Battlebots Battles It Out: TV Show Versus IRC 206
Ender, Duke_of_URL writes: "Battlebots the TV show, has joined the ranks of Corporate bad-guys buy attempting to force out Battlebots.org, an IRC site that had registered their domain before Battlebots even filed for a trademark. As most of you know, in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins."
crazy (Score:2, Funny)
Wrong answer. Slashdot is a ® of BSI (Score:2, Informative)
if I start a corporation by the name Slashdot tomorrow, then can I sue to get this site down?
No. SLASHDOT is a registered trademark [uspto.gov] of Blockstackers [blockstackers.com] (CmdrTaco's former company and parent of Everything Development Company [everydevel.com]), licensed to OSDN.
Re:crazy (Score:1)
now if some big coorporation is not happy with some site then they can simply get a trademark on that and sue em !
Re:crazy (Score:2)
What's wrong with a corporation demanding it's rights? Nobody wants to admit it, but corporations are what make America great.
Re:crazy (Score:2)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 08:16:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: root@os.markbach.com
To: info@battlebots.com, press@battlebots.com, jason@battlebots.com,
roski@battlebots.com, young@battlebots.com, heather.mayer@lw.com
Cc: blyon@theshell.com
Subject: Re: battlebots.org
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I would like to start by informing you I am not involved with
battlebots.org or Mr. Lyon in any way, shape, or form. I simply
discovered his website. Therefore, anything I say should not, and must
not, be held against him or his website in any way, including all legal
proceedings. I also do not profess to be a certified expert on
the law, so you may wish to take my legal opinions with a grain of salt.
The examples I provide, however, should clarify my position and
observations.
On his website battlebots.org, Mr. Lyon has posted your
communications with him, to which I am replying.
Following are excerpts from a letter written by a Jason Cooper, in
quotes, followed by my own replies:
"We understand that you have received the cease and desist letter from our
attorney. Since this is a matter of great sensitivity to us, we are forced
to consider legal action to enjoin you from further use of the domain
name. However, we would also like to resolve the situation in the least
contentious manner possible under the circumstances."
[To Battlebots.com company, et al]
It is obvious you don't want to shoulder responsibility for this. You say
that you "understand that you have received
makes it sound as if "your" attorney has nothing to do with you
whatsoever. You also claim "this is a matter of great sensitivity" --- it
is common knowledge that a ".com" site is almost always more well-known,
more respected, and considered more authoritative than a ".org" site.
[To Battlebots.com company and Attorney Heather Mayer]
It seems your obsession with owning battlebots.org is based solely on the
U.S. law requiring a company owning a trademark to enforce its ownership.
On that note, Microsoft should have sued me at least several times by now.
I have said "Shut the windows*, there's a storm coming!" more times than I
can count. (*=In case you were unaware, Windows is a trademark of
Microsoft Corp.)
It seems obvious to me that trademark enforcement only applies to the
specific domain for which whatever is trademarked is applicable. In other
words, "Battlebots" refers to fighting robots --- *IF* battlebots.org was
a site about fighting robots, which it is most definitely *NOT*, you
should enforce your trademark on that term specific to that realm.
However, the site has nothing to do with the type of entertainment you
trademarked. In fact, the site has nothing to do with entertainment.
You may also note that "OpenOffice" has been trademarked, yet
openoffice.org, owned by Sun Microsystems and unaffiliated with the
company that trademarked "OpenOffice", continues to operate. On their
website, they specifically note the trademark issue, and say that there
site has nothing to do with OpenOffice, and officially is a site about
openoffice.org. (Yes, a website *about* a something that has the name of
a website. Confusing, isn't it? So are the U.S. trademark laws, ha!)
You also claim you would like to resolve this matter in "the least
contentious manner possible under the circumstances."
The circumstances are this: you want something that has nothing to do with
your trademark. Trademark is a compound word, consisting of "trade" and
"mark". You'll notice that battlebots.org and battlebots.com do not share
the same trade. This should make the circumstances, or lack thereof, very
easy to understand.
"As you will not be able to use the domain (battlebots.org) in any
fashion, we recommend that you transfer it to us immediately, and
BattleBots Inc. will reimburse you for the expense you incurred in
registering the name."
If my given birth name was Battlebots, and you made me change my name,
would reimbursement for the fees involved help me rebuild my reputation?
