.tv Dubs.tv

[yoyosean]

what do you guys think, just picked this up today, for you old timers out there, dubs is a common slang word used to represent wheels or rims that are larger than 20". If interested pm me.

thanks.

 

[TLDnetworks]

i do believe legally that dubs are wheels and not a brandable or tm name for wheels.

HOW DO YOU THINK IT BECAME A SLANG TERM? Dub Publishing, Inc. BRANDED and trademarked the term that has now become in your words SLANG. Same as the slang term IPOD witch is slang for a digital music player, same as MP3 is slang for a digital recording, XEROX is slang for a copy/ier, Qtip is slang for Cotton Swab... You're suggesting that these are not valid trademarks? Are you really that ignorant?

if i had antera and i was selling wheels or cragar or something like that it would be completely different

IT'S NO DIFFERENT! Antera and Cragar are both trademarks relating to wheels. Same as American Racing is trademarked for Wheels, and Helo is a trademarked name for WHEELS, etc... Linda Rodman holds the live valid trademark for "DUBS" as it relates to Wheels, and Dub Publishing holds the valid live trademark for "DUBS" as it relates to "Entertainment services in the nature of ongoing television programs in the fields of automobiles, automobile-related issues, automotive lifestyles, news, comedy, variety and action" as well as "DUBS TV" as it realtes to the same.

one of my good friends is a tm attorney at a major law firm and i asked him about it and he asked his colleagues.

I'm glad they do not represent my legal interests...

should i get sued i will defend in arbitration vigourously and i do believe i will win.

LOL, First you won't get sued, you'll get a C&D letter and asked to turn over the domain. Second, you'll get called into a UDRP hearing if you don't where you will be ordered to turn over the domain. Third, they could file a lawsuit - not arbitration which does not apply to this type of legal action -to recoup their costs incurred in dealing with you. That is if you still had enough time and money left.

Go to school, do your research, listen and learn.

 

[yoyosean]

ok studly! how is tupac.tv doing for you i suppose you have no risk with that one, eh?

 

[TLDnetworks]

ok studly! how is tupac.tv doing for you i suppose you have no risk with that one, eh?

Total risk. The very first .TV I regged because of the high ovt and search results scores. While the word 'Tupac" is not an actual trademark, there is jeopardy in relation the the actual trademark "Tupac Shakur". Would I reg it again? Not a chance, but I did learn...

 

[antonis12]

ok studly! how is tupac.tv doing for you i suppose you have no risk with that one, eh?

yoyosean, take it easy.

nobody is attacking you, nor are they saying that you cannot use dubs.tv.

they are just trying to be helpful.

while I think everyone agrees that names should not be taken away on generic terms (like Dubs definitely is), the reality is that it has happened in the past.

At a minimum, you should:

1) not offer to sell the name to any of the trademark holders and be very suspicious of offers to buy, unless you know who it is (trademark holders sometimes try to trap you into offering to sell, by offering to buy)

2) not have parked ads, that might accidently infringe someones trademark

3) better to put up a placeholder page and have a plan for development

cheers

 

[yoyosean]

Go to school, do your research, listen and learn.

That is not an attack nor a derogatory statement? I think it is. I am sure Westblock has had much success in domaining, however derogatory statements such as that are unnecessary.

He has no idea who I am, has no idea of my background, yet throws comments out like that as if he is superior. Dont appreciate arrogance!

 

[TLDnetworks]

antonis12, with all due respect, it is not a generic term. It is a "Branded" term that IS trade marked for a specific purpose that yoyosean cannot grasp. This is the same for any trade marked term - Generic or Made Up.

First you have to understand that a trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. They are category specific for an intended use in commerce, current use of the mark in commerce, or intended use in commerce in the future.

For instance the purely generic word "Apple" has many trademarks. i.e. Apple Computers, Inc. holds a number of trademarks for this word mark in multilpe categories of use in commerce; many you already know. However, TANGSHAN YANNAN SHOVEL-MAKING CO., LTD. also hold a trademark for Apple used in commerce for G & S: Pickhammers; pickaxes; hand tools, namely, rakes, shovels, picks, hoes; agricultural implements, namely, ploughs; forks; sickles. Two completely different uses, thus no infringement. However, you may or may not know of the continuing lawsuit by Apple Corps Limited with Apple Computers, Inc. because Apple Corps Limited is the original trade mark holder under the category G & S: Musical sound records; sound records featuring entertainment; sound records featuring music, musicians, documentaries, biographies, interviews, performances, reviews, drama and fiction; musical video records; video records featuring entertainment; video records featuring music, musicians, caricatures, cartoons, animation, documentaries, biographies, interviews, performances, reviews, drama and fiction; cinematographic films; musical sound recordings; musical video recordings; audio and visual recordings featuring or relating to music, entertainment and films; pre-recorded compact discs, audio tapes, gramophone records, video tapes, video discs, DVDs, CD-ROMs and interactive compact discs, all featuring or relating to music and films; digitally recorded sound and video records; downloadable musical sound and video records; downloadable sound and video records featuring or relating to music, entertainment and films.. As you can see, there is a potential infringement by Apple Computer, Inc. - Yet to be settled after Millions of dollars...

