Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2 713

Posted by timothy from the this-had-better-be-a-dream dept.
phillymjs writes "We're probably all familiar with Uzi Nissan and his fight to keep his nissan.com domain name from the clutches of Nissan Motors. Well, more same-name idiocy came to light today-- the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that their staff music writer, Bill Wyman, has received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers representing former Rolling Stone Bill Wyman, for "a seriously misleading and, arguably, an intentional, unauthorized exploitation of our client's name, goodwill and publicity value." It should be interesting to see how this one plays out, because Bill Wyman the musician was born William George Perks and changed his name to Bill Wyman in 1964. Journalist Bill Wyman was given that name at his birth in 1961."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2 More

Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2

Comments Filter:

  • What do you call a bleeding lawyer in a shark tank (Score:5, Funny)

    by BobRooney ( 602821 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:48PM (#4671066) Homepage
    ...a good start...

    Why must we be so sue-happy that respectful citizens cant even enjoy their own names without some over-paid copyright lawyer hearing the crinkling of his clients not-so-hard earned money.

    • Re:What do you call a bleeding lawyer in a shark t (Score:5, Insightful)

      by netwiz ( 33291 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:53PM (#4671129) Homepage
      Because the average human is a loathsome, greedy, insensitive fool. As a result of this story, along with hundreds of others reported over the past decade or so (about how long I've really been following things), I am now convinced that our species will not survive past the next century.
      • You better watch what you say, or I might sue you for slander. I am not insensitive....my toe hurts today.

      • Re:What do you call a bleeding lawyer in a shark t (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fferreres ( 525414 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @11:07PM (#4674460)
        Commercial law, when you are a rich country, is about how to divide the pie, not how to create it. So it makes sense for any individual or company to sue whoever if they have a case. If Mr. Nissan is preventing Nissan to use a domain that is important to them (and it IS very important, the first thing you WILL try is www.nissan.com) and he is not willing to sell it, they (for business reasons) have to sue. And get the best lawers of course.

        So everything rests on what the law is, who can buy it and who your judges represent. Don't blame the lawers, they are just leechs playing for commercial entities the game of dividing the pie.

        I mean: get GOOD judges, and support GOOD laws. That's the only way to keep sue-happiness from raping your rights.
    • I work in a law firm, and I knew to be afraid when I was helping an attorney scan in some pictures of a nuclear plant specifically to scare a jury... But seriously, a Park Avenue firm costs a pretty penny per hour. If you were famous, would you waste your money on suing someone who (a) had that name before you, and (b) actually returned any checks he accidentally received? Talk about abusing someone...

    • Re:What do you call a bleeding lawyer in a shark t (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cadre ( 11051 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:01PM (#4672919) Homepage

      Unfortunately the sharks will just leave the lawyer alone. It's professional courtesy.

  • And the winner is.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by xchino ( 591175 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:48PM (#4671071)
    It's obvious Bill Wyman is going to win this case.

  • whew... (Score:5, Funny)

    by digidave ( 259925 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#4671076)
    I lucked out. Imagine my last name was McDonald? I wouldn't be able to refer to anything in the possessive!

    • No, that's for real. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:59PM (#4671836) Homepage
      Check this out. [inwap.com]

      "Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, premier clan chief of Clan Donald, has appointed Ronald W McDonald to be Sergeant-Major at Arms of the Guardians of Clan Donald: the linear descendant of the chief's bodyguard. ...

      One specific aim is to offer moral support to Mary Blair, proprietor of McMunchies, a small sandwich bar in Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire, who is being threatened with legal action by McDonald's Restaurants, the fast food chain, for daring to use the prefix "Mc" in the name of her shop.

      When interviewed in BBC2's "The Money Programme" a top trademark lawyer made it clear that McDonald's have not a legal leg to stand on. Instead they rely on their unlimited financial resources to bully small businesses who cannot afford to fight back."

      Really.. read the entire press release, it just gets better and better. This is coming from a long extended thing that happened around 1996, when McDonalds decided they were going to start trying to crack down on anyone doing anything vaguely resembling their trademarks. I'm not sure if they ever got McMunchie's to change their name, but whatever happened they did manage to piss off, in the process, Scotland. The best bit about the whole thing was that, according to an absolutely fantastic 60 Minutes report on this and the McLibel case, Lord MacDonald of MacDonald was so enraged by the whole thing that he decided to open a restaurant in the traditional family estate of the MacDonald clan [clan-donald-usa.org], and name it "MacDonald's". The restaurant serves things like duck, and whatever else is the U.K. equivilent of "gourmet" food. Thus far McDonald's Inc. of America has yet to challenge him over the name.

