4 ms·

I mean, who can really say this isn't a clear-cut trademark issue? They're using Comcast in their URL. Any sane company would try to fight having their name a

I mean, who can really say this isn't a clear-cut trademark issue? They're using Comcast in their URL. Any sane company would try to fight having their name associated with this debacle. If I registered "nytimeslies.com" and it got as much publicity as this site has, do you really think they'd sit idly by and let their brand be trashed by some idiot on the internet who has no proof that NYTimes actually, you know, lies? Can somebody please explain why I'm wrong above, and Comcast is actually bulling the poor little guy throwing around baseless accusations? To be fair, I hate Comcast (and support Title II); but I also don't believe in defending crap like this just because it's targeted at a company I don't like.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
There is no protection in the trademark law against people using your trademark to refer to you. Referring to you is the point of the trademark in the first place. This is a clear-cut trademark issue, but it's clear that Comcast is wrong. Registering and publishing at nytimeslies.com without evidence that the New York Times actually lies could be a libel issue, but it can't be a trademark one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Boom, here's the rub. Comcast will lose. Their lawyers will win, with plenty of tasty billable hours, but no, even a one-eyed donkey could pick this rotten tomato out of a pile.
- Declanomous 9y ago
  Exactly. Nobody is going to be confused and think comcastroturf is Comcast's website or a website that Comcast registered.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> I mean, who can really say this isn't a clear-cut trademark issue? The courts.
skewart 9y ago
Because it's free speech protected by law. There is no trademark violation. Comcast is trying to scare people into thinking that there is, which is bullying.
- _eht 9y ago
  I am actually really curious about this issue. They use a trademarked name in their URL and you are saying this is not a violation? Is that actually true? I'm trying to find some supporting docs on this. The other day I was being cheeky and went to notreddit.com (it's owned by reddit and redirects to /r/redditalternatives) but if someone wanted to simply clone reddit (open source) and use that URL instead of something like voat.co, etc, that would be perfectly fine? Then there are cases of direct name URLS like nissan.com of Nissan Computers which existed for a very long time before Nissan the car company had a web presence. They have been in litigation[0] back and forth for years and now Nissan the car company is attempting to do a federal trademark that would cover "...computers and computer peripherals among other classes of goods and services." Interesting cases. Anyone else have any further thoughts? [0] http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php
  - yebyen 9y ago
    Protected speech and fair use of trademarks include satire and parody. "Comcastroturf" is pretty clearly a satirical use of the name Comcast. It would be hard to argue that "notreddit" was a brand that could be confused with Reddit, but it does use their mark, and if you did build a site that was confusingly similar to Reddit and used that name they would probably have a case that you infringed on their brand. By competing with them I think you'd be stepping closer to infringing and farther from a legal fair use.
    - _eht 9y ago
      OK that makes a great amount of sense using the differentiation between fair use, satire, etc. In the case of the Nissan's, it seems less clear. As the Nissan Computer domain holder, he registered the domains and had an established business before Nissan Car had any interest. What would stop him from pivoting into car manufacturing/sales and even if he called his company something different, used nissan.com to promote his car sales?
geofft 9y ago
A trademark is a mark used in trade (sort of like how a copyright is a right to copy, and if no copying is involved, copyright law is irrelevant). Comcast's trademark reserves the right to use the name "Comcast" in their trade. It prevents me from starting a local TV station called "Comcast", or a VPN service called "ComCastSecure", or whatever. It may or may not prevent me from opening a hot-dog stand called "Com Cast Hot Dogs" or a fashion label called "COMME des CASTES," depending on whether the courts think people will believe these brands are associated with Comcast the TV/internet/etc. company. It certainly does not prevent me, or you, from having use the word "Comcast" several times in our comments -- the entire point of a trademark is that when we say "Comcast" in a discussion about their field of business, we're all referring to the same thing. If Comcastroturf.com is not engaged in trade, it will be hard to argue trademark infringement. If there is no risk that a Comcast customer or potential customer will believe that Comcastroturf.com is associated with Comcast, it will be very hard to argue trademark infringement.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

There is no protection in the trademark law against people using your trademark to refer to you. Referring to you is the point of the trademark in the first place. This is a clear-cut trademark issue, but it's clear that Comcast is wrong. Registering and publishing at nytimeslies.com without evidence that the New York Times actually lies could be a libel issue, but it can't be a trademark one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

6stringmerc 9y ago
Boom, here's the rub. Comcast will lose. Their lawyers will win, with plenty of tasty billable hours, but no, even a one-eyed donkey could pick this rotten tomato out of a pile.
Declanomous 9y ago
Exactly. Nobody is going to be confused and think comcastroturf is Comcast's website or a website that Comcast registered.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

> I mean, who can really say this isn't a clear-cut trademark issue? The courts.

skewart 9y ago

Because it's free speech protected by law. There is no trademark violation. Comcast is trying to scare people into thinking that there is, which is bullying.

_eht 9y ago
I am actually really curious about this issue. They use a trademarked name in their URL and you are saying this is not a violation? Is that actually true? I'm trying to find some supporting docs on this. The other day I was being cheeky and went to notreddit.com (it's owned by reddit and redirects to /r/redditalternatives) but if someone wanted to simply clone reddit (open source) and use that URL instead of something like voat.co, etc, that would be perfectly fine? Then there are cases of direct name URLS like nissan.com of Nissan Computers which existed for a very long time before Nissan the car company had a web presence. They have been in litigation[0] back and forth for years and now Nissan the car company is attempting to do a federal trademark that would cover "...computers and computer peripherals among other classes of goods and services." Interesting cases. Anyone else have any further thoughts? [0] http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php
- yebyen 9y ago
  Protected speech and fair use of trademarks include satire and parody. "Comcastroturf" is pretty clearly a satirical use of the name Comcast. It would be hard to argue that "notreddit" was a brand that could be confused with Reddit, but it does use their mark, and if you did build a site that was confusingly similar to Reddit and used that name they would probably have a case that you infringed on their brand. By competing with them I think you'd be stepping closer to infringing and farther from a legal fair use.
  - _eht 9y ago
    OK that makes a great amount of sense using the differentiation between fair use, satire, etc. In the case of the Nissan's, it seems less clear. As the Nissan Computer domain holder, he registered the domains and had an established business before Nissan Car had any interest. What would stop him from pivoting into car manufacturing/sales and even if he called his company something different, used nissan.com to promote his car sales?

geofft 9y ago

A trademark is a mark used in trade (sort of like how a copyright is a right to copy, and if no copying is involved, copyright law is irrelevant). Comcast's trademark reserves the right to use the name "Comcast" in their trade. It prevents me from starting a local TV station called "Comcast", or a VPN service called "ComCastSecure", or whatever. It may or may not prevent me from opening a hot-dog stand called "Com Cast Hot Dogs" or a fashion label called "COMME des CASTES," depending on whether the courts think people will believe these brands are associated with Comcast the TV/internet/etc. company. It certainly does not prevent me, or you, from having use the word "Comcast" several times in our comments -- the entire point of a trademark is that when we say "Comcast" in a discussion about their field of business, we're all referring to the same thing. If Comcastroturf.com is not engaged in trade, it will be hard to argue trademark infringement. If there is no risk that a Comcast customer or potential customer will believe that Comcastroturf.com is associated with Comcast, it will be very hard to argue trademark infringement.