4 ms·

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

by _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?
  - yebyen 9y ago
    Trademarks are not patents or copyright, there is no special protection for "getting there first" and the owner of a strong brand can absolutely (and in some cases must) use legal muscle to assert their rights over those people who got there first, in order to maintain the protection of the Trademark on their brands. They do not always have to open with "cease and desist" -- alternatively they can even offer a license to use the mark, but if they are derelict at enforcing their TM brand then all of their associated legal protections can be taken away. If you publish a work under copyright and someone steals it, you win if you can prove that your work came first. If you are sued for patent infringement and you can prove prior art, you can potentially get the patent thrown out under review. If you are "Mike Rowe Soft" independent software developer and went into business years before Microsoft existed, but nobody knows you, you will lose because your brand is confusingly similar and your market domain significantly intersects the more well-established mark. (This is actually a real case, and that was his real name.) Microsoft can file an injunction forcing you to change your (company's) name and to cease and desist from any marketing that uses a mark that is confusingly similar, and they will win, even though you got there first. Just different systems for protecting different types of intellectual property. It's understandable that you would be confused.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Also, trademarks are only valid for specific lines of business. You could open a Comcast barbershop, or bottle Comcast Cola, or run a Comcast liquor distillery without infringing Comcast's trademarks in the realm of telecommunications, networks, and media content distribution. The key is to assess the probability that the consumer might be confused with respect to who is ultimately responsible for what they are seeing. It just so happens that "Comcast" is the company name and trademark, drawn from the list of companies apparently pushing to kill net neutrality, that best overlaps with "astroturfing". So it metonymically represents all those companies in the clever name. The fact that Comcast has a widespread reputation for being one of the most hated corporations in America certainly doesn't hurt. Whether warranted or not, it is the poster child for everything wrong with the US telecoms industry. Even if it is not the ultimate source of the bogus public comments, I have no great hurdle in believing without further evidence that it could be, because of that poor reputation.
  - yebyen 9y ago
    > You could open a Comcast barbershop, or bottle Comcast Cola, or run a Comcast liquor distillery without infringing Comcast's trademarks * Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't. Comcast is such a well-known brand and that also plays into the decision. It's not at all clear-cut. I think if you did this today, you would get shut down at the discretion of the judge for piggybacking on the established brand, but if you had Comcast Cola established before Comcast Cable or at the same time as them, you'd have a better chance at keeping your name. (I am not a lawyer but I did study at Slashdot U in the 90's.)
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I think it's important to note that the fundamental purpose of trademark is to protect buyers. The idea is that if you buy something that says Brand X, you should be able to know that it actually came from Brand X. For example, if I buy a Coke, I can be confident that it came from The Coca-Cola Company, not Joe's Discount Soda and Rat Poison. Companies holding trademarks benefit as well, but that's not the goal. Given that, I think (IANAL either) that much of the decision will come down to whether or not they think buyers will be confused about who the product came from. I don't know how that would play out in the case of a Comcast barber shop, but that's going to me a major part of it. Back to the actual case at hand, nobody is going to see comcastroturf.com and think that it's actually from Comcast, so there should be no case for trademark infringement.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
skewart 9y ago
Like @yebyen said in a sibling comment, satire and parody are protected and comcastroturf is pretty clearly satirical, even if it is pointed, critical satire. Another comment further down on this post also references a few legal precedents protecting domains that demonstrate protection for domain names along the lines of <trademarkedname>sucks.com Basically, if you're offering a product in a marketplace and benefiting from consumers' familiarity with the trademarked brand then you're probably in trouble. But if you're not, then you're probably okay.
sp332 9y ago
If someone is referring to Comcast, then they are allowed to use the trademarked name "Comcast". The main consideration in trademark infringement is whether someone will be confused into thinking that someone else owns the trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
- yebyen 9y ago
  As an aside, here's a funny, totally made-up story about intellectual property rights that has no bearing on this discussion. But your Wiki link made me think of it: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-fiV362r1M2ikxo8m/nks_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-fiV362r1M2ikxo8m/nks_djvu.tx... (_why the lucky stiff's Nobody Knows Shoes, which is definitely not titled A Gundible Journey) I apologize in advance for wasting your time but it made me laugh. The fore-word is the thing. Also, the PDF version in case you actually wanted to read the whole book: https://cloud.github.com/downloads/shoes/shoes/nks.pdf https://cloud.github.com/downloads/shoes/shoes/nks.pdf