No.
If everybody who had ever done business with me knew I was named
Battlebots Williams and suddenly could not locate me, would you reimburse
me for the lost sales? It sure doesn't look that way.
Williams is a very common name. People would most likely know me as
Battlebots Williams, not as simply Mr. Williams.
Likewise, no seasoned user of the Internet would ever think of trying to
find AOL's homepage by simply looking through every single
existence. Battlebots.org is not uniquely identifiable as simply
something "dot-org."
"We're sorry for any inconvenience, but we must protect our US and
international trademarks and intellectual property."
The U.S. trademark system is designed to prevent your competitors from
stealing your business by using your name, provided you enforce your
ownership.
Mr. Lyon was not stealing your business.
Therefore, what enforcement needs to be done?
--theorangesquid
aka matt williams
hrm (Score:1)
Re:hrm (Score:1)
Re:hrm (Score:1)
Infact I'd say that battlebots.ord has EVERY right to turn around and say "Actually BITCH, you give me YOUR site and apologise and pay me $$$ and even give me some beer you corporate motherfukin' pig."
If a court forces the
Off topic, but has anyone thought how damn funny it would be if some old computer dude had registered the name MICROSOFT in the '60's and then came out and demanded that MS relinquished it's website & got a new name. *THAT*'d be a damn funny domain dispute.
easy solution (Score:3, Funny)
Another analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
We do share some things with nazi Germany. The rules are being modified by a small group of well connected and wealthy people. The small group is using the rules they created to redefine right and wrong via the legal system, and is hammering the populace into line with much vigor. Despite this, much of the population clings to the conceot of "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Of course, we don't have the extremes of nazi Germany. The drive of the small groupo isn't to eliminate a race of people, but for the aquisition of power from the litle people. To move about without fear of the law, by currupting that law. But just people aren't being killed doesn't mean it's an acceptable environment. It's an indignity, a slap in the face. Why should we tolerate such indignity?
Stepping back and looking over recent events, i kind of see how the Jews didn't see what was coming. No one expected the Spanish Inquisition either. What are we to expect in the coming years? The illusion that we have a say in the shaping of government is already fading, and the real law making machinery is starting to bgecome visible underneath the worn veneer of "Democratic processes". That's definitly a milestone.
It's all okay though, until they kick down /your/ door.
The ultimate Irony (Score:2, Informative)
A great history of the "death" of Robot Wars can be found here: http://www.robotcombat.com/history.html [robotcombat.com] by Jim Smentowski, builder of "Nightmare". He was first at Robot Wars '97, the last Robot Wars event. There was no Robot Wars '98 because of the legal hassels. The first BattleBots event, pre-Comedy Central, was in '99 in Long Beach. I have been to every event since '97 (except one) and I have met Trey Roski and Greg Munson, founders of BattleBots. They are great guys who really care for the sport.
I am betting that this turns out to just be another overzellous lawyer getting the the way. Remember that in order to keep a trademark, you have to defend it.
nope nope (Score:5, Informative)
Re:nope nope (Score:2, Interesting)
domain: battlebots.org
status: production
origin-c: COCO-695905
registrar: CORE-80
created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC CORE-80
expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC
Re:nope nope (Score:1)
I'm not so sure about that. This could be interesting in court provided our legal system worked the way it *should*. However, as was noted previously, it's the money that wins.
I have a feeling that this will not only be uninteresting, it will be a shutout.
Re:nope nope (Score:1)
second of all, internic records do reflect when the domain was registered first. look at ANY other internic record.
yes, they may let it expire and registered it again. however, did you even read their letters?
WHOIS says Aug-2000 (Score:1)
According to the wHOIS info, battlebots.org was registered in August 2000:
The .com flavour was registered much before that:
Still, CC may have bought the domain off a previous owner.
I thought the whole purpose of having .org and .com was so that different things with the same name could be accomodated. For example, some company has my initials, but I didn't sue their pants off because they have the commercial flavour, and I got the organisation flavour domain name.
This guy *is* squatting (Score:5, Informative)
Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
FIRST USE: 19990630.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990630
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75681165
Filing Date April 12, 1999
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition August 1, 2000
People need to understand that priority in the DNS registration system in no way provides priority over a US Trademark filing unless you can clearly demonstrate a legitimate use and that there will be no confusion in the marketplace. IMO, this guy watched the TV show and decided it'd be a cute (though thoroughly non-original) name for his IRC service. That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.