      As my more-or-less universal online handle is an abbreviation of my last name, McClure (it's a degradation of MacLeod), i have to say this case holds a small bit of interest for me.. it is a discomforting thought to know that a corporation may possibly want to claim ownership to the first two letters of my slashdot logon :)

  • How long... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#4671078)
    ...till I have to file a copyright request every time I boink a chick?

  • A C&D is just a LETTER (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#4671079) Journal
    though many people seem to ignore this simple fact. This guy did the right thing, which was to tell the wannabe-Wyman to shove it up his ass.

    • Re:A C&D is just a LETTER (Score:5, Informative)

      by ChaosDiscord ( 4913 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:58PM (#4671190) Homepage Journal

      A Cease and Desist may just be a letter, but so is a "Your rent / mortgage payment / credit card bill is late" statement.

      In practice the average American citizen has been increasely pushed away from dealing with the legal system. It's been made perfectly clear to him that he isn't smart enough to deal with it, that he needs an expensive lawyer to deal with it in any way, and that even if he is right that he can be crushed by legal fees. Your average citizen is scared of the legal system, and that's a problem. Lawyers use this fact to bully average people with Cease and Desist letters. "I can't afford a lawyer to fight this, so I'll have to do what it says, even though they are wrong."

      Maybe these scum-sucking lawyers are but a small fraction of the total lawyer population. Perhaps 99% of all lawyers on ethical beings dedicated to the spirit of the law. But that remaining small fraction is doing a lot of harm to the United States.

      • The Letter of the Law (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Transient0 ( 175617 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:13PM (#4671368) Homepage
        It's true. We live in a country(I'm actually canadian, but the argument is the same in either nation) where ignorance of the law is not a valid defence and yet the countries COMPLETE legislation could not be read by a single person in their entire lifetime. BTW, my given first name is Duff so(although the product in my case is fictional) I have a lot of experience with the name/trademark crossover. I don't own duff.com [duff.com](warning... porno), but if I did, you can bet I would raise all hell if FOX tried to take it from me.

      • A Modest Proposal (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gallen1234 ( 565989 ) <gallen@@@whitecraneeducation...com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:08PM (#4671915)

        You've raised some points that for various reasons have been on my mind over the last few months. In particular I've been thinking about the inability of the average American to afford (either by training or by purchase of service) access to our legal system. In what sense of the phrase is everyone "equal under the law" if some people/groups have access to better legal services than others. The obvious solution is this: nationalize the lawyers.

        Now I'll admit I haven't spent a lot of time thinking this through but the idea has some obvious charms. Everyone from the poorest homeless person to the wealthiest corporation gets the same level of service and access. This could push the legal system to become more abritrative than adversarial - hopefully resulting in a renewed focus on the pursuit of justice rather than victory for its own sake. (I read about an interesting example of this a few years ago: A law firm started handling IRS audits on a flat fee basis. They had amazing settlement rates because the IRS knew they couldn't drag the proceedings out until the clients ran out of money to pay for their defense).

        • Re:A Modest Proposal (Score:3, Insightful)

          by markr ( 83864 )
          We certainly need some changes to the U.S. legal system, but I don't know what it should be.

          I'm a defendant in another lawsuit which has been mentioned on /. recently (I'll avoid mentioning the case to not attract the attention of the agressive plaintiff). I've learned a lot in the 18 months that this case has dragged on. What they taught me in high school government class has very little to do with the realities of the legal system. You can sue anyone for anything, whether there is merit to the case or not. Even if the suit is completely bogus, it is likely to cost so much to defend that many people settle anyway. When the guy suing me filed a second similar suit, I was tempted to defend myself (the legal term is "pro se"), cribing from materials my lawyers produced in the first suit. But since it's actually my one-peson web programming business (which is incorporated) being sued, I'm required to be represented by a lawyer.

          My reaction to learning how all this works was to suggest that our system should be more like the British system, where the loser pays the legal fees. That would stop these nuisance suits. But it also effectively stops private indivuals from suing large corporations. It's not clear that this would be any better.

