8 ms·

If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks

If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names? It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the effort/expense of them building that brand and deserve to have it yanked. IMO, it's very similar to the Nissan.com case - the owner of that domain is named Nissan and has a business with that name. He got there first, and he's got rights. However, if it was some random guy who put up a splash page or a nissan car site, it's trademark infringement, no?

dmv 18y ago
Did you pick McDonalds.com because of this? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say: "Are you finding that the Internet is a big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful McDonald's media-relations person, with whom I spoke a short while ago. Same thing here. 18 months ago, Twitter's namespace was considered worthless. Now Twitter leads to live commentary on cable television, celebrities use it, and companies need a Twitter Strategy.
tolmasky 18y ago
This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username. If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.
- webwright 18y ago
  I guess I did mention the law, but that's not where I was going... But, yes, I know that Twitter has no legal obligation to any party. But if you agree that domain squatters should have to give up domain names to trademark holders, then the parallel holds.

dmv 18y ago

Did you pick McDonalds.com because of this? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say: "Are you finding that the Internet is a big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful McDonald's media-relations person, with whom I spoke a short while ago. Same thing here. 18 months ago, Twitter's namespace was considered worthless. Now Twitter leads to live commentary on cable television, celebrities use it, and companies need a Twitter Strategy.

tolmasky 18y ago

This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username. If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.

webwright 18y ago
I guess I did mention the law, but that's not where I was going... But, yes, I know that Twitter has no legal obligation to any party. But if you agree that domain squatters should have to give up domain names to trademark holders, then the parallel holds.