The domain name shouldn't be his.
Re:This guy *is* squatting (Score:2)
Not completely accurate. If the guy had been using the name 'in trade' prior to the use by the trademark holder then the trademark holder cannot prevent the prior use.
But the priority is based on the filling date, not the issue date. So the fact that the trademark was filled before the domain name was registered means that the corporation wins.
Re:This guy *is* squatting (Score:2, Informative)
this guy watched the TV show and decided it'd be a cute (though thoroughly non-original) name for his IRC service
Its only trademark infringement if he intended to mis-use the trademark to make a profit, and even then its not so clear - remember the windows95.com situation (before CNET absorbed and threw away what was by then winfiles.com), they won, Microsoft lost windows95.com. Its not "misappropriation" just to USE someone elses trademark at all. If it is, then we're all in trouble. How many people who own personal sites actually check first if there is some obscure company with that trademark when they register? I know I sure as hell didn't.
Trademarks don't automatically give rights to domain names, as you seem to imply. Otherwise, I'm sure that half of sites out there are infringing on some or other corporate trademark. His site is "bot"-related.
The other thing this is a .org, commercial entities should be on .com. Lastly, he "got there first". There is a MacDonalds plumbing service where I live .. if they had registered MacDonalds.com before the burger franchise, they would have had rights to keep it.
This guy isn't trying to compete with BattleBots, which is important for trademark issues. His "product" is entirely unrelated to the TV show. Trademarks belong only to particular product groups, which is why its completely legal for someone to sell (for example) Linux detergent. Likewise, it would be illegal for Linus to register the trademark "Linux" under "detergents", because he would have to show he actually intends to 'trade' detergents under that name. Otherwise its trademark-squatting. If someone wants to sell furniture under the name "BattleBots", thats legal. Likewise, if someone trades ISP services (as this guy did) under the term "BattleBots", thats also perfectly legal.
The domain name should be his.
Re:This guy *is* squatting (Score:2)
Re:This guy *is* squatting (Score:2, Informative)
That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.
No, trademark infringement isn't quite that simple. Trademarks are associated with specific goods, in this case BattleBots are trading in "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots." It is only trademark infringement if Barrett also intended to trade "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots" under that name. Clearly he has not, he is trading "internet services" under that name. Under trademark law, this is completely legal. I could legally for example sell fast food under the tradename "Biap", and not only would it NOT be infringing on your "biap", but I would also have a legal right to www.biap.org and www.biap.com, had I got there first. Even if I'm not trading anything I might still have rights to those domains if I was clearly not intending to profit from them and wasn't acting in bad faith. A company called Biap doesn't automatically have rights to biap.org, certainly not under trademark laws at any rate.
If the BattleBots TV show people have a case, its not because of a trademark issue - Barrett is clearly not attempting to hijack their profits, he is not even competing with them. He would have to actually be competing with them for it to be a trademark issue.
Cybersquatting, maybe, but trademark misappropriation, no. I don't think its deliberate cybersqatting though, as anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense. Cybersquatting alone has nothing to do with trademark law anyway, it is just sometimes fought using a trademark issue, since a lot of cybersquatting cases also happen to be trademark cases.
Standardard IANAL disclaimer applies.
Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org? (Score:2)
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
concern about the administrative load and system performance if
the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is
being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
commercial registrations in the subdomains.
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
government organizations may fit here.
I recall some earlier RFC saying that ORG was for nonprofits and individuals, but I can't quite recall which one that was.
Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org? (Score:2)
I recall a nasty-gram from Internic requiring Interpath to register and use ".com" for all our customers as ".net is for network service providers". You have no idea the hell that created for all the shell users ("mercury.interpath.net" had to become "mercury.interpath.com")... That was many, many years ago.
Now, everyone snarfs up
Ack! (Score:3, Funny)
Actually I think the cease and desist letter to the world from MS attorneys telling them to stop using the "Passport" term will be much more interesting.
Re:Ack! (Score:1)
Re:Passport (Score:1)
It turns out that most governments use the term 'passport' for some kind of document used for identification outside of county boudries. This use infringes on Microsoft's total ownership of the word passport and shall be discontinued at once...