        • Re:A Modest Proposal (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
          A modest proposal? Wasn't that about eating babies? :-) I do know it was Swift at his most satirical.

          Nationalize the lawyers? Don't you mean enslave? Effectively every lawyer would be forced to sign on with a monopolistic gov't. Actually, the far greater problem is however much you might do to equalize access to lawyers, you would do nothing to equalize the skill of individual lawyers. They are all quite different -- think baseball players. You have the stars, the average, and Little League.

          I totally agree with your sentiment, and would like to see more efficient resolution of genuine disputes, and quicker disposal of illegitimate ones. Arbitration sure sounded good at the outset, but has in some cases become a mechanism to screw the little guy. That's why many corporations will have a non-negotiable arbitration clause in their contract, requiring you to arbitrate any dispute in a particular jurisdiction subject to particular rules, at their convenience. Often the right of appeal is foreclosed.

          There is nothing like the cynicism taught at law school.

          The flat fee tax defenders -- why couldn't the IRS simply decide to run them into the ground? They certainly have the resources. Seriously, a problem with deals like flat fee may be that in many cases the lawyers are skimming the best cases, in effect overcharging their clients for easy wins. Some of the big heavily-advertised personal injury firms do this.

  • Countersue! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:49PM (#4671082) Journal
    Considering the name change and the dates involved, this one just *BEGS* for the "real" owner of the name to countersue and demand the other change his name back (or to something else).

    Damn, though, *this* one takes balls. I have to admit, paranoid as I can seem, I didn't see it getting to the point where using one's one name in normal daily activities would count as infringment.

    Ah well, too bad I don't read Rolling Stone, I can't cancel my subscription in protest. ;-)
    • Ah well, too bad I don't read Rolling Stone, I can't cancel my subscription in protest. ;-)

      Well, you could cancel any other magazine that you do subscribe to, considering that they would be as relevant to this topic as Rolling Stone.

  • Oh this is just terrible news.. you see, I recently had my name legally changed to "Ford Sucks" so that I could sue Ford for squatting on fordsucks.com.

    http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=f ordsucks.com&SearchType=do [netsol.com]

    -gerbik

  • Suit is going the wrong way (Score:4, Funny)

    by kelzer ( 83087 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:50PM (#4671086) Homepage
    Bill Wyman the writer should sue Bill Wyman the Stone for infringing on his name for the past 38 years, and should seek damages of about $50 million, claiming that William George Perks made a ton of money off of the Bill Wyman name that he stole.

    • LOL, its 100% true tho. Actors and musicians routinely change their names .. and it really does affect their viability in the mainstream entertainment market (not a ton, but a name can help or hinder.)

      Not that I support the real Bill sueing the fake Bill .. too bad there arnt more instances of mutually assured bankrupcy so we could have a cold war of litigation.

    • ...the last few paragraphs of the posted article [accessatlanta.com]?

      Wyman says he first used the name onstage in 1963. "In 1964 I adapted his name, and changed mine by deed poll," he writes in a footnote.

      Me, I was born Jan. 11, 1961.

      What I need now is a lawyer to ask Mr. Siegel that his client stop using a name I have claim to by several years.

  • Im an infringing name (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:50PM (#4671089)
    I have received a c and d letter from this guy called "anonymous coward" but i am anonymous coword!

  • I heard... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ambisinistral ( 594774 ) <ambisinistral AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:52PM (#4671114) Homepage
    Keith Richard sends out Cease and Desist notices to cadavars because folks confuse them for him.
  • Obviously we need some kind of formula that takes into account:

    • Who registered the domain and when
    • How rich/famous the two parties are
    • What was their purpose in registering the name
    • Who did what with the name: trademarks, patents, revenue

    Personally, I'd like to see this problem go away. I propose unique URLs based on DNA code, but clones might object.

  • stupid linking habits gripe (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by kisrael ( 134664 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:55PM (#4671151) Homepage
    the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that

    Jeez. Here, "Atlanta-Journal-Constitution is" links to the (relatively useless) frontpage of the newspaper site, while "reporting" is the single word that links to the article. There's not even any space between the links!

    Hello people! We know how to backtrack URLs to get to the main site....assuming it's not an obvious domain from the journal name, and even then it's highly likely that the actual article page will have a nice fat old link to the main site. Jeez.