As for Made-Up/Slang/Brandedd terms; Three-Peat, Gadzooks, Yahoo, Google, Dubs, etc... The same laws apply. Three-Peat was made up and trademarked by Pat Riley while going for his third straight NBA title. His company vigorously defends that trademark, and has been upheld on numerous occassions - recently when some students at USC started selling shirts for the football games "Three-Pete" as in Pete Carroll. Why, because the term was "confusingly Similar". There are millions of trademarks and you can find an example of almost anything by doing a quick search at the USPTO website.

yoyosean, There is no personal attack, nor arrogance in my statements. The posts have been to inform and educate. If you go back to my original post I even suggested that you may have a built in advertising souce. First off, the domain has been available for seven years, if Dub Publishing wanted it they would have regged it long ago. If Linda Rodman wanted she would have registered it long ago. In the alternative, they MAY defend their trademark if you use the domain in a manner that they feel is infringing or detracting to their properties. These are only TWO of many trademark holders that have 183 trademarks relating to Dub, Dubs, or Dubz under many different uses.

When you say

someone cannot trademark a commonly referred to term and use it as their own

you are completely and totally WRONG. When you say

when there are an over abundance of tm's on one term i do not feel like there is any issues.

you are in even MORE jeopardy of infringement because there are that many more categories of use.

Go to school

If you are going to be an expert - go to school and be an expert.

do your research

You've done no research regarding the term dubs, or regarding trademarks and how they are prepared, used, or defended.

listen and learn

You're not listening and continue to put illogical arguments on the table. All I've laid out for you is factual information relating to trademarks, how they are used, and how it MAY affect your registering and use of the domain.
Not an attack and nothing derogatory.

So, to your oringal question; What do I think of your new domain - I think you registered a Trademark infringement that may or maynot result in you losing it to one of many trademark holders.

 

[ATL.tv]

great insight lance, rep added.

 

[yoyosean]

apple

lets go back to the root of the argument. can i trademark the word tires and sue everybody that uses the word tires when selling tires? if the answer is no then I have won my case. Dubs is a commonly used term to represent wheels, Linda Rodman did not create the terminology and if fought in court she would lose the battle trying to capitalize on the term dubs.

One cannot TM a commnly used term to make it their own. End of story now if i were to sell wheels entitled DUBS that is where I would lose.

Your argument would state that any new slang term that is commonly used as a term for a particular product can immediately be trademarked and then used against individuals utilizing that "common" term is wrong.

Going back to the case that I should then go out and tm the word tires and use it against anybody who sell tires. I believe that I am right and if you want to argue your case go ahead, the lawyers at Fish & Richardson www.fr.com agree with me. once again i am done. Perhaps you should read, listen, go to school and learn.

Are you a tm attorney or do you just claim to have all the answers?

in your argument than i guess del monte who sells "apple" sauce is in jeopardy because there are multiple tms for the word apple.

dude you are wrong I am sorry but you are wrong.

illogical how do you state that my answers are illogical because they dont coincide with your philosophy? that is why there are courts and lawyers because of disagreements you cannot disagree that my points are absolutely valid as i do not disagree that you have valid points however you are wrong.

done no research, once again, here you are an individual who knows nothing about me whatsoever passing judment on what research I have or have not done?

Well genius, if I ask a friend who is a tm attorney at one of the nations largest law firms and he tells me i am good, i dont need to listen to someone who has not "gone to school", practiced TM law to tell me that I am wrong I will side with the TM attorney sorry guru.

 

[HBK216]

West:

I thank you for trying to educate this man with "FACTS"! However I wouldn't waste my time as he is hell bent on proving you wrong although he can't.

Yoyo:

Get a clue, if you were to ever go to court or a hearing over this name with someone who has it trademarked, you are losing without question. Stop being so damn argumentative about it & take West's advice. Either develop the site into something not relating to any category already TM'd or hope for the best.

 

[yoyosean]

wow all of these tm attorneys in one place tell you experts what i will give you the name and number of my buddy who is a TM Attorney! and you can take it up with him.

 

[TLDnetworks]

West:

I thank you for trying to educate this man with "FACTS"! However I wouldn't waste my time as he is hell bent on proving you wrong although he can't.

Yoyo:

Get a clue, if you were to ever go to court or a hearing over this name with someone who has it trademarked, you are losing without question. Stop being so damn argumentative about it & take West's advice. Either develop the site into something not relating to any category already TM'd or hope for the best.

