I think Uzi, shot himself in the foot at one point.
I am not posting this to defend Nissan and their corporate arrogance on an individual, if you have read anything I post, I am certainly not pro-large corporate anything. But the guy imo, simply looks to have messed up, which probably prolonged his own pain in this legal mess.
I was curious why the author did not mention which Nissan Motors because they have at least two with vested interest. Nissan in Japan or Nissan America. So went to look at the case. It was both as complainants.
UDRP's in today's world cover 4 points, and this case seems to violate number 4:
(iv) by using the domain, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation.
The Jalopnik writer of the article apparently
forgot to mention about the automobile advertising links. I am not sure why this were omitted because it's a decent article. They are material facts if you are going to write such an article.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1105216.html
“Meanwhile, Nissan Computer registered “nissan.net” to offer services as an Internet Service Provider in 1996. In August 1999, it altered the nissan.com website by adding a new logo with the name “nissan.com,” sold space for advertising, and registered with a website for banner advertising. Nissan Computer received a payment for each time a user clicked through to an advertiser's website. The first links (in August and September) were for goto.com, Barnes & Noble, CNet.com, and Netradio.com.
Automobile-related ads appeared in late September. Within several weeks Nissan Computer signed up
cartrackers.com, priceline.com, tunes.com, askjeeves.com, directhit.com, safari.com, lycos.com, asimba.com, ameritech.com, and about.com; by December,
1stopauto.com, hotlinks.com, shabang.com, fastweb.com, remarq.com,
carprices.com and stoneage.com had been added.”
Later on in this typical legal document, difficult to read states:
"Nissan Computer's use of nissan.com to sell non-automobile-related goods does not infringe because Nissan is a last name, a month in the Hebrew and Arabic calendars, a name used by many companies, and “the goods offered by these two companies differ significantly.” Id. at 944.
However, Nissan Computer traded on the goodwill of Nissan Motor by offering links to automobile-related websites. Although Nissan Computer was not directly selling automobiles, it was offering information about automobiles and this capitalized on consumers' initial interest. An internet user interested in purchasing, or gaining information about Nissan automobiles would be likely to enter nissan.com. When the item on that website was computers, the auto-seeking consumer “would realize in one hot second that she was in the wrong place and either guess again or resort to a search engine to locate” Nissan Motor's site. Id. at 946. A consumer might initially be incorrect about the website, but Nissan Computer would not capitalize on the misdirected consumer.
However, once nissan.com offered links to auto-related websites, then the auto-seeking consumer might logically be expected to follow those links to obtain information about automobiles. Nissan Computer financially benefitted because it received money for every click. Although nissan.com itself did not provide the information about automobiles, it provided direct links to such information. Due to the ease of clicking on a link, the required extra click does not rebut the conclusion that Nissan Computer traded on the goodwill of Nissan Motor's mark.
The marks are legally identical; the goods or services are related as to auto-related advertising, but not related as to anything else; and the parties simultaneously use the internet in marketing. The NISSAN mark is an incontestable mark, but it is also used in many channels of commerce, is a last name, and is a month. The degree of care exercised by a purchaser is disputable.
Whereas a consumer purchasing an automobile will exercise great care, a consumer searching for information about automobiles on the internet may exercise little care and will click on all information about automobiles. The intent of Nissan Computer in selecting the mark weighs to some extent in favor of Nissan Computer because Uzi Nissan chose a domain name to correspond with his own name,
but its intent in posting automobile-related links cuts the other way. There is evidence of actual confusion in that consumers have clicked on nissan.com to find out information about Nissan Motor. The likelihood of expansion in product lines can again cut both ways. Nissan Computer is unlikely to enter the automobile sales business, however, it is likely to advertise more auto-related products.
On balance we agree with the district court that Nissan Motor is entitled to summary judgment on trademark infringement as to automobile-related advertisements, and that Nissan Computer is entitled to summary judgment as to non-auto-related advertisements."
————-+