Comments on: Usernames

Usernames

Mack Twain — Sat, 31 May 2003 11:10:44 -0800

Could you be sued over your username?

By: Mack Twain

Mack Twain — Sat, 31 May 2003 11:12:22 -0800

Homesteading Today is a 6,000 member forum; A user by the name of Case was using the name/Avatar "Case 580", which prompted a letter to site owner/author Chuck Holton from the Senior Patent Counsel for CNH and Case LLC (a heavy equipment mfg.)...Citing "the improper use and potential dilution of our trademarks" which "might constitute unfair competition and false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), Case LLC wants the improper use and potential dilution of our trademarks by "Case580D" to halt". "Besides trademark infringement, Case580D's actions may constitute false representation and false designations of origin that are likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Case580D with Case LLC". If a company can do this, what's to stop them from sueing a publicly hated individual from wearing a tee shirt bearing their logo?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sat, 31 May 2003 11:15:29 -0800

Dear Fox Television; Respectfully, go figgity-fuck yourselves. Sincerely, -- Space Coyote

By: Ayn Marx

Ayn Marx — Sat, 31 May 2003 11:39:07 -0800

What a coincidence. I just got letters from the Aryan Youth Network, and Mothers Against Rampant Xenophobia.

By: waldo

waldo — Sat, 31 May 2003 13:47:38 -0800

Many years ago, I had a back and forth with The Character Shop over their Wergonomic-gonio-kineti-telemetric input devices (neato electronic puppetry thingies), called a "Waldo," and my name, which they felt infringed on their trademark. It ended quickly and amicably, with me pointing out that they took the term "Waldo" from Heinlein in the first place, and "Waldo" is my name, and I'm not about to stop using it because they trademarked it.

By: Joeforking

Joeforking — Sat, 31 May 2003 14:16:06 -0800

Nah, Stalin's dead.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Sat, 31 May 2003 15:24:18 -0800

In Zimbabwe recently, Coca Cola sponsored the cricket match. People were removed for drinking Pepsi. I think one person was wearing a Pepsi t-shirt; he was removed from the grounds.

By: signal

signal — Sat, 31 May 2003 15:51:42 -0800

Just to take the lawyers´side for a sec, ¨Case580D¨ was using their logo as his icon, which I think is what they were objecting to. The Waldo company I have more of a problem with, as they are taking a name invented by an author and widely used to refer to an existing technology and claiming it as theirs. I have used the term ¨waldo¨ in exactly the same sense they use it many times, and had never even heard of their company before. It´s as if somebody decided to patent ¨robot¨or ¨space station¨.

By: kjh

kjh — Sat, 31 May 2003 16:32:04 -0800

Besides using the Case580D username, this individual is using a Case LLC trademark and logo. The Case trademarks are protected by numerous U.S. trademark laws for which Case LLC possesses proprietary rights. Case580D does not have a license to use these trademarks and therefore the use of these trademarks is contrary to these laws. hey, look at that! it isn't about usernames at all. it's a clear-cut case of trademark infringement. trademark infringement which, i guess it must be pointed out once again, even though it seems like we go through this everry day, must be rigourously defended against. huh. great fpp, mack twain. If a company can do this, what's to stop them from sueing a publicly hated individual from wearing a tee shirt bearing their logo? well, a t-shirt made by a reputable apparel manufacturer is properly licensed. there is no analogy.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Sat, 31 May 2003 17:28:36 -0800

I LOVE the man's reply to Case LLC. It's right up there with the letters written by the guy who tried to get Nike to put the word "sweatshop" on his shoes. I made my username up on the spur of the moment when I joined MetaFilter (and now I use it as my Internet name). Then I found out that there ARE orange swans - really. They won't sue, but I suppose they could attack. Swans can be vicious. Now that would be scary. And surreal.

By: vbfg

vbfg — Sat, 31 May 2003 17:48:33 -0800

I lifted mine from a British comic called Viz, it means Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats. I told them about it and they sent me a framed copy of the one-off (now two-off) comic strip I lifted it from plus some other goodies. Nice people, they just swear a lot.

By: FormlessOne

FormlessOne — Sat, 31 May 2003 19:16:04 -0800

I suppose Satan will be suing me shortly... After all, he does have the best lawyers.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Sat, 31 May 2003 19:59:07 -0800

I got more hipster sperm banks on my ass than Richard Chamberlain in a tuck stop bathroom.