Thanks aaamaretto & HBK. I wonder why I even try sometimes...

yoyosean, I don't really care what you do with it. You came to the board and asked about the name. You've missed the whole concept of what trademarks are, and you've shown your ignorance once again. There is no need or room here for the hostility you have, for whatever reason you have it. Best of luck, you'll need it.

 

[yoyosean]

As for Made-Up/Slang/Brandedd terms; Three-Peat, Gadzooks, Yahoo, Google, Dubs, etc... The same laws apply. Three-Peat was made up and trademarked by Pat Riley while going for his third straight NBA title.

Your argumanet including yahoo and google holds no water, Google was created and TM'd by the co. before it became a common word as in Google it.

Dubs was a common slang term well before Mrs. Rodman decided to TM it and exploit its TM so once again, I am able to use the term DUBS to sell wheels however if I were to make and sell wheels that were TM'd Dubs I would be infringement but in no other case.

 

[HBK216]

As for Made-Up/Slang/Brandedd terms; Three-Peat, Gadzooks, Yahoo, Google, Dubs, etc... The same laws apply. Three-Peat was made up and trademarked by Pat Riley while going for his third straight NBA title.

Your argumanet including yahoo and google holds no water, Google was created and TM'd by the co. before it became a common word as in Google it.

Dubs was a common slang term well before Mrs. Rodman decided to TM it and exploit its TM so once again, I am able to use the term DUBS to sell wheels however if I were to make and sell wheels that were TM'd Dubs I would be infringement but in no other case.

Are you seriously that idiotic? If you sold wheels on that site, she could easily defeat you in your case. I doubt you could afford to fight her as it would cost you a ton to defend something you can't defend.

If you sold wheels, it would easily show you had a strong intent to infringe on their trademark.

Just use common sense with the name, it would save you trouble in the long run. If 183 different trademarks are on the term, good luck finding a way to develop without running into an issue.

The only chance you have is if they don't care about the name & let you do as you please. If they ever changed their mind at some point, you're shit out of luck. This is a fact whether you & your "friend" likes it or not.

A lawyer's word is not the end all of everything considering how many idiotic attorneys exist.

 

[TLDnetworks]

http://www.dubmagazine.com/

Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels v. U.S.A. Tire & Wheel Outlet, Inc., Case No. 05-00906 (filed May 5, 2005)

Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels designs and distributes custom wheels for automobiles and is the licensee of the trademarks DUB and DUBS for vehicle wheels. It alleged that USA Tire & Wheel infringed upon these marks by using the mark DUB WHEELS without permission. On June 28, 2005, the parties stipulated to a judgment. USA Tire & Wheel acknowledged that its actions were infringing and agreed not to use the word “DUB” as a trademark or for any other purpose without Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels' permission.
http://www.downeybrand.com/publications/updates/051012_IPupdate.php

A Bull (or wheel) by any other name
Companies that believe their trademarked product information has been wrongly co-opted by competitors aren't afraid to call their lawyers these days to do something about it.

Take a pair of alleged trademark infringement cases with local ties, filed over the past two weeks in federal court in Sacramento.

One was brought by the lawyers of Red Bull, the well-known energy drink, and another aired a dispute over use of a trademark for DUB wheels.

Austria-based Red Bull filed a May 6 complaint accusing Red Rave Inc. of Carson City, Nev., with 10 counts of various illegalities, including federal and state trademark and copyright infringement and unfair competition. It asks the court to order Red Rave to stop distributing its product, alleging that the makers of Red Rave are trying to are trying to trick folks into buying that drink instead of Red Bull.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/05/23/newscolumn1.html

You're right, Dub can't be trademarked...But then again, I'm sure you have better resources than USA Tire & Wheel. I give up

 

[HBK216]

Thank you for posting more facts. Hopefully it will wake Sean up to the truth about the name. We are not wanting anyone to deal with legal issues.

 

[yoyosean]

i did not say it cannot be trademarked, what i said when the TM is the product i.e. dubs for the commonly used word dubs meaning wheels, you cannot keep others from using that common term to sell products. in your case dubs wheels would be able to sue dub the magazine from talking about wheels advertising wheels and selling wheels, which is not the case.

However if someone i.e. me, were to make a product entitled dubs wheels and try to sell it into the marketplace than we have TM infringment. However if I am using the term dubs as an informational piece to discuss its commonly used term for products i.e wheels than I am not infringing upon Dubs Wheels.

In no way shape or form am I stating that I can sell "Dubs" Wheels, however I can utilize the term Dubs referring to wheels as it is commonly referred to as.

If they come after me, they come after me but I do believe that I am right as does a few TM attorneys with whom I have talked to. That is all, it is an interesting debate however. I will start to worry if and when they win a judgment against dubs.com which i do not believe they will win, nor do I think they will bring suit, due to the scenarios I have stated.

it is amazing that you guys state that a TM attorney is an idiot and your word is law, Is there even an inkling that maybe my buddy knows what he is talking about in TM law as that is his profession?