Re:Ack! (Score:2)
There are two paths: (Score:3, Informative)
"Pro bono"? Try anti-Bono. (Score:2)
Find someone who will fight for them pro-bono (as they have a strong case)
There has to be a better term than "pro bono," as the term "pro bono" brings to mind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [everything2.com], which set a precedent to put everything first published in the U.S. on or after January 1, 1923, under perpetual copyright because Di$neyCo can just lobby for another across-the-board term extension act every 20 years.
Re:There are two paths: (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull. They have no case. BattleBots was a registered trademark 16 months before this guy squatted on the domain. Even the EFF wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. The guy's best hope is to get them to pay for his original domain registration, because the registrar is going to snatch that domain name away from this kid in a heartbeat.
Blaming BattleBots for going after this squatter shows an incredible ignorance of how trademarks work. If you hold a trademark and do not vigorously defend it, you run the risk of having the mark declared generic (e.g., Kleenex, Xerox, Thermos) or reverted to the public domain.
As a corporation, BattleBots has no choice but to defend its mark or lose it. Since it has every right, established through a date of first use that is 16 months earlier than the IRC kid, how can you fault them?
The best thing that could come of your call for a boycott of the show is that you might get some pale, pasty nerd boys off the sofa and out into the sunlight for a change.
Re:dont hate (Score:1)
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but this is quoted from the first reply to bb(tm):
The trademark for Battlebots was not obtained by your client until October 24,
2000. Barrett registered the domain name "battlebots.org" in August, 2000
Also, this is what the TESS has to say about when the trademark was registered [uspto.gov]:
Registration Number
2397203
Registration Date
October 24, 2000
NSI records show that the bb.org domain record was created on "2000-08-28 06:52:41", as a previous user has already mentioned. It would seem that Barrett registered the domain about two months before bb(tm) had their (tm).
Re:dont hate (Score:2)
There is no way the subsequent applications would have been allowed by the USPTO unless the original filer had either assigned that mark to BattleBots, Inc. or the latter's filing clearly indicated that they were the same organization.
So, it is quite safe to infer that the earliest filing will be the one that any judge looks at, and I'd bet it's also the one that BattleBots, Inc.'s lawyers are referencing.
Re:"Boycott X" (Score:2, Funny)
warez linux? (Score:1)
/. their PR department? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comments, Questions, Concerns?
Let us know what's on your mind. Contact us at the following addresses:
PRESS DESK
press@battlebots.com [mailto]
GENERAL FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS
info@battlebots.com [mailto]
Re:/. their PR department? (Score:2, Informative)
Jason Cooper - jason@battlebots.com [mailto]
Creative Director
BattleBots Inc.
Normally, I wouldn't post something like this, but the audacity (and naïveté) that comes across in Mr. Cooper's letter to Barret realley cheesed me off. Excuse me? Who says he is not allowed to use it? That's for a judge or an arbiter to decide, not a marketroid.
Re:/. their PR department? (Score:2)
Well, lately, the Deep Pockets that control the latter seem to control all the former, too.
Why do all of these things start with a cease-and-desist -- which often ends up being ignored until the actual legal proceedings -- and not a simple, polite letter? Oops, I forgot: billable hours
Re:/. their PR department? (Score:1)
Microsoft where found to be bad-asses by the court, although the foot to the MS-BUM is yet to be applied as per instructions.
Those guys are much bigger then battlebots.com
This has changed my mind. (Score:1)
I think that whomever registers a domain first should own it as long as they want to.
Re:This has changed my mind. (Score:3, Informative)
I also generally favor intellectual property and trademark protection when warranted. I still do. But this, and other similar companies going after domains, doesn't pass the smell test in the least. There's no confusion of identity, they aren't engaged in any similar activity, type or scope of business, etc. The term 'bots' has been around long before their trademark. And bots 'battling' is also ancient terminology, in internet years. The trademarks (and there are numerous) are detailed to include the program and about any type of adjunct merchandising from computer games to bottle caps. However, there doesn't seem to be a dilutive impact if 'battlebots.org' isn't in a competing area. Also, it's usually the '.com' one goes after, claiming 'unintentional' hits to another site due to 'confusion' searching for plaintiff's site. Obviously, '.org' is usually NOT where one begins looking. They likely get hits from those actually looking for the '.org', since it's more internet related in this case potentially benefiting the plaintiff. Possibly at the detriment of the defendant, should they get 'interested' in the
I'd go after some publicity, most certainly. The Computer/Internet press? ok. But that seems like where we usually go. Mainstream press? why not. Most important? I'd be sending every piece of material to something like Daily Variety. Even an Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood might pick up a snipet on something nonsensical like this 'David v. Goliath' story (as long as both are produced by their owners). If you want your PR to work, make sure it's on THEIR home turf. For the disclaimer, however, IANAL, and I don't play one on TV; just get to see 30 or 40 pages of billing detail from them every month (sigh).
