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

 

[techname]

I avoided bidding recently on vril (.com) because I noticed that overstock.com had trademarked it, including the .com part. Not sure how that is possible because they didn't own the .com at the time.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:lkok87.2.1

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Let,s make it simple

If you would have a TM on the word ,,rate,,

than there is a conflict

rate is a german word ( rate mal = guess what )
rate is a english word ( Preis = Price )

that,s absolut different meanings focr the same word

Trademark is nonsense if there are differnet languages

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

New post on TheDomains.com


Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Wins UDRP on a Bunch of Personal Domains
by Michael Berkens
The CEO of Yahoo Marissa Mayer won a UDRP on a bunch of domain names that contained her name: sheryl-sandberg-sucks.com sheryl-sandberg-sucks.me sheryl-sandberg.com sherylsandberg.bio sherylsandberg.biz sherylsandberg.ceo sherylsandberg.co sherylsandberg.foundation sherylsandberg.info sherylsandberg.life sherylsandberg.me sherylsandberg.mobi sherylsandberg.net sherylsandberg.org sherylsandberg.porn sherylsandberg.rip sherylsandberg.rocks sherylsandberg.sexy sherylsandberg.social sherylsandberg.technology sherylsandberg.wtf sherylsandberg.xxx sherylsandberg.xyz sherylsandbergsucks.biz sherylsandbergsucks.co sherylsandbergsucks.com sherylsandbergsucks.info sherylsandbergsucks.me sherylsandbergsucks.net sherylsandbergsucks.org

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

1 DE 919224 von Eicken`s Apple and Grape Marke gelöscht
2 DE 928819 MC LINTOCK BIG APPLE Marke gelöscht
3 DE 929831

Akte vernichtet
4 DE 951141

Marke eingetragen
5 DE 980883 APPLE Marke eingetragen
6 DE 992079

Akte vernichtet
7 DE 1008319 apple love Marke gelöscht
8 DE 1008833 THE APPLE JEANS Akte vernichtet
9 DE 1008834

Akte vernichtet
10 DE 1008835

Akte vernichtet
11 DE 1019031

Marke eingetragen
12 DE 1046574 PIETER APPLE Akte vernichtet
13 DE 1053448 Apple of Eden Akte vernichtet
14 DE 1064422 Mister Apple Akte vernichtet
15 DE 1064423 Abby Apple Akte vernichtet
16 DE 1095774

Akte vernichtet
17 DE 1109299 MILFORD FRÜCHTETRAUM AppleMagic Akte vernichtet
18 DE 1111063

Akte vernichtet
19 DE 1117076 APPLE Marke eingetragen
20 DE 1120966 KELLOGG`S APPLE RAISIN CRISP Akte vernichtet
21 DE 1134155

Akte vernichtet
22 DE 1138771

Marke eingetragen
23 DE 1139923

Akte vernichtet
24 DE 1161296 Big Apple Marke eingetragen
25 DE 1169068 APPLE CINNAMON CHEERIOS Akte vernichtet
26 DE 1182642 APPLE Marke eingetragen
27 DE 1182644 APPLE Marke eingetragen
28 DE 2006355

Akte vernichtet
29 DE 2011917 APPLE Marke eingetragen
30 DE 2018815

Akte vernichtet
31 DE 2022471 APPLE Marke eingetragen
32 DE 2027202 Apple SalesBook Marke eingetragen
33 DE 2045008

Marke gelöscht
34 DE 2045465

Akte vernichtet
35 DE 2052468

Akte vernichtet
36 DE 2083957

Akte vernichtet
37 DE 2085738 APPLE BLOSSOM Akte vernichtet
38 DE 2089514

Akte vernichtet
39 DE 2095209 BIG APPLE Marke gelöscht
40 DE DD645508 APPLE Marke eingetragen
41 DE DD647339 Abby Apple Akte vernichtet
42 DE DD652279 APPLE Marke eingetragen
43 DE 394021819 BIG-APPLE Akte vernichtet
44 DE 394039149

Marke gelöscht
45 DE 395027543

Akte vernichtet

WTF

 

[ZapNano]

Let,s make it simple

If you would have a TM on the word ,,rate,,

than there is a conflict

rate is a german word ( rate mal = guess what )
rate is a english word ( Preis = Price )

that,s absolut different meanings focr the same word

Trademark is nonsense if there are differnet languages

"Rate" is common and it is a dictionary word. Common noun and proper noun, are two different animals.

 

[ZapNano]

Did you check "Yahoo" UDRP. Any words that has Y, yo, ya, ho, yah, ah, hoo, hoy, etc belongs to "Yahoo"

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Rate is a german word for : guess

 

[ZapNano]

Trademark has no solid interpretation; who ever got the money wins. But you might get lucky; you will have brutally honest panel members; one in a million.

