Comments on: Comments on 3741

Post number 3741

Steven Den Beste — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:49:57 -0800

Somebody call a lawyer! Now this is a blatant case of someone ripping off someone else's trademark in a URL if there ever was one. (Courtesy of Hard OCP)

By: truex

truex — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:11:59 -0800

Looking up the WHOIS information on the site shows that whoever owns it, it sure as heck isn't Sega. It seems that somebody's console preferences went a bit too far.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:10:59 -0800

Haha. Dreamcast is better anyways. At RazerCPL they had a DreamCast and a Ps2 side by side playing Dead or Alive 2. It was smoohter, looked better, and played better on the DreamCast =) Damn straight. And I dislike consoles, I dont own one, nor do i plan on it. As non-bias as yer gonna get

By: Zool

Zool — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:50:14 -0800

Is it possible that the owner of the site gets some kind of reward from Sega to do this?

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:08:15 -0800

Too bad, a domain isn't a trademark, its a domain. If Sony wins on those grounds its simply unjust. Nor is it such an obvious domain name. Sony still has the best one www.playstation.com and www.playstation2.com takes you to the Eurpoean site, which makes little sense. If your people can't register the domain the minute they think of a name for their stupid product that's your problem. And who says you have the right to every damn variation in the name. A PS2 to me is an old computer and www.ps2.com is owned by powerline systems not IBM. Its hardly a call for netizens to get upset because a multinational might or might not want a domain name that some rabid fan put up. This falls in the same category as XXXXXsucks.com sites to me and should be admired because this dude is just asking for legal trouble all for his love of the dreamcast.

By: Brilliantcrank

Brilliantcrank — Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:56:26 -0800

Companies, including Sega, will give retailers tools to help sell their products including full-color ads, logo's, etc. So why shouldn't it be cool for an authorized Sega reseller to use the look and feel to sell more units?

By: baylink

baylink — Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:24:49 -0800

Ok. I'm not the first person to step up to the plate on this issue. I don't believe corporations should be able to sieze domains *merely* because they match their trademarks. Editorial sites should be protected, as should incidental uses (the personal site for Bill Ford should not be subject to seizure by FoMoCo). But, there are circumstances. This guy is explicitly taking commercial advantage of one company's trademark to market it's competitors' products. No, maybe he shouldn't lose the trademark, but I'd fully support Sony in a dilution suit: he shouldn't be able to *use* the trademark for *this purpose*. Who makes the call? A real judge, in a real court.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:48:09 -0800

Magazines can't call themselves by a trademark without permission. Why should domains be able to? It's one thing to be sonypsx2users.com, not to mention sonypsx2sucks.com, and another to be sonypsx2.com. The first would be a typical name for a consumer magazine that gets sanctioned use of the trademark. The second might be protected under parody exceptions (questionable), but in any case is a new variant that was not economically viable in the print world. The third, however, is clearly the actual trademark and should be the property of the trademark holder to do with as they like: as an official site, or allowing some other kind of site. Otherwise, Jay's right: it owuld be dilution. Why is this so hard? Computers are not different from other kinds of media. They only let us have a worldwide audience.