Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

When the WIPO Is On the Other Foot 60

Posted by michael from the kick-them-while-they're-down dept.
slashdoter writes: "Last year Kenneth J. Harvey defended his domain name Wallmartcanadasucks.com ( note the two ll's ) from Wal-mart. so what does he do now? What every red blooded canadian geek would, demand all of Wal-mart's domains with Wallmart ( two ll's ) in them. This would be really cool if he wins." This may be an opportune time to mention WIPO's new report on the domain name system, which recommends an assortment of new protections for trademarks in the domain name system. I haven't read it all yet, but the recommendations include taking domains away from the current holders and reassigning them, blocking new registrations of various classes of words, etc.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When the WIPO Is On the Other Foot More

When the WIPO Is On the Other Foot

Comments Filter:
  • If the roles were reversed and he were a large company suing an individual, yes, he could. That's the problem with the WIPO.

    --

  • Look at it, slashdot has linked a story on The Register and it's oddly quiet from the direction of the usual trolls who regularly complain that slashdot doesn't do such a thing...

  • Re:fp (Score:1)

    by pod ( 1103 )
    He can't trademark somehting that already is owned

    Unfortunatelly, Wallmart is not trademarked by Walmart.

  • at least, going by his site [wallmartcanadasucks.com]. Click on the "Contact Wallmart Directly" link, and you get contact info to various people at Wal-Mart, not Wallmart. His "Wallmart Horror Stories" are also Wal-Mart horror stories. So I don't see how he can claim the "l" makes a difference.

    Of course, it will be interesting if he does win.

  • Maybe that should be "every politically active red blooded canadian geek"

    If he's doing this to make a political statement, then it is not immature. If he's doing it for no other reason than to be a thorn in Walmart's side, then he is.

    LK
  • Your first post did sound like a raving maniac.

    Seriously though...

    Just because a corporation sues somebody doesn't make them think they are 'above the law'. They are just using the law to the fullest extent to try to get what they want; something that, although it seems unfair, everyone has a right to do. Of course, it takes money to do that.. so really only corporations and the rich can take this to the fullest extent, which is where the injustice kicks in.

    Before you slam all corporations, realize that corporate officers are merely protecting the assetts of the corporation, something they are required BY LAW to do, lest they be the personal and direct target of a class action lawsuit from their shareholders. So blame the shareholders!

  • Re:fp (Score:1)

    by rking ( 32070 )
    I really want this guy to win but sadly I dont think he can. He can't trademark something that already is owned by someone.

    Yes, he can. He just has to be either engaged in a different trade or else pursuing it in a different jurisdiction.

    "Wallmart" isn't a trademark of Walmart anyway, though I guess they are confusingly similar :)

    I doubt, however, that he can trademark anything as he doesn't seem to be carrying out a business.

  • he wants wallmartsuck* (Score:5)

    by mullein ( 37149 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @01:10AM (#292279)
    the register article doesn't actually say that he asked for wallmart*. he is "demanding that Wal-Mart hand over to him the URLs wallmartcanadasucks.net, wallmartcanadasucks.org and wallmartcanadasucks.ca.

  • ATI (Score:4)

    by legoboy ( 39651 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @05:44AM (#292280)

    Hey, could somebody let me know what the current url for "Artificial Turd Industries" is?

    Every time I go to www.ati.com [ati.com] now, I get some silly high-tech company rather than everyone's favourite fake dog poop vendor.

    I, for one, say that this sort of domain name seizure by a large corporation from a small operator *MUST* be stopped.

    (Really, though, does anybody know how much ATI the smaller was paid for turning over the domain?)