 

[ZapNano]

Then there is a group of trademark scam people. All they do are filing trademarks; on the names that they are interesting in.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

every TM can be cancelled

 

[ZapNano]

Trademark generic, common and dictionary words as much as you want; but it shouldn't allow to file UDRP.

 

[ZapNano]

They should be cancelled if it is being abused. And zero refunds plus penalty.

 

[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]

Revolution is on

 

[ZapNano]

...

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

maybe we should start a Revolution on TrumpMarks
™ © ® ™

 

[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.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Nightscaping.com survives UDRP


Respondent tried to buy the domain from the complainant, but ended up buying it from Web.com after it expired.

A company that spent $16,000 to acquire the domain name Nightscaping.com can keep the domain name, a World Intellectual Property Organization panel has ruled.

According to the decision, a company called Nightscaping previously owned and used the domain name, as well has had trademark rights to the name. That business eventually shut down and offered its intellectual property for sale.

At the same time, the respondent in the case had been trying to acquire the Nightscaping.com domain name but was unable to directly purchase it from the complainant. The domain name was registered at Network Solutions (a Web.com company) and eventually expired. New Venture Services Corp (another Web.com subsidiary) took over the domain name registration and sold it to the respondent for $16,000 at the end of 2015.

The complainant argued that it inadvertently let the domain name expire.

The three-person WIPO panel determined that the facts suggest the domain name was not registered in bad faith. However, it said this convoluted case could be better suited for court should there be a dispute about what transpired with the trademark and domain name lapse.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Frank Schilling gets RDNH win


Panel rules that Bernina International is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over Bernette.com domain name.

Frank Schilling has successfully defended his domain name Bernette.com in a UDRP, and the panel has found BERNINA International AG guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by filing the case.

Bernina is a Swiss company that has sold sewing machines under the Bernette brand since 1985. Schilling acquired the domain name in 2007.

Bernette is a common first and last name, and the parking page at Bernette.com has shown ads related to names, babies, and genealogy.

Bernina tried to buy the domain name between 2010 and 2016. Schilling’s brokers asked for between $26,000-$29,000 on multiple occasions in response to the inquiries.

Despite Schilling’s attorney John Berryhill warning Bernina that a UDRP filing would fail, the company still filed the UDRP. The UDRP certainly showed a lack of knowledge by the complainant.

For example, the complainant argued that Schilling obtained the disputed domain name from “apparently dubious Asian sources”. Schilling actually bought the domain name in an expired domain name auction and had no contact with the prior owner.

Bernina also included the brokers’ offers to sell the domain name to Bernina but did not mention that they were in response to its inquiries. Panelists tend to frown on this sort of trickery.

Bernina also argued:

The Respondent owns over 240,000 domain names. The Respondent and the Registrar are affiliated entities. They are “stockpiling” domain names via a network of companies at an offshore location without disclosing the beneficial owner’s identity. Such circumstances indicate bad faith. The Respondent’s only interest is in selling domain names and by operating offshore the Respondent is trying to hide by erecting legal hurdles against trade mark owners.

The panel found that the domain name wasn’t registered or used in bad faith. It found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on four grounds:

1. It didn’t mention its inquiries about buying the domain name, instead implying that they were unsolicited.
2. It didn’t do basic research to determine who owned the domain name, and instead said it was a person hiding behind “offshore” entities. As the panel pointed out, “doing a basic Internet search” would reveal the owner and his business model. Additionally, the business in Cayman is certainly not “offshore” as Schilling lives there and runs a large business there.
3. It’s a classic Plan B case in which the complainant filed a UDRP after failing to acquire the domain name through purchase negotiations.
4. Berryhill warned the complainant why it wouldn’t win a UDRP, but Bernina filed it anyway.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Did you know that there is a TM on the @ ?

Since 23 October 2012, the At-sign is registered as a trade mark by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office—DPMA (registration number 302012038338) for @T.E.L.L.
While company promoters have claimed that it may from now on be illegal for other commercial interests to use the At-sign,[citation needed] this only applies to identical or confusingly similar goods and no court, German or otherwise, has yet ruled on this purported illegality. A cancellation request was filed in 2013.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_sign

 

[HotKey]

Did you know that there is a TM on the @ ?

Since 23 October 2012, the At-sign is registered as a trade mark by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office—DPMA (registration number 302012038338) for @T.E.L.L.
While company promoters have claimed that it may from now on be illegal for other commercial interests to use the At-sign,[citation needed] this only applies to identical or confusingly similar goods and no court, German or otherwise, has yet ruled on this purported illegality. A cancellation request was filed in 2013.

Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_sign

Guess that means every email ever sent that T.E.L.L.'s a story is an infringement on them. They are going to get rich, they can file UDRP against every person on Earth. Yikes!

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

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Guess that means every email ever sent that T.E.L.L.'s a story is an infringement on them. They are going to get rich, they can file UDRP against every person on Earth. Yikes!

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

exactly !
maybe someday we are not able to write an email anymore !!

 

[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.