Oh..and finally.. their (the
(B)
(i)
In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I)
the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II)
the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III)
the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV)
the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V)
the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI)
the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII)
the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII)
the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX)
the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 [subsec. (c)(1) of this section].
(ii)
Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
Looks like he already conceeded... (Score:1)
Maybe if he hadn't of already caved in on the point of principle this would be worthy of discussion on slashdot.
(Believe me... I'm against evil megaliths pushing around the little guys, but once you agree that there *is* a price worth giving up the moral high ground then you're operating on their level)
Fighting robots bit off more than they can chew (Score:2)
To the notable point that they have "already caved in" my answer would be that, based upon their response, the fighting 'droid company seems intent to deny the softbot company what was rightfully theirs. They got the domain first, and (IANAL disclaimer!) from the docs, I'd have to agree that it doesn't look like cybersquatting. But rather than duke it out, the softbot company is taking the sensible approach: Never confuse what is legal with what is logical.
Actually looks like the mecha guys are taking the bait. Of course, it all depends on how personally and financially important the domain name is to the softbot guy. Since he's only asking five grand, I'd have to say, not much.
Re:Looks like he already conceeded... (Score:1)
Sure, it's not fair, but not everyone has time (even if money is not an issue) to deal with stuff like this.
Re:Looks like he already conceeded... (Score:1)
But then I noticed this (check out the dates):
> whois battlebots.net@whois.opensrs.net
[rr-N1-tor.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
Domain Name: BATTLEBOTS.NET
Administrative Contact:
Comito, Virginia kikiinternet@hotmail.com
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
(408)252-6398
Initially you might think this was them (theshell.com) getting battlebots.net (gee, you would have thought if battlebots.com was so desperate for domains they would have got the
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA
What gives?
Re:Looks like he already conceeded... (Score:2)
battlebots.org was so civil! (Score:1)
It's pretty sad that this happens ALL THE TIME, and this one is truly a legit reason for this poor guy owning battlebots.org, and yet they are still going to sue him. I swear I am never voting for any official that promotes anything DMCA or "big business wins with their big lawyers" crap. It is such a JOKE that the united states is becoming a place where a citizen has no rights when compared to the tax revenue machines of big business. Our founding fathers would be puking their guts out for sure.
The internet's been really fsked up (Score:1)
How could I conclude that? Because their argument is about confusion. Customers are going to see Maple Street, look for 123, and expect to see Microsoft. Heck, if I'm some other business, maybe they'll shop from me than from Microsoft (perish the though!).
This sounds ubsurd, but this is exactly what's happening to the internet. Because utl's and doman names are abstract, aka not touch-and-feel types of property, and not a lot of people can really relate to (aka non-geeks), no one really cares if big businesses have there way with property that has been fairly, and from every way I see it, lawfully obtained.
The real problem, atleast as I see it, as that you never really own your domain name. Unlike your house, which besides taxes and general upkeeping (can't be a fire hazard) is yours if you pay in full, domains are sort of licensed by the DNS (I'm a little shady on this part, but I had to pay for my domain name, year after year, so I assumed everyone does).
F-bacher
Registration. (Score:2, Interesting)
battlebots.com:
Registrant:
BattleBots Inc. (BATTLEBOTS-DOM)
701 DeLong Ave
Unit K
Novato, CA 94945
US
Record created on 03-Mar-1999
battlebots.net:
Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
Record Created on 23-Aug-2000
battlebots.org:
Registrant Hot Networking (template COCO-695905)
email.the.admin.contact@battlebots.org
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80
Re:Registration. (Score:1)
READ PEOPLE!
-Jeff
Re:Registration. (Score:2)
That does not make it true. The registration was granted after the DNS registration, it was filed much earlier in 1999.
READ PEOPLE!
Not a bad strategy to try yourself sometime.