    --

  • "Before you slam all corporations, realize that corporate officers are merely protecting the assetts of the corporation, something they are required BY LAW to do, lest they be the personal and direct target of a class action lawsuit from their shareholders. So blame the shareholders! "

    Corporations exist to escape blame. The primary purpose of a corporation is to shield people from taking personal responsibility. They use the same arguments that you do basically to justify anything that a corporation may do. Killing people, poisoning water supplies, relasing deadly gasses, ruining ecosystems it's all int he name of profit.
    If we can hold human beings morally culpable for doing bad and evil things like murder, theft, littering etc then we ought to the same with corporations. The problem is that with a corporation nobody goes to jail for committing murder. Not the CEO, not the lowly worker, not the shareholders. In effect any corporation has a blank license to do anything it wants with no threat of jail time or criminal sanctions. Sometimes they get sued in civil court and have to give up money but for an organization that lives on money it's like skipping a meal no big deal.
  • Corporation are not human beings. They have no souls. They also have ZERO interest in talkign or doing things that are moral or right. They are only interested in making money. It it costs less to do the right thing then OK but if it costs more (the usual case) then you can go fuck yourself. Corporation exists to make money not to obey some god, promote a better world, help the community, or do the right thing. The corporation is the ultimate satanic entity (as defined by the church of satan and also pretty much as defined by the bible). A creature that exists ro promote the seven the deadly sins and to profit from them.
  • I noticed you used the word "should". Unfortunately that is not possible. For profit corporations can not exist to reflect human interest especially if by "human interest" you mean the vlaues you were tought as a kid or are likely to pick up from some sort of religion. OTOH if by "human interest" you mean satisfying the endless greed and cruelty of human beings then of course corporations are perfectly suited for that.
  • It's a relatively common tactic for large corporations to win in court by overwhelming force. I mean, are you willing to spend two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to defend johndoe.com against johndoe corp. Just because your name happens to john doe?

    It's gotten bad enough that there are companies out there that are willing to provide 'insurance' for court cases. It works like this:

    If you have a case that you've won at a certain level, and it's a reasonably large settlement, but it appears that the company you're up against is going to appeal/litigate you into the ground, you can sell your case at -- say -- 45 on the dollar to someone who has deep enough pockets to survive to the ene of the litigation. They provide the money for the litigation and take a huge chunk of the winnings in return (further diluting what the actuall litigant gets in the end).
    -----
    When IBM faced the US government over antitrust complaints back in the '70s the prosecutors faced down an interesting case of psychological warfare when IBM bought the block accross the street from their offices and put up a whole building to house their lawers.

    I'm sure that other people can come up with their own descriptions of how companies use their massive resources to keep themselves 'above the law'.
    --

  • The travolta movie was "A civil action".

    And yes, there are lawyers who will, from time to time, take on cases "pro bono" (free). They are, however, rare and they choose such cases carefully.

    The character that Travolta played essentially ended up running much of the case on a 'pro bono' with or without his partners' agrement.
    --

  • What a bunch of pussys.
  • Yahoo is already going to become a porn site [slashdot.org]. So in that case, you'll be out of luck, because then "Yahooo.com" would be "brand dilution". *snicker*
    yours,

  • this *sucks thing is sad (Score:3)

    by 0xA ( 71424 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @02:13AM (#292288)
    Has anybody else ever though of this whole *sucks thing as a different kind of Better Business Bureau?

    At least with one of these sites you can go and look at what people don't like about the company, all the BBB will tell you is that x number of people have filed complaints. Whenever I go look at something like wallmartsucks.com I don't find myself especially impressed with what most of these people have to say.

    I mean seriously, I spent some time working for a retail computer outlet a few years ago and the one thing I took away from it is that you can't make everybody happy. I don't doubt that some people have very legitimate gripes with the company they complain about but most of it is just silly whining. I would think that a company would be somewhat aloof to this, there's nothing at wallmartsucks.com that would stop me from shopping there. (I have my own reasons for avoiding that place)

    Is this just a case of a company sending their pet lawyers out to do whatever they feel is necessary or do they really think that their potential consumers are unable to evaluate this guy's gripes and dismiss them? Sounds to me like a better deal than the BBB saying 17 people have filed complaints but we won't tell you the details so you can make up your own mind.

  • How about I demand all domain names that contain the names of my companies: a, e, i, o, and u ??
  • No.

    People (and companies) should learn to communicate with the other party before calling in the lawyers. This is something the judges should strike pretty hard on, to ease the stress on the legal system. Even under complete disagreement, alot of stuff can be resolved by just talking with the other side. Even wakening up some conscience.

    - Steeltoe
  • His point is to get those suit braincells thinking, not actually winning.