  • Let's root for the journalist (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cweber ( 34166 ) <.cwebersd. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:56PM (#4671162)
    I respect Bill Wyman, the former Rolling Stone a lot (hey I am a bass player, too...) but I do hope that the journalist Bill Wyman wins this one. He had the name first, didn't change it ever and registered the domain name first. And, being a journalist, he does not infringe on any trademark Bill Wyman, the former Stone may own, because there is precious little overlap between their respective trades, however much they may depend on each other.

    Bass player Bill Wyman can always register billwyman.com if he hasn't done so already.

  • When will the madness end? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:56PM (#4671172)
    If your legal name from birth conflicts with a companies name, I think it should be left to "first come, first served" reasoning. I don't think that either has more right to the domain name than the other. Whoever got it first should be able to keep it, unless the sole purpose that the person who has it has it, is to exploit the name. By that I mean if your name is Nissan and you get the domain name, and then you decide to start selling cars, or car accessories to profit off of the name that is usually associated with another company, that should not be allowed. If on the other hand your name is Nissan and you have a site that shows pictures of your wife, kids, and your dog, then that should be perfectly legal. You have as much right to the domain name as anyone else because:

    a) it's your legal (from birth) name
    b) your not trying to profit off of the name
    c) you registered the name first

    I think it's Nissan's (the company) fault for not registering the name first. Now they are left out in the cold. Too bad, so sad. Better luck next time.

  • That we should skip this first-name, last-name monkey business and cut straight to the social security numbers.
    Oh wait, we have [about.com].
  • Wow, that could get messy really quickly...

  • His parents ruthlessly and with malice ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @03:58PM (#4671191)
    aforethought named him Bill Wyman, recognizing that it would be a vaguely semi-cool bassist sort of a name, though they knew at birth that their son was not genetically predisposed to be musically inclined (other then writing about it), and fully realizing that this would impair and confuse the reputation of a future musician who would be adopt the name as his own years after their son had been born.

    Is that an accurate description?

  • Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealityProphet ( 625675 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:00PM (#4671218)
    This article isn't even about cybersquatting! [accessatlanta.com] It is about some guy who happens to work for this newspaper and who happens to sometimes write about the Rolling Stones. The musical Wyman wants the columnist wyman to put a discalimer on everything he writes that he is in fact NOT the musical Wyman! How ridiculous!

    • Re:Read the article (Score:5, Funny)

      by Skjellifetti ( 561341 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:46PM (#4671719) Journal
      The musical Wyman wants the columnist wyman to put a discalimer on everything he writes that he is in fact NOT the musical Wyman!

      Sounds reasonable... Provided, of course, that every time Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones plays, he should be required to add a disclaimer that he is not Bill Wyman the journalist.
    • Is it the musician that wants this done, or his lawyer? I highly suspect Bill Wyman doesn't realize that this is going on. His lawyer probably pursues all sorts of things for him, and bills him for everything he sends out. The real criminal in this is the lawyer for not even thinking about what he was doing other than how many hours he can now bill his client for. Bill Wyman the writer should countersue so that its brought to Bill Wyman the musician's attention, just sending proof to this lawyer won't ever tell Bill Wyman anything. If the writer countersues, then the musician gets involved, one would the he's going to be pretty pissed at his lawyer for costing him those legal fees.
  • ...unlike a patent action, an action relating to misappropriation of goodwill does not depend on the notion of 'prior art'. In this sort of situation, the key question is whether Bill Wyman the author is 'free riding' on Bill Wyman the musician's commercial goodwill in order to further the commercial interests of Bill Wyman the author. It really doesn't matter who had the name first -- All that matters is who made it a commercially valuable name first.
    • Wrong! Bill Wyman the author should not have to change his name, give up his domain, or pay any sort of monetary homage to Bill Wyman the bassist.

      Assigning any sort of property rights to a person's *name* is assinine. Even as a trademark.

  • Bill = William? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by simetra ( 155655 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:02PM (#4671246) Homepage Journal
    Odds are, the writer Bill Wyman's real first name is William. He should just go by William Wyman, or W. Wyman, or Willy Wyman, or something.
  • AFAICT, Bill Wyman the journalist has no website to call his own. I have no idea why this was posted under the Internet category, because I submitted it under News.

