissan Motor's flexing its corporate might, age old eminent domain laws have been rewritten in Mississippi allowing the State to take land and homes from local landowners for the sole private benefit of Nissan Motor. How the State of Mississippi was "convinced" to change these laws is unclear, but it is clear that local individuals are being deprived of their property rights so Nissan Motor can build its own plant.
Click here for supporting articles


UPDATES

DECEMBER - 1999, Initial Filing.
More then five years after I registered nissan.com, legal action was instituted by Nissan Motor seeking $10,000,000 in damages, and to restrain me from the use of MY family name for business purposes on the Internet.

APRIL - 2002, First Round of Summary Judgments.
The court ruled on a summary judgment motions as follows:
1. "Cyber-Squatting" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
2. "Infringement on non-auto-related" claim, in Nissan Computer's favor.
3. "Infringement on auto-related" claim, in Nissan Motor's favor.
4. "Dilution" claim was sent to trial.
Nissan Motor's intention to make this case as expensive as possible for me was evident from the beginning. Undoubtedly, the notion that my company and me might be forced into bankruptcy rather than fight for my name, given the great expense, must have been a consideration. As if the financial burden incurred by me and Nissan Computers was not enough, Nissan Motor filed a lawsuit against the Internet Center, Inc., a corporation with three shareholders, in which I am the majority shareholder. The Internet Center, Inc. did not and does not utilize the word "NISSAN" in any way.

SEPTEMBER - 2002, Second Round of Summary Judgment.
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motor filed a second round of Summary Judgment Motions, trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial.
The Court, surprisingly, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments
made by many people on this site and my efforts to bring this issue to
the public, actually tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view this case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to transfer nissan.com to them entirely. The potential loss of a domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" by being solely based on "the law of the jungle", and could affect you or someone you know.

DECEMBER - 2002, Final Injunction.
The district court issued a final Judgment (PDF) allowing Nissan Computer to keep its nissan.com and nissan.net domain names, but restricted our rights to do the following:
1. Posting Commercial content at nissan.com and nissan.net;
2. Posting advertising or permitting advertising to be posted by third parties at
nissan.com and nissan.net;
3. Posting disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd. or Nissan North America, Inc. at nissan.com and nissan.net;
4. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
commercial content, including advertising; and
5. Placing, on nissan.com or nissan.net, links to other websites containing
disparaging remarks or negative commentary regarding Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
or Nissan North America.
After reviewing this and other rulings of the district court, we believed that the only practical option was to appeal. One of the reasons for the appeal is that we and other experts considered the injunction and parts of other rulings to be a clear violation of our "First Amendment Rights" as it is to every American citizen's constitutional rights.

OCTOBER - 2003, Appeal Initial Motion.
Nissan Computer filed its Opening Brief (PDF) to the 9th circuit court of appeals, addressing the district court's rulings on:
A. Trademark Dilution
B. Trademark Infringement
C. Final Injunction
NOTE: It's a long brief, but will allow you to better understand the merits of this case.

JANUARY - 2004, Appeal Reply Motion.
Nissan Motor filed a consolidated brief opposing Nissan Computer's opening brief and a cross appeal on:
A. Trademark Infringement.
B. Final Injunction.
C. Requesting the court to force transfer Nissan.com to them.
Nissan Computer filed a Consolidated Brief (PDF) opposing NMC's cross appeal and replying to their opposition.

AUGUST - 2004, Appeal Ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling reversing the case and remanding it back to the District Court. In a Published Opinion (PDF) the Appellant Court rejected Nissan Motor's cross appeal and reversed the District Court's ruling against Nissan Computer on Dilution and the broad scope of the Final Injunction.
Not to our surprise, Nissan Motor filed a motion for rehearing by the 9th Circuit's panel and a rehearing en banc (a rehearing by all of the Court of Appeals Judges). On September 2004, the 9th Circuit issued a Ruling (PDF) denying Nissan Motor's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

DECEMBER - 2004, Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nissan Motor filed a Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari" to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Appellant Court ruling on the Infringement and First Amendment issues.

APRIL - 2005, U.S. Supreme Court Order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an Order, (PDF) Denying Nissan Motor's Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari", thus the dilution claim, which is the only remaining issue was sent back to the district court.

JANUARY - 2007, Motion to strike Jury Demand.
Nissan Motor's intentions to deprive us of a jury trial was evident from the beginning, they always felt that they have a better chance of prevailing in front of the judge rather than the jury. In the 11th hour, after all their efforts to do so was unsuccessful, they pulled their last ace and dropped their $10,000,000 damage claim in exchange for a "bench trial" rather then a "jury Trial".

MARCH - 2007, Trial.
The four-day bench trial occurred between March 27 and March 30 to determine NMC's claims on:
1. Dilution
2. Permanent Injunction re: Dilution.
3. Permanent Injunction re: Infringement.
We are now waiting for the court's ruling on these matters.

SEPTEMBER - 2007, Ruling.
The court has issued a Ruling (PDF) addressing NMC's alleged claims in our favor:
1. Found that Nissan Computer did not Dilute NMC's mark.
2. Denied NMC's requests for Permanent Injunctions.
We are still waiting for the court to issue a final judgment.

JANUARY - 2008, Motion For Attorneys' Fees.
Nissan Motor has been unrelenting in its lawsuit against us and despite that they lost; they subsequently filed a motion asking the court to award them millions of dollars in attorneys' fees.

FEBRUARY - 2008, Ruling on Attorneys' Fees and Final Judgment.
The court has issued a Ruling (PDF) addressing these remaining issues:
1. Nissan Motor is NOT entitled to attorneys' fees.
2. Nissan Computer is entitled to cost under rule 68.
The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less than 2% of what the cost was to defend this case.

You would think this case is over..... but it really isn't.

Nissan Motor's trademark registration.
Nissan Motor is attempting to obtain a Federal Trademark Registration for computers and computer peripherals among other classes of goods and services. We feel that Nissan Motor, in this action, is staging a future case against us in the computer and peripherals market.
We are left with no other course of action but to oppose this registration.



Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue. Your collective voice is more compelling than the lobbying power of corporate giants and it is a voice that cannot be ignored.
Together we can make a difference and help keep our freedom intact, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Take a Stand and Make a Difference

Click to expand...

When I read this news, I had to say to myself, Ohhh I drive Nissan car. It is not the car it self, it is the way they do things. Greed +

Michael Ehrhardt said:

did you know that even when you own a domain ( TM free ) and someone get a TM later that they can take your domain ?

this is insane

specially : what does a TM have to do with the .com domain ?

look at NIssan.com

Click to expand...

I dont' know the law in DE. In the US there are free speech and fair user exceptions. Maybe you need to reform your laws, not strip people of TM rights.

mr-x said:

I bet you'd feel differently if you owned a TM and somebody else started using it.

Click to expand...

There is zero wrong of trademarking a name; you can trademark the encyclepedia Of America, Library Of Cogress, Wikipedia, Webster and Oxford dictionaries; as you wish; nothing is stoping you. However, some trademark holders refused to accept the "FACT" that the single name that you have trademark is only for your specific business needs. And "NO" you will not be granted to all names and phrases that are look like similars etc. You pay for a single trademark name, then you expect to own the "WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA"?