Re:Registration. (Score:1)
Re:Registration. (Score:1)
Re:Registration. (Score:2)
This doesn't make any sense financially. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now battlebots inc. is going to sue them. It probably cost more than $6K just to get the restraining order. It seems as if Battlebots Inc. is trying to somehow defend the right of companies who own trademarks in one industry to enforce those trademarks in other completely unrelated industries. In other words, they're being silly.
Can they honestly believe that it makes sense to sue for a domain name when you could just buy the damn thing for $6000?
Bad move! (Score:1)
They're playing with fire here. battlebots.com could convince the judge that battlebots.org were in it for the money all along, i.e. cybersquatting.
What this is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What this is... (Score:2)
Unlikely, not just because the creative director is issuing the correspondence. Any trademark/domain name lawyer worth their salt would have grabbed all the domains themselves in the first place.
Before the trademark? (Score:1)
Battlebots.org
CORE Registrar: CORE-80
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80
Record expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC
Battlebots.com
Record last updated on 14-Mar-2001.
Record expires on 03-Mar-2003.
Record created on 03-Mar-1999.
Something's wrong.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Battlebot.org's letter is dated August 17th.
The supposed "reply" was sent on August 9th,
but obviously it wasn't a reply at all.
Seems like battlebots.org is cybersquatting to me..
Re:Something's wrong.. (Score:1)
Re:Something's wrong.. (Score:1)
I bet he doesn't have it.
My letter of protest (Score:1)
Battlebots:
I read with considerable DISGUST and ANGER about your legal hassling of the owner of the battlebots.org. This site has been in existence YEARS before your stupid TV show was ever dreamed up and filed as a trademark.
When Mr. Lyon pointed this little factoid out to you, you nonetheless
decided to continue this harrassment against him, and suggested that, "[we] will reimburse you for the expense you incurred in registering the
name". Wow, how gracious and generous you people are! The only equitable solution here is to either tell your legal representatives to back the hell off, or to offer Mr. Lyon a considerable fair price to purchase his domain name from him. Either way, you deserve Mr. Lyon an apology for this harrassment.
You people should be incredibly ashamed of yourselves for acting like
this. You are completely, utterly worthless scum-shells of human beings.
--- end ---
(By the way, this posting triggered the Lameness filter for reason: "Junk character post", and I had to do a lot of editing to get it accepted. Things have gotten a little out of hand with Slash 2.2)
Re:My letter of protest (Score:1, Funny)
Ok, Zippy, did they ACTUALLY teach you in SCHOOL that using lots of CAPITAL letters would make your writing more CONVINCING, or did you just figure that out for YOURSELF?
$6000 (Score:2, Interesting)
Typical... (Score:1)
Yeah, we all remember how eToys stomped the shit out of those artists types, and took away their domain.
Re:Typical... (Score:2)
I've refused to do business with Gateway(tm) since then. And I've stopped doing business with NECX Direct now that they are owned by Gateway(tm). (All other online stores pale in comparison, but I refuse to give Gateway(tm) any of my money.)
My letter to BattleBots (Score:1)
CC: blyon@theshell.com
In regards to your request for the rightful owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG to hand over his domain name, you are gathering large amounts of negative press for your cause.
A large segment of your target demographic are technically-inclined persons in the 18-30 age range, and this is also descriptive of the membership of website slashdot.org, which has covered your C&D request to BATTLEBOTS.ORG at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/02/014
Reader comments are also listed there, and this should give you some insight as to what your target demographic thinks of your heavy-handed approach.
BATTLEBOTS.ORG was registered to its current owner in August 2000 -- two full months before your trademark was registered. Not only that, but trademarks only provide protection within the same market. For example, I could form a company called "Maytag Umbrellas", and sell umbrellas with the word "Maytag" on them, and the appliance manufacturer (and trademark holder) of the same name could do absolutely nothing about it. I could also successfully register a trademark "Maytag" for umbrellas, since umbrellas are not appliances.
Likewise, your BATTLEBOTS is a TV show about battling robots, and his BATTLEBOTS are "bots", or programs, which are part of a worldwide text-based chat network.
In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight.
-- Alexander Burke
Former BattleBots viewer
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re:My letter to BattleBots (Score:1)
Most slashdotters love their TV shows too much to part with them for longer than a week.
