| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Wow! Thanks for that pointer. That was interesting indeed. So in your
> considered opinion, when Lego requests that Lego not appear in domain
> names of fannish sites, are they harboring a valid concern? Similarity
> is higher than in the Hasbro case, but likelihood of confusion seems
> low.
I guess the answer depends upon the domain name (I waffle just like a real
lawyer :)). Clearly www.legos.com and www.lego.org would both be a problem
using the "likelihood of confusion" test. Both of those domain names could
draw internet users to the site thinking it was the official site.
www.unofficial_lego_fan_site.com would seem pretty safe :).
As for dilution, www.legosex.com (or insert your own sexually explicit
language) would be a problem under the "tarnishment" theory. I think as long
as the domain name is not likely to cause confusion as to the sponsorship of
the web site or was not used to sell products (example Lego brand forklift
alternators), you would be safe under the "blurring" theory. Lego is an very
strong trademark and is quite famous. Any use that weakens the Lego
trademark's ability to represent plastic building bricks would be a
dilution. I have a hard time thinking of a domain name that would be used by
a fan that would cause "blurring". Since the fan domain name is not being
used to identify goods or services, it is not a trade or service mark, and
not really susceptible to a "blurring" analysis. I have not kept up on some
of TLG's efforts to regulate fan domain names though.
As a general rule, I would stick to domain names that have no chance of
accidentally causing confusion to potential web browsers looking for
information from the official Lego site. www.legoloco.com would be a serious
problem, and I think www.legotrains.com would be nearly as bad.
www.mylegos.com may be acceptable (legally, not to TLG) since it clearly
refers to a private collection.
Another issue is the First Amendment. If I run a website with the url
www.legossuck.com criticizing the labor practices of TLG or even to quality
of the toys made by TLG, I think my First Amendment free speech rights trump
any of TLG's dilution and trademark claims.
>
> Also, and more germane to the thread, is Maersk on solid ground (so to
> speak) when it protests use of its trademark on a depiction of a ship
> that's sinking? What jurisdiction would it fall under? Danish? Swedish?
I have no idea how strong the Maersk trademark is, but the use seems fairly
safe under US law, and may have additional First Amendment protections as
free speech and art.. (Disclaimer: I have not actually seen the allegedly
offensive model). Under Danish or Swedish laws, I have no idea.
Your question hits upon one of the most difficult legal questions raised by
the internet. What laws govern out online conduct and what rights do
countries have to regulate conduct occurring in other countries but reaching
them over the internet. For example, does Saudi Arabia have the right to
arrest and prosecute the owner of a pornographic web site being run on a
server in the U.S.? If I am distributing warez versions of Microsoft Office
from a country that has not signed the Berne Convention (the international
copyright treaty), can I be sued in the U.S.? This is a huge unresolved
problem for the entire information age. Jurisdiction can obviously be based
upon the location of the server hosting the data, but as more and more
servers are set up around the world, we will see more and more information
based companies choose to set up business in countries that are more
friendly (in terms of taxes or tolerance for the product). Jurisdiction
based upon making your website available to be viewed where the other side
lives? Want to defend yourself against charges of obscenity in Saudi Arabia
because of the family vacation pictures on your website? I didn't think so.
Remember all of those small countries that became havens for off-shore
trusts? They realized that they can attract money simply by being one of the
best places to put money. Ever wonder why the government does not shut down
all of the internet casinos? Because they operate in foreign countries that
not only tolerate them but perhaps benefit from their presence. Oops, I
didn't mean to preach this much.
The Clue case was litigated in Massachusetts even though Clue Computing is
based in Colorado and never conducted any business in Massachusetts.
Litigation is expensive. Litigation in a distant state even more so.
Litigation in a foreign country. . . . catastrophic.
Sorry I rambled on so much.
Regards,
Mark Cornell
Disclaimer: Anyone who bases their actions solely upon the above or accepts
legal advice over the internet from someone who has not fully reviewed their
legal situation and tailored specific legal advice to the exact fact of your
situation is a D--- Fool and deserves what they get. So please don't sue me
if you get hammered by TLG or any other company for following the above.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
> http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Can they do like this?
|
| (...) Speaking of online casions the easy to eliminate them is for the us government to just ban ads for online casions. The casinos rely on ads for their customers and most of the large advertisment providers with the big exposure that the casinos (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Can they do like this?
|
| Wow! Thanks for that pointer. That was interesting indeed. So in your considered opinion, when Lego requests that Lego not appear in domain names of fannish sites, are they harboring a valid concern? Similarity is higher than in the Hasbro case, but (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
