Usernames
May 31, 2003 11:10 AM Subscribe
Threats over Usernames: Could you be sued over your username?
Dear Fox Television;
Respectfully, go figgity-fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
-- Space Coyote
posted by Space Coyote at 11:15 AM on May 31, 2003
Respectfully, go figgity-fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
-- Space Coyote
posted by Space Coyote at 11:15 AM on May 31, 2003
What a coincidence.
I just got letters from the Aryan Youth Network, and Mothers Against Rampant Xenophobia.
posted by Ayn Marx at 11:39 AM on May 31, 2003
I just got letters from the Aryan Youth Network, and Mothers Against Rampant Xenophobia.
posted by Ayn Marx at 11:39 AM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by waldo at 1:47 PM on May 31, 2003
posted by waldo at 1:47 PM on May 31, 2003
Nah, Stalin's dead.
posted by Joeforking at 2:16 PM on May 31, 2003
posted by Joeforking at 2:16 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:24 PM on May 31, 2003
posted by Blue Stone at 3:24 PM on May 31, 2003
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¨.
posted by signal at 3:51 PM on May 31, 2003
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¨.
posted by signal at 3:51 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by kjh at 4:32 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by kjh at 4:32 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by orange swan at 5:28 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by orange swan at 5:28 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by vbfg at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2003
posted by vbfg at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2003
I suppose Satan will be suing me shortly...
After all, he does have the best lawyers.
posted by FormlessOne at 7:16 PM on May 31, 2003
After all, he does have the best lawyers.
posted by FormlessOne at 7:16 PM on May 31, 2003
I got more hipster sperm banks on my ass than Richard Chamberlain in a tuck stop bathroom.
posted by dong_resin at 7:59 PM on May 31, 2003
posted by dong_resin at 7:59 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by Vetinari at 9:31 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by Vetinari at 9:31 PM on May 31, 2003
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.
posted by dgaicun at 1:59 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by dgaicun at 1:59 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by dgaicun at 2:04 AM on June 1, 2003
posted by dgaicun at 2:04 AM on June 1, 2003
Wait till Biomechanical Robotic Individual Trained for Accurate Infiltration and Nullification finds out. I'm dead in the water.
posted by britain at 2:12 AM on June 1, 2003
posted by britain at 2:12 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by dabitch at 3:11 AM on June 1, 2003
vbfg - that's neat, gotta love Viz.
posted by dabitch at 3:11 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by walrus at 4:38 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by walrus at 4:38 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:09 AM on June 1, 2003
I guess I should take the Montreal Expos logo out of my avatar on a couple of sports boards then.. Fair use? Dead.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:09 AM on June 1, 2003
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:35 PM on June 1, 2003
(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.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:35 PM on June 1, 2003
Fair use? Dead.
"Fair use" is a concept that applies to copyrights, not trademarks.
posted by kindall at 4:05 PM on June 1, 2003
"Fair use" is a concept that applies to copyrights, not trademarks.
posted by kindall at 4:05 PM on June 1, 2003
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?
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:11 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:11 AM on June 2, 2003
« Older The Death of Netscape? | They love to see you smile. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
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?
posted by Mack Twain at 11:12 AM on May 31, 2003