Or are you guys so wise as to what is going on that his knowledge means nothing?

Let me ask you this why have they not gone after www.dubs.com ?

Could it be perhaps that A. They have not decided to or also B. That my buddy (TM Attorney is correct) Couldnt it possibly be both? Or know, you guys know the TM laws so well that there is no way possible that my argument is valid?

Come on now you got to look at all sides of an argument before you can defend it properly, take the blinders off and Go to school, Study, Listen and Learn : )

Whether or not you are right or I am right this has been fun discussing anyhow!! : )

You seem to be well respected westblock you have a lot of defenders. Dont let them know you own Tupac.TV they might attack you : )

 

[TLDnetworks]

i did not say it cannot be trademarked, what i said when the TM is the product i.e. dubs for the commonly used word dubs meaning wheels, you cannot keep others from using that common term to sell products. in your case dubs wheels would be able to sue dub the magazine from talking about wheels advertising wheels and selling wheels, which is not the case.

My argument is quite the opposite. They have TM in two distinctly differnet G&S uses. Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels is the licensee of the trademarks DUB and DUBS for vehicle wheels (maybe from Ms. Rodman?). On the other hand Dub Publishing Inc. holds the TM under the G&S G & S: Entertainment services in the nature of ongoing television programs in the fields of automobiles, automobile-related issues, automotive lifestyles, news, comedy, variety and action. That is why they do not infringe on each other. In the Lawsuit by Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels they are dending their BRAND of wheels against another manufacturer using the same term. Dub Publishings lawsuit relates to another entity using their BRAND under their appropriate G&S usage.

However if someone i.e. me, were to make a product entitled dubs wheels and try to sell it into the marketplace than we have TM infringment. However if I am using the term dubs as an informational piece to discuss its commonly used term for products i.e wheels than I am not infringing upon Dubs Wheels.

Correct, in that instance you COULD BE infringing on Dub Publishing's TM, especially since they own the TM DUB TV and you are using the TV extnesion.

I will start to worry if and when they win a judgment against dubs.com which i do not believe they will win, nor do I think they will bring suit, due to the scenarios I have stated.

Has nothing to do with the scenerios you've stated. It comes down to their desire to pursue a C&D as it relates to the harm generated to their respective brands/sales/etc. If they do not feel it affects their brand/sales/etc, they have no reason to take action. Some companies are more agressive than others. Monster Cable is one of the most agressive companies I've heard of in protecting their Monster Brand. Some companies feel more exposure the better, maybe these companies are in that corner.

it is amazing that you guys state that a TM attorney is an idiot and your word is law, Is there even an inkling that maybe my buddy knows what he is talking about in TM law as that is his profession?

I never said he was an idiot. I said I'm glad he does not represent my interests.

You seem to be well respected westblock you have a lot of defenders. Dont let them know you own Tupac.TV they might attack you : )

It is well known that I regged Tupac (Not a Trademark), but that I would not do so again if I had the opportunity. It's also well know that I have acknowledged the potential TM by the owners of the TM "Tupac Shakur". I have never asked fellow members their opinion of the name, or argued over the usage etc...

 

[MillersCrossing]

My argument is quite the opposite. They have TM in two distinctly differnet G&S uses. Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels is the licensee of the trademarks DUB and DUBS for vehicle wheels (maybe from Ms. Rodman?). On the other hand Dub Publishing Inc. holds the TM under the G&S G & S: Entertainment services in the nature of ongoing television programs in the fields of automobiles, automobile-related issues, automotive lifestyles, news, comedy, variety and action. That is why they do not infringe on each other. In the Lawsuit by Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels they are dending their BRAND of wheels against another manufacturer using the same term. Dub Publishings lawsuit relates to another entity using their BRAND under their appropriate G&S usage.


Correct, in that instance you COULD BE infringing on Dub Publishing's TM, especially since they own the TM DUB TV and you are using the TV extnesion.

Has nothing to do with the scenerios you've stated. It comes down to their desire to pursue a C&D as it relates to the harm generated to their respective brands/sales/etc. If they do not feel it affects their brand/sales/etc, they have no reason to take action. Some companies are more agressive than others. Monster Cable is one of the most agressive companies I've heard of in protecting their Monster Brand. Some companies feel more exposure the better, maybe these companies are in that corner.

I never said he was an idiot. I said I'm glad he does not represent my interests.

It is well known that I regged Tupac (Not a Trademark), but that I would not do so again if I had the opportunity. It's also well know that I have acknowledged the potential TM by the owners of the TM "Tupac Shakur". I have never asked fellow members their opinion of the name, or argued over the usage etc...

I think I am dying all over again!!

 

[yoyosean]

it has been fun but i am done, glad i could create such controversy