    Anyway, the lawyers are objecting to Bill Wyman the journalist using his given name on the byline of the articles he writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (and, I suppose, any other publication for which he writes). Not because he owns any domain name relating to the name Bill Wyman.

    This action strikes me as even more outlandish and insidious than anything the big corporations have done over real or alleged domain squatting. That's why I submitted the article.

    ~Philly

  • forget Nissan (Score:4, Funny)

    by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:12PM (#4671359) Homepage
    what about the Uzi? This guy is flagrantly infringing on IMI's trademarks!

  • Anyone? Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:14PM (#4671380) Journal
    Since no one could be bothered to read the fucking article before posting (as opposed to the usual half the people who can't be bothered) let me summarize:

    The Atlanta Journal-Courier's Bill Wyman, who has regularly covered Rolling Stones news, wrote an article in the AJC about some of the ban's old albums. The band's lawyer decided (not unreasonably, I guess) that readers would think bassist Bill Wyman had written the piece, and demanded that a) if a journalist was calling himself Bill Wyman to cover Rolling Stones topics, he stop and b) if someone genuinely had that name, he should make that clear. The story hints that the lableing demand would extend to all work by the writer, but it's not clear that that's so.

    Whatever the legal merits of this case, it has nothing to do with a domain name.

  • Will the real Bill please stand up... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Bullard ( 62082 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:17PM (#4671407) Homepage
    ... to hear the verdict:

    All your bass are belong to us!!

  • Gah, I'm in Trouble (Score:5, Funny)

    by Coffee Warlord ( 266564 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:18PM (#4671419)
    Last name?

    Nielsen.

    Mental note. Rate nothing. Ever. /runs and turns off Slashdot modding powers.

  • It's NOT Bill Wyman's Fault! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:20PM (#4671439)
    Happily, this appears to be simply an error on the part of Bill Wyman's attorney (the former Rolling Stone).

    It looks like his attorney totally failed to do any research into Bill Wyman (the Writer) - a very big shame, especially given that many attorneys charge significant amounts of money to do research into such matters.

    I wonder what the bill rate was for this letter. Maybe $6? Or maybe $1000? Perhaps $5000?

  • Office Space? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Student_Tech ( 66719 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:20PM (#4671441) Journal
    Does anybody remember Michael Bolton in Office Space? About how he was perfectly happy until "that no-talent-ass-clown" become popular when, the guy you follow in OS, was 12? This kinda reminds me of that. Semi-normal person getting confused with a celebrity.
    From imdb.com [imdb.com]:
    Samir: Why don't you just go by Mike, instead of Michael?

    Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change it? He's the one who sucks.


  • Troubling update on the Nissan case (Score:5, Informative)

    by kelzer ( 83087 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:21PM (#4671456) Homepage

    According to udpates at the bottom of this page [ncchelp.org], things aren't going so well for Uzi Nissan.

    The latest:

    September 2002

    The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motors filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial on October 15, 2002. The Court, much to my surprise, changed its attitude on this issue and:

    1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.

    2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.

    3. Found that Nissan Computer and The Internet Center diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.

    4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments made by many people -- on this www.ncchelp.org and my media campaign to bring this issue to the public, actually -- tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.

    Many legal experts view our case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated during the hearing on this motion that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.

    The trial date has thus been taken off calendar and Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to take away my domain name from me entirely. We expect a ruling on this motion some time in November this year. Our legal team is evaluating our options, which evaluation can not be completed until we know the final ruling by the Court. We believe that the potential loss of our domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" and may affect many others in a similar situation, it could affect you or someone you know.

    This case received the attention of CBS Evening News, and has been looked at by other news agencies that have not yet published stories about it. Public attention to this type of corporate behavior is most important to get the issues properly debated. Your emails were very successful in CBS Evening News' decision to run a short story on this case. We are asking for your continued and crucial support by sending an email to the media and stating the importance of bringing these facts to the public. Remember that it was Public Opinion and Awareness that ended the Soviet Union, not missiles. Together we can make a difference.

  • Bill Wyman (Stones) and the 13 year old girl (Score:4, Interesting)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:22PM (#4671473)
    Now I remember the name. When Bill Wyman was 47, he started dating/doing a 13 year old girl named Mandy Smith. Six years later, when she was all of 19 and he as a robust 53, they got married. For some reason, the marriage didn't last.