    - Steeltoe
  • I disagree. A corporation should reflect human interest, or not exist at all.

    - Steeltoe
  • I'd do it myself, but I feel like posting.

    I remember when I had to go to http://www.atitech.ca [atitech.ca] to find drivers for my old Mach 64, as ati.com pointed to something else. I wonder where that company is now?

  • Well,I can appreciate the hate-Walmart tendency, but I still believe that domain names should simply be first-come, first-serv. If a company was too late to register a domain name before some squatter, toughshit.

    But, of course, they're gonna give domains to the most powerful company that demands it, because Life Sucks. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone should play that game;just because Walmart is a big evil fuckstick of a company doesn't mean this guy should be.

  • I'm registering

    www.microsoft-walmart-intelcorp-ebay-amazon-amd- ci sco-sunmicro-applecomputer-rambus-electronicarts-s ony-napster-oracle-ibm-linuxone-redhat-fsf-java-pe rl-python-c-scientologists-aol-yahoo-directv-calif orniapowercompanies-spacestationmir-nasa-georgedub ya-algore-wipo-altavista-hotornotdotcom-slashdot-f bi-cia-gtk-qt-gnome-kde-emacs-vi-ed-netscape-china -usa-israel-palestine-england-madcowdisease-footin mouth-stupiddotcoms-aftra-xbox-ps2-astroturfers-sp rint-rockandroll-thecolawars-icanttakeitanymore-ha rdbetterfasterstronger-linux-windows-os2-beos-osx- qnx-icann-spambuster-asteroidsasstrategicweapons-p arrot-embarrassingpersonalproblems-crueltytoanimal s-answerphones-reallycoolpeople-earthweb-clippy-fi rewire-usb-dmca-someonesettingupusthebomb-alcatel- softwarepatents-hardwarepatents-uspto-boringwebsit es-suckyfreepornowebsites-mastercard-ultimaonline- securityviamarketing-nsa-trolls-karmawhores-ingame advertising-lameaprilfoolsjokes-nuclearweapons-wra thofgod-plaguesoflocusts-holloweastereggs-havingaf ightwithmygirlfriend-younameitwegotit-buyonegetone free-survivor-bigbrother-god-thedevil-evangelists- love-hate-war-famine-thespacerace-pollution-boring songsmakingittonumberone-stupidpeoplepullingdownth enationalaverageiq-thefcc-lackofmoney-toomuchmoney -letsfaceittheyallfuckingsuck.com

    My plan is that they wont all be able to sue me.
  • For a brand name called "fido" having one that was named www.phydeaux.com would be a logical (to me) way to have a domain name about the company if you had strong feelings.

    Here I thought that having a sound alike only mattered if you were in a business that was in direct competition of the trademark holder. How silly of me.

    DanH
    Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
  • Trademark is supposed to properly identify a company, product, or service. If you put in www.bigcompanyname.com, you expect to get something about bigcompanyname. Now, if you get a page saying, "Company X sucks!," it works correctly. You got, what you expected.

    It is proper, as long as you don't try to confuse people and make them think you got the official company site.

    There was a case in NY when someone used the company as www.bijaridesigns.com (mispelled), but when the company sued, they lost.

    You can always appeal the WIPO decision to a court. Of course, that is the expensive way.

  • Sorry to troll, but I had to. Imagin if your story came up with no comments. Anyway

    I really want this guy to win but sadly I dont think he can. He can't trademark somehting that already is owned by someone.


    ________

  • I doubt, however, that he can trademark anything as he doesn't seem to be carrying out a business. ---> It's not a trademark, but according to the information he has posted on his site he is apparently in the process of writing a book called Wallmartcanadasucks.com.

    This "should" constitute sufficient activity on his part to justify the domain name, wouldn't you think? Along the line of harrypotter.com and so on, it's the name of hs book!
  • Solution. If you cannot afford to fight ANY case in court, you dont have to pay the lawyer. Make the court system faster, there should be "Honorable Lawyers" (oxymoron?) that fight cases for free. I mean the number one thing people think about when being sued are can they afford to fight the case, that's not right. Justice should not cost any money! Companies can sue anyone they please, except richer companies, becuase they know they can drag it out for so long the other side will go bankrupt. ---> Actually, I think this idea could be refined further. It occurs to me that monetary damages should be ordered as a percentage or multiple of an individual's or corporation's annual gross income. (Or maybe net, but gross might work better.) That way, when an individual wins a lawsuit against BigCorp, they get, say, 50% of BigCorp's gross income for the past year. Or if BigCorp wins, then they get 50% of the individual's income for that same year.