Re:My letter to BattleBots (Score:2)
My letter to BattleBots (Score:1)
CC: blyon@theshell.com
In regards to the message sent by some "Slashbot".
Please let it be known that every person I know of, that watches BattleBots will continue to do so, without regard for this BB.com vs bb.org drama.
I want BioHazard to come back next season, and wipe the floor with all other bots.
Oh, and what about a dream match...
BioHazard vs. Ziggo
please?
I'll not watch anymore. (Score:1)
I was starting to believe.. (Score:2)
But, maybe I should have seen this coming. After all, Viacom owns such atrocities as MTV [viacom.com]. Even worse, in my mind, is that they also own Blockbuster [viacom.com], which is driving out mom-n-pop video stores through unfair practices with the movie studios [nandotimes.com] (Blockbuster gets the physical videos for wicked-cheap in exchange for profit sharinng with the studios). So, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.
Aren't we being... (Score:1, Interesting)
...a bit too pessimistic? I mean yea we all saw what happened with the www.companynamesucks.com lawsuits and all, but with something blatantly obvious like this (ie: the IRC server existing before the trademark) it's hard even for big $$$ lawyers to make the judge say what they want.
---
why pay? (Score:1, Redundant)
also haven't we seen this FOO.com vs FOO.org?
why does everyone think that they must own all domain in relation to FOO?
me, i would let them sue. Battlebots.org, was there before Battlebots.com . That is really all that matters.
I watched battle bots once... (Score:2)
For some reason, I can actually get in to junkyard wars, though. Wierd.
That TV show will be off of the air soon anyway. (Score:1)
Something is indeed strange here (Score:1, Interesting)
But then why isn't the page containing any business information?
How can he loose money by having this page display the same contents as battlebots.com instead of these letters?
Sometimes it's the small guy trying to take advantage of the big company - I think I smell it here. He tries to make a couple of thousands hoping Battlebots will choose the easy and cheap way out.
And why is he useing an
I'm not 100% sure he is a syber-squatter - but from the information presented, it's the most likely as far as I can see.
Re:Something is indeed strange here (Score:1)
Re:Something is indeed strange here (Score:1, Informative)
That'll teach em' (Score:1)
Or not... whatever.
Another small piece... (Score:1, Troll)
This is utter crap. Check the dates. (Score:2, Redundant)
From the USPTO Database:
Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
Filing Date April 12, 1999
From NSI:
Domain Name: battlebots.org
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41
Re:This is utter crap. Check the dates. (Score:1)
That sounds to me like there would be no confusing the services provided by battlebots.org and that description.
My email to Battlebots (Score:4, Informative)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 09:43:14 +0200
From: Pieter Hulshoff
To: info@battlebots.com, press@battlebots.com
CC: blyon@theshell.com
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a frequent viewer of your "BattleBots" program, I am highly disappointed to have read about your dispute with Mr. Lyon over his ownership of the www.battlebots.org website. With this you have already gathered quite a bit of bad PR, as you can view at
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/09/02/0143234.shtml.
Since it will cost Mr. Lyon a considerable amount of time, effort and money to start a new site, and move all the services he offers to the public to this new site (making all his users aware of the new location) I sincerely hope that you will consider the two options Mr. Lyon has offered you in his email. They seem more than reasonable to me. A third option was provided by Mr. Burke in an email to you (quoted from Slashdot):
"In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight. "
I must agree with Mr. Burke that handling this matter in a friendly and acceptable manner will save you a lot of bad press. I for one will boycott this program for as long as this matter is not amicably solved.
Regards,
Ir. Pieter Hulshoff
Almere, the Netherlands
"... it's the money that wins." (Score:1)
Trademark invalid? (Score:1)
has been prior use by someone else?
Re:Trademark invalid? (Score:1)
The requirements are that it's not an English word, that it's not the actual name of the product, and that it's not a well-known name of something else.
If they prove that the average person associates the name with the company they can get a trademark.
It's a .org. They're a company. (Score:1)
For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious. (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically this "business" is an eggdrop site/ shell whore site for script kiddies. Also it's been noted in previous posts that the domain was registered AFTER battlebots.com was.
This is no case of a corporation going after a little guy, this is a case of a script kiddie/wannabe admin/etc whining because his leet domain is trademarked.
IRC has broken down into lame vhosts, theshell.com seems no exception.