    Wait, let me rephrase: When Bill Wyman was 47, he started dating/doing a 13 year old girl.

    Oh, That's the reputation that his lawyer is trying to protect.

    Amusing sidenote: Bill's 31 year old son Steven started dating Mandy's 46 year old mother Patsy and at one point planned to marry her. (This is after Bill/Mandy's divorce). Still, it would have made Steven his own divorced step-grandfather.

  • Uzi Nissan... getting it from both ends. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:25PM (#4671496) Homepage
    It's one thing when Nissan sues you, yeah, I could deal with that. What are they going to do, run me over with a Nissan?

    But when the Uzi people finally get wind of this fellow, you can bet he'll change his tune.

    It's just not wise to argue with Israelis armed with machine guns with a beef over territory or ownership rights. ;)

    • He's Israeli. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:33PM (#4672123)
      Funny thing is, he's Israeli. His name isn't Japanese, it's Hebrew. Read his site for the full story. Apparently, it's just a name over there. I guess an "Uzi" is just like a "Tommy Gun" in terms of origin.

      • Re:He's Israeli. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Chacham ( 981 )
        Uzi is a Hebrew word that means, "my strength". King David used it is Psalms.

        Nissan, is the name of the sixth Jewish month of the year. The origins of it came from Babylon. So is actually isn't Hebrew and much as it is Babylonian.

  • RTFA! Its not about the domain... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tmack ( 593755 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:26PM (#4671512) Homepage Journal
    If you actually did RTFA you would have noticed that this is NOT about domain registration stuff like the Nissan case. A lawyer read an article published by The AJC's Bill Wyman and fired off a C&D order without checking the facts. The DNS entries for billwyman.com are already owned by Kos Media in London, and have been since April of 2000. Its amazing how many people replied without RTFA and immediately started blabbering about domain name rights and stuff.

    TM

  • Do a search for your own name (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@gmai l . c om> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:31PM (#4671565) Homepage Journal
    I think you'll find it interesting.

    I just searched for my own name (in quotes) on google, and found:

    - A wildlife foundation under my name
    - A gallery under my name
    - A cricket player with my name
    - A professor with my name
    - A folk singer with my name
    - Artists with my name
    - About 14,000 other links with my name not related to me personally.

    I already knew many companies operated under my last name, but didn't know so many used my full name!

    So, how many of you are in danger of losing your names like this?

  • I have to admit it. (Score:3, Funny)

    by bill_wyman ( 626193 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:46PM (#4671715)
    I'm free riding on Bill Wyman the musician's commercial goodwill in order to further the commercial interests of bill_wyman the Slashdot user and get more mod points.

  • Uzi Nissan (Score:3, Funny)

    by jjeffries ( 17675 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @04:57PM (#4671820)
    should change his last name to "Datsun" to make them happy.

  • Science Fiction often precedes real life (like now (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:02PM (#4671871) Homepage Journal
    Almost like this case, certainly very comparable to it, and in a way, even more absurd...

    I once read a short story about an ordinary Joe who bore too much resemblance to a famous actor. The actor didn't want any 'unauthorized copies' out there, so he sued the guy and forced him to have plastic surgery to change his appearance.

    If Bill Wyman (from birth) loses this one, how long until the science fiction story becomes true? Given the absurdity running rampant through the US legal system, I wouldn't bet against it.

  • Why does everyone blame the lawyers. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2002 @05:29PM (#4672092)
    [dis: Posting Anonymously because the companies I reference have already sent me C&D letters because of posts I made on Slashdot]

    The lawyers are being paid by someone to do what they do. I remember when I worked at InterAct Accessories, Inc. Some guy had registered InterAct.com way before InterAct was formed as a company. He didn't even use the domain name for a webpage, just mail. I remember my boss' conversation with the company lawyers. It went along the lines of, "Do whatever it takes, I want InterAct.com." After multiple failures to legally obtain the domain name, they had to settle for interact-acc.com. My boss didn't stop, he insisted that I somehow 'hack' the domain name so we could 'steal' it. I pointed out how this was illegal.