    It ups the ante for BigCorp and levels the playing field between the individual and large corporations because that way they both have the same thing at stake and if the lawsuit is in danger of driving an individual into bankruptcy then it also presents the same danger to the large corporation. Good for the goose and good for the gander, as it were.

    This idea could use some refinement as I just thought of it this very minute. But it does have its attractions, doesn't it....
  • They are just using the law to the fullest extent to try to get what they want; something that, although it seems unfair, everyone has a right to do.

    Indeed. Which is why every time I get really pissed off at a company that tries something really raw (RIAA, MPAA, pick a villain), I just remember why they are allowed to even attempt it. The law gives them the right to do so. They may have bought the law into existence in the first place, but it's still the legislation that made the situation possible.

    So basically, I get to blame a bunch of lawyers, which, deep down, is something everyone wants to do anyway :)

    --

  • Well said. Golf clap.

    --
  • Exactly my point. It's so fscking blatantly stupid, yet the WIPO continues doing it. I read the article here; it's like McDonalds the restaurant suing McDonald the scottish family. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

    Apparently the WIPO is taking my sig to heart.

    --

  • Re:Biggest = Best ? (Score:3)

    by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @06:57AM (#292304) Homepage
    And if that domain name is already taken by an individual it should simply be taken away? Because that's what's going on all the time here. Do you think that in all the world there's only one entity (person, business, team, etc) with a given name? If there's a conflict, why on earth should control be transfered to whomever has the most money?

    Personally, I think it's great what Harvey's doing here. I mean, I hate that someone can say "Give me your domain names" and such a demand is even considered by the WIPO, but this at least turns the tables and makes the whole system look really stupid. Which it is.

    --

  • "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln

    LOL, I just caught the irony in your sig. Do you get flamed a lot for that one by angry morons who don't catch the humor in that?

  • The same thing has also happened to the site AmeritechCable.com. They, a consumer adcovacy site and a general Ameritech detractor, have been sued by Ameritech and SBC Communications for, among other things, having a site that was "confusingly similar" to Ameritech's, even though it didn't even use the same color scheme and had fake "banners" thoughout the site that very vocally criticized Ameritech.

    Since the original site has been taken down due to a court injunction, the only online information that I can find on it is on this site [southbendhackersclub.com], and it appears that SBC/Ameritech even had Google remove its cache of the site [google.com]. However, it is strongly evidenced that Ameritech simply did this because they now are actually moving into the cable business, as is evidenced by this quick search on Google [google.com].

  • IMHO, the point is to show how fucked up the system is. This situation is a lose-lose situation for WIPO.

    If wallmartsucks loses, then the arbitrainess of the system will be exposed(again) in a public forum. If they win, big companies have more to worry about.

  • Yahoo is already going to become a porn site.

    Nope, Yahoo has changed their minds [cnet.com].

  • You've never got the hang of this democracy stuff, have you?

  • Biggest = Best ? (Score:3)

    by sane? ( 179855 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @12:50AM (#292310)
    It seems that the entire WIPO approach is that the biggest claimant, either in bank balance or other example of power, has the prime right to any and all domain names associated with themselves.

    Face it, WIPO is an agency of big government and vested interest. They are never going to vote for the little guy.

    If you want some version of true justice, then you need to get the WIPO out of the loop, and replace them with a truly democratic body.

    How about setting up such a Internet only body, allowing the net denizens to vote and then demanding that the nondemocratic agencies yield to true democratic will.

    After all, its democracy that they hold dear, isn't it?

  • There's nothing quite like having a firm business plan is there. Or maybe not - maybe flexibility is the key!

    I don't know how available porn was via Yahoo in the past, but it would be interesting to find out if this new 'moral stance' does diminish the amount there is.