By: Vetinari

Vetinari — Sat, 31 May 2003 21:31:55 -0800

seriously, though, I do think this points out a need to change the trademark law to allow companies with trademarks to ease up a little bit on people who are clearly engaging in non-diluting technical violations (like this guy) without having their lawyers fret about losing the trademarks. The law was written without any regard to "fandom" as a phenomenon. Something along the lines of requiring a potential violation to consist of an actual attempt to use a trademark in commercial activity in the trademark holder's line of business should suffice. Then companies can stop wasting so much money on lawyers to send out needless letters like this one.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:59:05 -0800

Actually kjh, Mack Twain raises a question with more legal significance than you are perhaps granting it. But I'll get to that. First of all though, kjh, is right that the stakes are high, and companies have a unique and special stake in vigorously enforcing their Trademarks: Unlike other forms of intellectual property such as copyrights and patents, trademarks must be actively used and defended. A copyright or patent holder may "sit on" his creation and prevent its use, but a company claiming (even registering) a trademark that fails to make active use of it, or fails to defend it against infringement, may lose the exclusive right to it. Further, if a court rules that a formerly trademarked term has become "generic" through common use (and so the average consumer doesn't realize it is a trademark), it may also be ruled invalid. For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for their products as well. Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 companies have the legal right to an injuction against people like our dear friend Case b/c people will begin to associate the name and logo with that user instead of, or in addition to, the company, thereby publicly "diluting" their crafted Trademarked image. Their image loses its intended, expensively guarded, legally protected particularness. But if this is the case, then how do all those Gadzooks and Hot Topics stores at the mall get away with their ubiquitous ad parody shirts? You know, the ones that inevitably twist every logo under the sun into sex and drugs references? Doesn't that dilute the particularness of the companies image? Frankly, I don't know how they get away with it - but it probably has a hell of a lot to do with that particular law getting "diluted" itself by the Supreme Court in a way that probably makes those threats against Mr. Case pretty toothless: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the FTDA was a devastating blow to the famous-trademark community. Now, so long as trademark thieves use a famous mark in a way that doesn't "confuse" the consumer, they can operate with impunity -- including the use of famous names as part of domain names, in "meta" tags, or on Web pages. By the newly interpreted law, it becomes the companies burden of proof to show that someones usage of their Trademarks is actually damaging their company image instead of just "diluting" it. How would the company prove such a thing? And doesn't this turn a necessary safe-guard into an after-the-fact collection of company losses (of legally unprotected revenue)? 'I dunno' and 'maybe'. But cyber-bunnies can sleep-easy over their username "WonderHead" for now.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:04:38 -0800

I have no idea how "http://www.metafilter.com" got in front of all my hyper-links (which all worked in preview) but it fucking is not cool.

By: britain

britain — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:12:41 -0800

Wait till Biomechanical Robotic Individual Trained for Accurate Infiltration and Nullification finds out. I'm dead in the water.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 03:11:00 -0800

Christophe Dabitch might be a wee bit annoyed that i'm using his name... but then again, I do tell anyone who asks that it is a real family name so maybe not. ;)
vbfg - that's neat, gotta love Viz.

By: walrus

walrus — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 04:38:02 -0800

I have no idea how "http://www.metafilter.com" got in front of all my hyper-links (which all worked in preview) but it fucking is not cool. I'm guessing that you typed <a href="www.yourlink.com"> instead of <a href="http://www.yourlink.com">. Because you omitted the leading "http://", the browser tries to fill in the missing part when it renders it, mistakenly assuming that you must have meant to link to something local. It's an easy mistake to make.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:09:11 -0800

hey, look at that! it isn't about usernames at all. it's a clear-cut case of trademark infringement. trademark infringement which, i guess it must be pointed out once again, even though it seems like we go through this everry day, must be rigourously defended against. I guess I should take the Montreal Expos logo out of my avatar on a couple of sports boards then.. Fair use? Dead.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:35:55 -0800

I'm on Case LLC's side on this one. (A) They must defend their trademark, and in particular their logo. (B) It's just wrong to use their logo without their permission. Their logo is how people recognize them. Using their logo is identity theft, plain and simple. (C) It's not at all difficult to come up with one's own unique name. (D) Copycats are assholes.

By: kindall

kindall — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 16:05:59 -0800

Fair use? Dead. "Fair use" is a concept that applies to copyrights, not trademarks.

By: MrMoonPie

MrMoonPie — Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:11:59 -0800

I've often thought about trying to get mrmoonpie.com, but have always figured I'd get a cease-and-desist letter. I wonder if my user name is safe?