Posts Tagged ‘federal court’

By Daniel Davidson

In an era where the world is connected through the internet and domain names have sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, there rests a question that calls for the ol’ pros and cons table.  When a large company, or a famous individual, builds the goodwill of their trademark, they, in most cases, will spend a significant amount of money in protecting that goodwill. 

 

Sometimes, someone comes along and feels that they will go ahead and bank off the goodwill, which has already gained notoriety, and register a domain name that is very similar, or uses a significant portion of a trademark owner’s name, and offer similar services thereon.  For example, Coca-Cola Company owns the domain www.coca-cola.com.  In an attempt to trade off the goodwill of Coca-Cola, someone may register the domain name www.cocacolasodas.com, and offer a dark-colored, fizzy drink to the public.

 

In the Coca-Cola’s example, Coca-Cola would have a few options.  I am not saying that there are only two options, but these are two ways that most domain name disputes can be resolved.  One, you can file a lawsuit against the infringer (after weeks of trying to obtain the name and address of the Registrant because they probably use a whois privacy company, and then on top of that, use a P.O. Box), and attempt to obtain a judgment.  Once the judgment is entered, you can forward a copy to the Registrar, who will then cancel the registration of the domain name.

 

Second, you can file a complaint with the ICANN using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.  In this form of domain name resolution, it is much like filing a lawsuit and obtaining a judgment, only you are not filing in a Federal Court.  In some cases, it would be more cost effective using the ICANN UDRP in obtaining a judgment, because like I mentioned, it is sometimes very difficult obtaining the information necessary to track down a Defendant.

 

The process consists of a Complaint filed against the domain name infringer.  The infringe,r or Respondent, will then have to file a Response to the Complaint.  Upon receiving the Response, the parties can file additional statements and documents within five (5) days after the Response was received.  Once all the pertinent information is in, the parties will then decide whether they prefer three panelist, or one, to decide their matter.  Electing to go with one panelist will warrant you a significant reimbursement of the approximately $3,000 (not including attorney’s fees) you pay to file the Complaint.  The elements which need to be alleged in the Complaint are:

 

            a. the manner in which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark;

 

            b. why the infringer/Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and

 

            c. how the infringer/Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith.

 

If the panel finds all the elements in a trademark holder’s favor, a judgment will be entered and will be forwarded to the Registrar of the domain name.  Cheers.

By Daniel Davidson

You may be familiar with the late legend Bob Marley.  You may have even seen a shirt or two that display his familiar face.  Fortunately for the Marley family, you will not be seeing him on any apparel sold by the company Avela.

Avela, a Nevada company, is owned by Leo Valencia, who created toys and shirts that displayed the reggae singer’s likeness.  Unfortunately, it was without the authorization of Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, the companies that Mr. Marley’s heirs run his empire under.  This, as I hope we are all beginning to understand, is not permissible, in most cases, under U.S. Copyright Code.

Avela and Mr. Valencia were stuck with a $300,000 bill for their unauthorized use of the likeness from a U.S. Federal Court and hopefully an injunction will follow that keeps Bob Marley’s off of bobble heads seeing that his children do not want to see their father portrayed in this manner.

Kudos to the Marley family on this victory.  I wouldn’t mind seeing a growing trend of victories for the family since the punch to the stomach they received in a previous copyright case.  You can read about it in an article I wrote here.

If Avela is looking for a substitute face, mine is available for printing on anything.

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

Although this happened a few weeks back, I still get a kick out of this story, and I’ve been hearing more and more about it.  The Naked Cowboy (Robert Burck) has sued The Naked Cowgirl (Sandy Kane) for allegedly infringing on his trademark.  I am not too sure what his trademark is, but I suppose it is a nearly naked person strumming a guitar in the middle of a major metropolitan area and generating revenue by getting television coverage on the likes of The Today Show.  Before you ask, the answer is no.  I don’t get it!  A lot of you ladies out there might get it, but not me.

It sure is cold out here....shrinkage???

The Naked Cowboy earned his fame by walking around New York City in nothing but his cowboy boots, cowboy hat and a pair of draws while strumming his guitar and, in the process, entertaining New Yorkers.  He’s not a bad looking man, and he has a body that is ever so slightly nicer than mine (insert fat joke here) so naturally, he was able to make some money off of his bit.  As the saying goes, if you’ve got it, flaunt it.  I’ll stick to writing these articles.  I’ll leave the naked lawyering to someone else. 

I don't see why they can't co-exist!

I did a quick bit of research and I did not find a registered trademark for “The Naked Cowboy.”  I am truly wondering what the cause of action is here.  Mr. Naked Cowboy is likely asserting common law trademark causes of action, and it attempting to stop someone else from profiting from his unique act.  At this point, it will be up to a court to decide whether or not trademark protection can be afforded for his act.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1604 access attempts in the last 7 days.