    They're going for the family values dollar - very clever...
    (As always, respect to the genius of Bill Hicks)

    FP.
    --

  • Re:Biggest = Best ? (Score:3)

    by logiceight ( 187269 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @02:20AM (#292312)
    Well I think the biggest should have the rights to the domain name.

    Well I type http://www.BigCorporation.com/ I expect to find the website of that big corporation. And I expect this is true of 90% of internet users.

    Of course if I type in http://www.BigCorporationSucks.com/ I expect to find a website telling me why that big corporation sucks.
  • This is all about big business wanting the control of words you can use.

    One of the reasons why I have WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] and SWIPO.org [swipo.org]
  • The problem is that the WIPO is filling a vacuum that was made by the growth of the internet. It is entirely possible that the WIPO could be cut out of the loop.

    It could be done through an alternative TLD service like http://www.new.net/. Also, with the shrinkage of .com tld, all those country tlds are becoming more acceptable as time goes on. With the growth of the internet, chances are somebody will be finding your site through a search engine anyway, making domain names less important.

    The bad news is a big corporation can outspend most citizens. The good news is that it doesn't neccessarily have to stop you from having a website.

  • Can he actually say that he has a company made out of that name?

    Can he establish a company after the fact and then charge Wal-Mart for use of his new company name?

    It seems like this would be like trying to patent something that already exists... anyone?

  • Troll, huh? I was trying to be funny. Jeez. I give you, as moderator, (Score: -1, Retard)
  • Your mindset is one of a bigot

    You have no idea what you are talking about. FIRST of all I am not mindlessly hating corporations. I am complaining about the PRACTICE of domain squatting that almost every single corporation does. This is wrong.

    Maybe if you learned to READ and UNDERSTAND you would see what I am talking about. If you think I am wrong, point me to a few big corporation that does not push its way around on the internet by buying every domain name they can, threatening to sue anyone that tries to oppose them, and doing anything they damn well please because they think they are untouchable. Show me a few, I'm sure you can point at least a few out.

    For the record, I do not hate corporations, I think they have their purpose but any corporation that thinks they are above the law is wrong.

    I know you are troll but people's stupid ass comments like yours are pointless, go back to the Yahoo chats where you can be with more kiddies like yourself. Grow up.

    Corporations that merely exist go bankrupt very fast.

    Arathres


    I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
  • I think it funny as hell. Companies should know that it is only a matter of time before people start pushing back at them. Corporations think they can do anything they please and they cannot. Domain squatting by corporations is horrible, they eat up everything they can get their hands on including names that have nothing to do with them, mis spelled names, its pathetic.

    Finally a Corporation is getting a taste of its own medicine. I hope he wins, it will be send a message to corporations that they cannot bully people around and not expect people to get pissed.

    Arathres


    I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
  • You point out a very real problem. Many times someone who is right under the law cannot prove it because they dont have enough money. This is 100% wrong. Solution. If you cannot afford to fight ANY case in court, you dont have to pay the lawyer. Make the court system faster, there should be "Honorable Lawyers" (oxymoron?) that fight cases for free. I mean the number one thing people think about when being sued are can they afford to fight the case, that's not right. Justice should not cost any money! Companies can sue anyone they please, except richer companies, becuase they know they can drag it out for so long the other side will go bankrupt. I forget what the movie was called with John Travolta that pointed this very thing out. "A Civil something"

    Arathres


    I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
  • If you don't like a way a company is behaving there are options. Don't get pissed, get even. Go Gandhi; tear a page from his book and do him proud. The British told him he couldn't make salt. Did he give up? Hell no! He violated the fork out of their intellectual property. And he taught others how to do the same. I think on some level there is an obligation to resist such attempts to control art, expression and information. The record industry wants your money for nothing, and the artists works for free. Steal them. Make it expensive, and difficult for the offending entities to protect their "property". In our world information is nessicary for life; art makes life worth living. We don't have to accept unreasonable restrictions, and many reasonable restrictions come in different flavors of optional. Kenneth J. Harvey knows the score, and he's added a play from his own book. Why fight the system when the system is more than happy to fight itself?
  • After all, its democracy that they hold dear, isn't it?

