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

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

™ © ® ™

Here is my Story

I bought the domain : dsds.tv @ Sedo.de for around 300.-$

A few weeks later RTL germany took the domain away from me
RTL germany has a TV show called : dsds ( Deutschland Sucht den Superstar )

WTF

A trademark, trade mark', or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although trademarks used to identify services are usually called service marks.
The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity, trademarks are often displayed on company buildings.

What is a trademark and what does it protect?

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention.



What does it mean to have a TM ?
Why does a TM include any domain ?

let,s start on the TM : Apple

there are more than 400 TM for the term : Apple ( and these are not only Apple computer )
Should every supermarket now be sued for selling Apples ?

How is it even possible to TM the term Apple ?

what about NOKIA ?

there is a Car named : KIA
there is a company named NOKIA

this is insane

i was so happy when i heard that Rick Schwartz lost his case on DomainKing.biz

first : nobody has the right to be a King
second : that he even got the TM on DomainKing was wrong
third : nobody need,s a King

Did you know that you can delete a TM ?
Did you know that there are so many categries to get a TM ?

for Example : you even can get a TM Facebook for perfume or soap

to the point

What do you think about TM ?

i don,t like any kind of TM and i will fight them !

So , let,s start a Revolution

First come first serve

 

[jberryhill]

Does this mean I have to stop using @ for my favicon on one of my mini-sites?

No, it does not mean that at all.

Domainers tend to believe that trademarks amount to some sort of monopoly for all uses of the protected mark, and this basic misunderstanding inspires the type of feverish and bizarre commentary exemplified by Mr. Ehrhardt's postings.

One of the oldest trademarks in continuous use is the red triangle that you see on bottles of Bass Ale:

They've been using that red triangle since the late 1700's, and it is pretty well established that a bottle of ale with a red triangle on it comes from them.

Does that mean you can't use red triangles for other things? No. Only in the fevered imaginations of certain ill-informed and prolific domain blog posters does it mean that.

Look, "TIDE" is a common word which refers to the movement of large bodies of water under gravitational influences. Anyone can use the word "tide" to refer to things having to do with its primary meaning.

"TIDE" is also one of the leading global brands of Procter & Gamble for laundry detergent.

Can you use it in a domain name? Well, that simply depends on what the domain name is doing. If the domain name is something like TideDetergent.tld, then it should be pretty obvious that the intended subject matter of the domain name is about trading on P&G's trademark for detergent. If the domain name is something like HighTideClocks.tld, then it is likewise pretty clear that the domain name has more to do with the seashore phenomena than the laundry detergent.

Does P&G have a right to protect their "TIDE" mark for detergent? Sure they do.

If you take a look at the Bernette.com case referenced above, we never disputed that, yes, that company has a trademark right in "Bernette" for sewing machines. The issue was that the domain name wasn't being used for anything having to do with sewing machines, but is being used and offered for sale on the basis of its value as a personal name.

This reasoning doesn't apply to marks which are so famous, well-known and distinctive that there is no conceivable good faith use for the domain name. Something like Coca-Cola-<anything>.tld is clearly valuable only because of the presence of perhaps the most well-known mark on the planet.

But as long as domainers look at trademarks as a binary proposition: i.e. there either is or is not a "trademark", then they are going to continue to misunderstand how trademarks work, and engage in pointless uninformed rants on the subject in general.

 

[HKIBC]

in germany you have to pay the lawyer even to take the case and they are expensive
and the case was decided by german panelist

Disputing a UDRP does not require the services of a lawyer. You have many rights, including protesting selected panelists. Not responding to a UDRP claim usually ends in the domain being awarded to the claimant, whether deserved or not! Starting a revolution, it's a good idea to be knowledgeable on the subject matter in hand

 

[Dun]

 

[N-A]

Moreover, the Respondent has stated nothing of substance.

Source: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DTV2014-0005

Seems like you tried to challenge a UDRP the same way you post on NamePros.

 

[mr-x]

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

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

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

 

[ZapNano]

Because some people abuse TM. this is including big co.
This what i was talking about: big co. TM one name but used it in multi operation.
Example: it used to be just basic Apple monitor: now it expanded it to all kinds of products and using One popular trademark name. And this goes to Google also. Google main operation was search engine, now expanding it to car, drone etc...

 

[ZapNano]

DSDS looks like acronym to me. There was a report from OnlineDomain about a company from UK or Germany etc.. filing all kinds of bugus TM.

 

[ZapNano]

Paris, is a common name. can be a name of bird, dog cat man rat .raccoon .. This co. got a going on....

 

[ZapNano]

Check out Nissan TM dispute results.

 

[HKIBC]

Here is my Story

I bought the domain : dsds.tv @ Sedo.de for around 300.-$

A few weeks later RTL germany took the domain away from me
RTL germany has a TV show called : dsds ( Deutschland Sucht den Superstar )

WTF

Interesting. First, the key question: did you bother to respond to their UDRP claim?

Second: starting a revolutuon, you might want to learn what the different signs - ™ © ® - stand for. Or not. Just a thought

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

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

 

[Kenny]

Who owns the Question Mark ?

I think these guys do.

? and The MYSTERIANS

The first riff I learned on keyboards.

