9 ms·

That seems like more a trademark issue than the issue itself. I think they have to sue you to defend a trademark, and their lawyers are just overly conservative

That seems like more a trademark issue than the issue itself. I think they have to sue you to defend a trademark, and their lawyers are just overly conservative. So I don't really blame them for this, though they probably won't take it all the way to court and fight hard. The company that sent the notice looks like they have some shell scripts running in cron that send out scary notices whenever they see a domain that matches a regex for a client that pays them money: https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/products/machine-readable-threat-intelligence/new-domain-data-feed/ https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/products/machine-readable-...

neilsimp1 9y ago
It could also be interpreted as trying to censor the website and using the trademark issue as a justification. I'm not saying they are doing that, but it would be an easy way to justify a lawsuit without looking too sinister.
gkimfl 9y ago
Techdirt also has this story: https://tdrt.io/gej https://tdrt.io/gej Re: "have to sue you defend a trademark" The bully will simply state the oft-repeated excuse that they must bully according to trademark law, which isn't remotely the case. https://tdrt.io/g8w https://tdrt.io/g8w It's the same excuse we see time and time again and it's almost always false. https://tdrt.io/fZ5 https://tdrt.io/fZ5
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  Your 2nd Techdirt article only provides evidence for my point: The brewery paid some firm to run a regex and file automated lawsuits, but didn't actually care about suing them at all. Comcast could be in exactly the same position. Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter: The topic isn't reforming trademark law, people are trying to hint that Comcast are specifically targeting this one domain to shut down the bad PR.
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    Do you think baseless legal threats are okay, as long as they're automated?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - MichaelBurge 9y ago
      No.
mikeash 9y ago
You only have to sue to defend a trademark when there's an actual violation. Their lawyers being too conservative and trying to defend their trademark even when there isn't a violation isn't a justification, and you absolutely should blame them for this.
- yebyen 9y ago
  I think you also don't strictly have to sue even if there is an actual violation; you can approve individuals to use a mark without totally abdicating your rights, giving stipulations. That would be creating a licensed use (and then there is no longer a violation.) You do sometimes need to formally assert your ownership of the Trademark in order to maintain your legal protections, but you do not have to open with "Cease and Desist" in 100% of cases where a mark may be confusing in order to retain protections. I can't think of a specific case where this happened right now, but I have definitely heard of this happening. Maybe someone here knows of such a case. I think it was a company that produces video games. (A competent IP lawyer would probably advise you against diluting a brand in this way in most cases without having a very good reason for allowing the use. The case I am thinking of was something along the lines of "going after these people with a legal threat right out of the gate is likely to result in severe bad PR for us because they are likely to be seen by our customers as performing a valuable service." So let's ask them nicely to change the name, or offer them a license for a nominal fee of $1 to use the mark instead; bring them into legal compliance, maintain our protected position, reap positive PR and save on lawyer bills.) In the case of this thread I definitely agree that the lawyer is totally out of bounds.

neilsimp1 9y ago

It could also be interpreted as trying to censor the website and using the trademark issue as a justification. I'm not saying they are doing that, but it would be an easy way to justify a lawsuit without looking too sinister.

gkimfl 9y ago

Techdirt also has this story: https://tdrt.io/gej https://tdrt.io/gej Re: "have to sue you defend a trademark" The bully will simply state the oft-repeated excuse that they must bully according to trademark law, which isn't remotely the case. https://tdrt.io/g8w https://tdrt.io/g8w It's the same excuse we see time and time again and it's almost always false. https://tdrt.io/fZ5 https://tdrt.io/fZ5

MichaelBurge 9y ago
Your 2nd Techdirt article only provides evidence for my point: The brewery paid some firm to run a regex and file automated lawsuits, but didn't actually care about suing them at all. Comcast could be in exactly the same position. Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter: The topic isn't reforming trademark law, people are trying to hint that Comcast are specifically targeting this one domain to shut down the bad PR.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  Do you think baseless legal threats are okay, as long as they're automated?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - MichaelBurge 9y ago
    No.

mikeash 9y ago

You only have to sue to defend a trademark when there's an actual violation. Their lawyers being too conservative and trying to defend their trademark even when there isn't a violation isn't a justification, and you absolutely should blame them for this.

yebyen 9y ago
I think you also don't strictly have to sue even if there is an actual violation; you can approve individuals to use a mark without totally abdicating your rights, giving stipulations. That would be creating a licensed use (and then there is no longer a violation.) You do sometimes need to formally assert your ownership of the Trademark in order to maintain your legal protections, but you do not have to open with "Cease and Desist" in 100% of cases where a mark may be confusing in order to retain protections. I can't think of a specific case where this happened right now, but I have definitely heard of this happening. Maybe someone here knows of such a case. I think it was a company that produces video games. (A competent IP lawyer would probably advise you against diluting a brand in this way in most cases without having a very good reason for allowing the use. The case I am thinking of was something along the lines of "going after these people with a legal threat right out of the gate is likely to result in severe bad PR for us because they are likely to be seen by our customers as performing a valuable service." So let's ask them nicely to change the name, or offer them a license for a nominal fee of $1 to use the mark instead; bring them into legal compliance, maintain our protected position, reap positive PR and save on lawyer bills.) In the case of this thread I definitely agree that the lawyer is totally out of bounds.