    Hell no. Democracy can die a miserable death in a dumpster behind K-mart for all they care. CAPIATALISM is what they hold dear. If its going to make money, thats the good thing.

    In fact, if I could do away with democracy completely and force you to buy my products exclusively, I'd be OK with that.

    Why doesn't it surprise me that the teenage moronator crowd thinks this naiev pap is insightful, or whatever. What Jr. Dork has just described for us all is A.K.A. "Mob Rule."

    --

  • And if that domain name is already taken by an individual it should simply be taken away?

    Obviously a lot of companies think so; see this bit about Nissan Motor vs. Nissan Computer Company. [ncchelp.org] "Nissan" happens to be a Hebrew word as well as whatever it means in Japanese. Uzi Nissan named various businesses after himself before Datsun changed it's name to Nissan Motors. And he registered nissan.com for Nissan Computer Corp in 1994. Now it appears that the Japanese carmaker has discovered the internet and wants nissan.com. They are 7 years too late -- if there is any consistency to the WIPO's decisions at all.
  • It's a WIPO issue because WIPO customarily folds to the big company demands regardless of how it would play in trademark law. And pretty obviously the xSucks.com cases are not trademark violations -- unless x = Hoover.
  • EveryoneThatWantsToSueAnybodyOverTheseStupidDomain RegistrationIssuesReallyShouldStopSpendingMoneyOnA llOfTheseLawyersAndStartDevelopingRealProducts.COM

    or
    verizonreallyreallyreallyreallyreallysucks.com

    --- My Karma is bigger than your...
    ------ This sentence no verb
  • It seems that the entire WIPO approach is that the biggest claimant, either in bank balance or other example of power, has the prime right to any and all domain names associated with themselves

    True or not, if you notice. The small guy WON in this case. He is now going on the offensive by asking walmart for all there wallmart* domain names.

  • What's there to defend? (Score:5)

    by janpod66 ( 323734 ) on Saturday April 14, 2001 @03:06AM (#292326)
    I don't understand why this is even a WIPO or trademark issue. Whether "WallMartCanadaSucks.com" or "WalMartCanadaSucks.com" or "WalMart-sucks.com", use of the term "WalMart" seems entirely appropriate: it identifies correctly and specifically the product WalMart provides. Furthermore, it doesn't look like Harvey is using the term to engage in his own trade, he is merely relating his experience as a customer.

    The purpose of trademarks isn't to let companies control the use of a term in every way possible or restrict speech they find inconvenient, it is to ensure that consumers know which product they are buying when it's identified by a trademark.

  • I totally agree. The BBB is just another form of corporate bribery (or is it extortion?) Pay money, you get to use the BBB logo, pay enough money and no matter how many complaints you get, the BBB will do nothing. But that's ok I guess, since no one pays attention to the BBB logo anyway.

    The solution? Group all the "*sucks" sites together into the top level domain ".sucks" Have a private organization run the servers (I'll volunteer servers and my admin abilities if someone has spare bandwidth and a co-lo :), then make sure the company doesn't get it's own name (for example Best Buy cannot own bestbuy.sucks) Sure the site will be one-sided against the company, but hey! a company's web site is one-sided FOR the company so it balances out.

    BTW, epinions.com does allow people to comment about almost anything. Not sure if their business model is viable, and thus how long they'll be around. But I always check there before buying anything or dealing with a company to see what others have said.
    --
    He had come like a thief in the night,
  • Wow, now we know what WIPO really stands for! Walmart is poor, obviously....
    CoasterCount.com [coastercount.com]
  • Not at all, Sting.com [sting.com].
  • Oh goody, more mindless hate of big bad corporations. Being a corporation does not dictate ones behaviour but lets call them all by the top dogs. This socialist crap isn't the same as racism -- no, no... we hate corporations--when will those corporations learn?

    By merely existing a corporation is guilty of nothing. Your mindset is one of a bigot.

  • You're forgetting that trademark has a limited scope, and two entities can hold a trademark on the same thing, provided they're separated. Thus, you can have McDonalds, purveyor of crap food the world over, and McDonalds, a high class restaurant in Scotland.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close