    The lawyers aren't to blame. It's people like my boss. The people that grew up getting everything they wanted, and when that trait continues into adulthood, you get people like this. They don't care if someone has a legitimate claim to something, they want it, and they'll do anything to get it.
  • "Bill Wyman is hereby ordered to pay $50,000 in damages."

    Plantif and defandant in unison: YES! .. wha?

  • According to my law professor in Switzerland ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snowtigger ( 204757 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:10PM (#4673008) Homepage
    As a student in Computer science, we had to take a class in Intellectual Property.

    After buying my own domain (lastname.org), I asked this specific question: "Do I have to worry about someone coming to take away my domain name from me?"

    The answer was no. As long as I use it for my own use and do not infringe on today's copyright (if someone registers my lastname as a trademark later, I was first !)

    An important question when discussing IP is "who used it first ?" If someone else comes along later saying "this is my name", too bad for them.

  • This reminds me of something I heard on the radio. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:43PM (#4673283) Homepage
    This morning, I heard a prank phone call from a local radio station to a guy named Harry Potter. They were pretending to be lawyers trying to cather up as many Harry Potters as they could for a class action suit against Warner Brothers.

    Of course it was all a joke, and the person named Harry Potter seemed to be okay with the fact that his name was now something of a household word. His wife even found great amusement in telling everyone her husband was indeed Harry Potter.

    It was mentioned that Harry Potter is quite a common name, and a web-search for people named Harry Potter would turn up quite a few people.

    Just something to think about.

    For the longest time I thought the name was "Hairy Potter" and it was about a hippy.

  • Courtesy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SofaMan ( 454881 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @07:48PM (#4673311)
    I think it would have been nice if the Journalist BW had put a disclaimer on his Rolling Stones articles *as a courtesy* to prevent confusion, but no way in the world should he be forced to do so through threat of legal sanction. He has a greater claim to the name, in some ways.

    Conversely, it would be equally nice that should Musician BW decide to write anything, he specify he is not the Journalist BW.

    People overlook these things so often, by just leaping straight to legal threats and litigation. Had Musician BW (or his agent) just written a friendly letter to Journalist BW, asking him to consider qualifying his Rolling Stones articles as a courtesy, I'm sure it would have been readily agreed to. But no, people with lawyers always have to leap to the 'cease and desist'.

    By way of example, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once received a polite letter from an American writer of the same name, asking very nicely if PM Churchill could qualify his byline (PM Churchill was also a published author of some note) to make clear the difference between the two. PM Churchill instantly agreed (in a quite amusing reply letter) to always include his middle intial when publishing texts in the U.S. Both sides were satisfied, quickly and without lawyers, by using a bit of civility and commonsense.

    Doesn't seem to be as much of that about thesedays.

  • My friend 's name (Score:3, Funny)

    by dvNull ( 235982 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @08:34PM (#4673621) Homepage
    My friends name is Russell Nash. Now after reading this article i told him he should probably hide or start the battle now .. since well u know .. "There can be only one"

    dvNuLL

  • A fair way to resolve this..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scharkalvin ( 72228 ) on Thursday November 14, 2002 @09:22PM (#4673949) Homepage
    Force Nissan to accept the url NissanMotors.com.
    Force Nissan computers to accept NissanComputer.com
    Remove Nissan.com from the registery for 5 years and let this
    thing cool off. Force Nissan motors to pay ALL the legal
    fees for both parties.

    Anyway he still has Nissan.net.

    King Salomen has spoken.

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmail. c o m> on Thursday November 14, 2002 @10:41PM (#4674342) Homepage Journal
    In other news, McDonnell, world-renowned maker of fighter jets including the F-15, has decided to sue McDonalds, world-renown maker of fried heart-attack hamburgers.

    McDonnell is apparently worried that the US Government, intending to go to McDonnell.com and buy an airplane, will instead go to McDonalds.com and buy a Happy Meal.

    "Naturally," a McDonnell representative said, "We don't want McDonalds taking advantage of our good name and making 15 million dollars on a Happy Meal because the US Government got confused."

    McDonald's has filed counter-suite, claiming that a family wanting to buy a happy-meal for $4.50 will become confused, walk into McDonnell Corp and buy a F-15 for $4.5 Million.

    "Obviously," a McDonald's spokesperson said, "there is a great potential for consumer-confusion here. We just want to make sure that consumers intending to buy a Happy Meal will buy a Happy Meal and not an air-plane."

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close