by _eht 9y ago

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?
- yebyen 9y ago
  Trademarks are not patents or copyright, there is no special protection for "getting there first" and the owner of a strong brand can absolutely (and in some cases must) use legal muscle to assert their rights over those people who got there first, in order to maintain the protection of the Trademark on their brands. They do not always have to open with "cease and desist" -- alternatively they can even offer a license to use the mark, but if they are derelict at enforcing their TM brand then all of their associated legal protections can be taken away. If you publish a work under copyright and someone steals it, you win if you can prove that your work came first. If you are sued for patent infringement and you can prove prior art, you can potentially get the patent thrown out under review. If you are "Mike Rowe Soft" independent software developer and went into business years before Microsoft existed, but nobody knows you, you will lose because your brand is confusingly similar and your market domain significantly intersects the more well-established mark. (This is actually a real case, and that was his real name.) Microsoft can file an injunction forcing you to change your (company's) name and to cease and desist from any marketing that uses a mark that is confusingly similar, and they will win, even though you got there first. Just different systems for protecting different types of intellectual property. It's understandable that you would be confused.
logfromblammo 9y ago
Also, trademarks are only valid for specific lines of business. You could open a Comcast barbershop, or bottle Comcast Cola, or run a Comcast liquor distillery without infringing Comcast's trademarks in the realm of telecommunications, networks, and media content distribution. The key is to assess the probability that the consumer might be confused with respect to who is ultimately responsible for what they are seeing. It just so happens that "Comcast" is the company name and trademark, drawn from the list of companies apparently pushing to kill net neutrality, that best overlaps with "astroturfing". So it metonymically represents all those companies in the clever name. The fact that Comcast has a widespread reputation for being one of the most hated corporations in America certainly doesn't hurt. Whether warranted or not, it is the poster child for everything wrong with the US telecoms industry. Even if it is not the ultimate source of the bogus public comments, I have no great hurdle in believing without further evidence that it could be, because of that poor reputation.
- yebyen 9y ago
  > You could open a Comcast barbershop, or bottle Comcast Cola, or run a Comcast liquor distillery without infringing Comcast's trademarks * Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't. Comcast is such a well-known brand and that also plays into the decision. It's not at all clear-cut. I think if you did this today, you would get shut down at the discretion of the judge for piggybacking on the established brand, but if you had Comcast Cola established before Comcast Cable or at the same time as them, you'd have a better chance at keeping your name. (I am not a lawyer but I did study at Slashdot U in the 90's.)
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I think it's important to note that the fundamental purpose of trademark is to protect buyers. The idea is that if you buy something that says Brand X, you should be able to know that it actually came from Brand X. For example, if I buy a Coke, I can be confident that it came from The Coca-Cola Company, not Joe's Discount Soda and Rat Poison. Companies holding trademarks benefit as well, but that's not the goal. Given that, I think (IANAL either) that much of the decision will come down to whether or not they think buyers will be confused about who the product came from. I don't know how that would play out in the case of a Comcast barber shop, but that's going to me a major part of it. Back to the actual case at hand, nobody is going to see comcastroturf.com and think that it's actually from Comcast, so there should be no case for trademark infringement.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

skewart 9y ago

Like @yebyen said in a sibling comment, satire and parody are protected and comcastroturf is pretty clearly satirical, even if it is pointed, critical satire. Another comment further down on this post also references a few legal precedents protecting domains that demonstrate protection for domain names along the lines of <trademarkedname>sucks.com Basically, if you're offering a product in a marketplace and benefiting from consumers' familiarity with the trademarked brand then you're probably in trouble. But if you're not, then you're probably okay.

sp332 9y ago

If someone is referring to Comcast, then they are allowed to use the trademarked name "Comcast". The main consideration in trademark infringement is whether someone will be confused into thinking that someone else owns the trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

yebyen 9y ago
As an aside, here's a funny, totally made-up story about intellectual property rights that has no bearing on this discussion. But your Wiki link made me think of it: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-fiV362r1M2ikxo8m/nks_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-fiV362r1M2ikxo8m/nks_djvu.tx... (_why the lucky stiff's Nobody Knows Shoes, which is definitely not titled A Gundible Journey) I apologize in advance for wasting your time but it made me laugh. The fore-word is the thing. Also, the PDF version in case you actually wanted to read the whole book: https://cloud.github.com/downloads/shoes/shoes/nks.pdf https://cloud.github.com/downloads/shoes/shoes/nks.pdf