Peace,
Cy

 

[HotKey]

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

In a way, domain name trademarks are deeply flawed. They protect one's brand of expression, while denying someone else's freedom of expression.

But to help mitigate mass confusion in the online business realm, domain trademark protection is essential, I believe. If you didn't have the right to protect your brand, your business would be in constant danger of being misrepresented. A domain name has a huge potential to mislead people away from what they are truly looking for.

It's a question of whether it is a generic term or not, what it is you plan to do with it content-wise. If your plan is to try and hold someone over the barrel for money for it, there are laws in place to stop that from happening. I don't want a revolution against that.

But at the same time, there needs a massive tightening on what constitutes brand or product infringement, before an infringement can even get filed in the first place. Because it seems lately, just about everything except the air we breathe is a trademark violation. And how long before that gets a mark, too. Oh wait, I bet Nike already has that covered.

 

[ZapNano]

Like for example: the word "enterprise" are being used by many people and have been trademarked by many people. However, a company has only interest your name; this shouldn't be allow for UDRP.

 

[HotKey]

You say you want a revolution?

Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right, all right, all right

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

German company beats Rubik’s Cube trademark
Rubik president:
"We are baffled that the court finds functionality" in the cube.

Iconic puzzle game Rubik's Cube lost a major trademark battle earlier today, when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a trademark on the shape of Rubik's Cube is invalid.

The court held that there was too much functionality in the shape of the puzzle game, "such as its rotating capability."

The puzzle was invented in 1974 by Hungarian Ernő Rubik, who originally named it the Magic Cube. It was renamed Rubik's Cube in 1980 and exported to the west. More than 350 million cubes have been sold since.

Rubik's Cube received a three-dimensional trademark on its shape in 1999, but that was challenged in 2006, when German company Simba Toys took the case to court. Simba argued that the design, with its nine miniature moving cubes, should be protected with a patent rather than a trademark. It lost in lower court, but the company now has won big with the ECJ ruling.

Having lost to a competing toy company, it seems logical that the market will soon have lower-priced imitations available. However, the president of Rubik's Brand in the UK told The Guardian that while they're disappointed, they have other trademarks and copyright "to ensure [the] exclusivity" of the cube.

"[T]his judgment sets a damaging precedent for companies wishing to innovate and create strong brands and distinctive marks within the EU, and is not what European lawmakers intended when they legislated for 3D trademarks," he added. "We are baffled that the court finds functionality or a technical solution implicit in the trademark."

"In our opinion the Magic Cube involves a technical solution consisting of its rotating capacity," Simba spokeswoman Isabel Weishar told the Financial Times. "Therefore, it may be protected only by a patent and not as a trademark. Now, 10 years after starting this lawsuit, the court decided in our favor."

3D trademarks are allowed under European law, but they don't always hold up when challenged. Most famously, Nestle failed to get a 3D trademark on the shape of its Kit Kat bars in the UK after a court decision last year.

 

[art.work]

The entire culture of protecting bogus trademarks needs to be dealt a blow. Domains are unique. Unique phenomena being portrayed as some form of copy, is devoid of reason. Whining about tortious action, I get it, but whining about the existence of a unique phenomena and pretending it's a copy is unethical. In the example above, there seens to be no tortious act, or any act. Auto revert of ownership is a dangerous policy.

 

[Dave_Z]

TM,s are Nonsense

NOKIA includs KIA ???

what does all these TM,s have to do with Domains ? especially .com domains ??

REVOLUTION

Probably because you still misunderstand.

If Kia Motors wants Nokia just because of its last three letters, then the former should demonstrate rights for the latter. Importantly, the South Korean automaker must prove consumers will associate the term with its source---which is the point of trademarks---being the company rather than the phone manufacturer.

A trademark doesn't bestow monopoly for any and all uses of it, albeit that doesn't stop some mark holders from insisting otherwise (as someone named Leo Stoller tried years ago if you wanna check).

Note that a trademark can consist of a word or phrase. A domain name can contain a word or phrase, right? Depending on the context of the domain name, especially how one uses it, it might (not) exploit someone's mark---especially if that's the person's intent.

So if you register something like policeshadesDOtwhatever to exploit the sunglass maker's mark via selling eye shades, then you risk their ire. Likewise, the company should prove it has rights to your domain name if it wants the name instead of maybe buying it from you.

I voted no, by the way, because a revolution isn't necessary when one can know more how trademarks work.

Nobody's born knowing these things as Dr. Berryhill once said. Knowing and understanding this one takes time and patience, but that's if one is willing to understand rather than engage in "pointless uninformed rants".

But, whatever works for whoever.

 

[Dave_Z]

I understand what a TM means and does. Meanwhile, you see TM differently for whatever reason (though your fight with the German government seems a hint).

Some people and especially Dr. Berryhill offered a real-world take on TMs, so how you treat this issue is up to you.

 

[MANNYKURSH]

i m afraid to loose some of my domains too

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Trademarks
What is a trademark?
A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights.

Who decide what is a TM and what not ???

People only want your money
they don,t care

 

[ZapNano]

Trademarks
What is a trademark?
A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights.

Who decide what is a TM and what not ???

People only want your money
they don,t care