Before you go sending off those letters to battlebots.com...just look at this:(I'm assuming with 99% certainty he owns the entire ip block)
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.57 to www.battlebots.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.58 to clubslut.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.59 to oddlyshaped.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.60 to fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.61 to keg.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.62 to beer.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.63 to met.your.momma.at.the.clubslut.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.64 to heavy.alcohol.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.65 to killall-9.battlebots.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.66 to screwdriver.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.67 to irc.erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.68 to big.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.69 to two-a-day.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.70 to you.aint.leet.enough.to.crack.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.71 to my.passwd.is.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.72 to i.once.hacked.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.73 to hacked.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.74 to elite.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.75 to erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.76 to ircd.erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.77 to erdmanphoto.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.78 to some-day.i.will.fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.79 to help.me.fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.80 to fuckyourmom.fuckyoursister.fuckyourdog.fuckthenet
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.56 to thenarrator.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.55 to vhosts.theshell.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.54 to pennstsucks.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.53 to emeraldbp.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.52 to licked.and.fondled.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.51 to has.a.d0pe.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.50 to instinct.love.le.gs
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.49 to DONT.touch.my.le.gs
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.48 to lezbos.like.to.lick.Britney.Spears.le.gs
Save your battles for someone who really needs help.
Re:For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious. (Score:2, Informative)
- [whois.arin.net]
- 63.236.138.0 - 63.236.138.255
ARIN, please, stop giving Qwest address space for them to waste in this manner. I'd like to see the justification for that.Qwest Communications (NETBLK-NET-QWEST-BLKS2) NET-QWEST-BLKS2
- 63.236.0.0 - 63.239.255.255
Hot Networking (NETBLK-QWEST-63-236-138-0) QWEST-63-236-138-0To single out one record, look it up with "!xxx", where xxx is the
handle, shown in parenthesis following the name, which comes first.
The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information.
Here's the complete
1: qwest-edge-02.theshell.com
2: carbon.theshell.com
3: radium.theshell.com
...
5: arsenic.theshell.com
6: lead.theshell.com
7: xenon.theshell.com
8: oxygen.theshell.com
9: galaga.alphalinux.org
10: alphalinux.org
...
12: developer.alphalinux.org
13: voodoo.alphalinux.org
14: from.ms
15: whiskey-n-port.drinker.net
16: salt.and.peppers.net
17: red.hot.chili.peppers.net
18: buff.le.gs
19: shes.got.le.gs
20: le.gs
21: nutsack.org
22: shroo.ms
23: origin.md5.org
24: my.hash.is.md5.org
25: i.hacked.md5.org
26: tabasco.peppers.net
27: hafeez.baloch.is.not.from.drinker.net
28: come.nibble.on.my.hairy.nutsack.org
29: eat.sum.hot.peppers.net
30: md5.org
31: stopdos.org
32: passwd.md5.org
33: suck.my.damn.nutsack.org
34: i.hate.guys.from.ms
35: spends.too.much.time.at.theshell.com
36: gimme.some.of.those.shroo.ms
37: cyprusirc.512bit.com
38: csa-tahoe.com
39: unf.le.gs
40: midgets.have.small.le.gs
41: lost.his.dick.between.your.moms.le.gs
42: kiss.my.le.gs
43: just.got.in.your.sisters.le.gs
44: got.20ft.of.pure.meat.stuck.between.your.le.gs
45: got.le.gs
46: dachshunds.have.short.le.gs
47: alwayz.touch.her.le.gs
48: lezbos.like.to.lick.Britney.Spears.le.gs
49: DONT.touch.my.le.gs
50: instinct.love.le.gs
51: has.a.d0pe.nutsack.org
52: licked.and.fondled.nutsack.org
53: emeraldbp.com
54: pennstsucks.com
55: vhosts.theshell.com
56: thenarrator.com
57: battlebots.org
58: clubslut.org
59: oddlyshaped.nutsack.org
60: fuckthenet.org
61: keg.drinker.net
62: beer.drinker.net
63: met.your.momma.at.the.clubslut.org
64: heavy.alcohol.drinker.net
65: killall-9.battlebots.org
66: screwdriver.drinker.net
67: irc.erisfreenetwork.net
68: big.nutsack.org
69: two-a-day.com
70: you.aint.leet.enough.to.crack.512bit.com
71: my.passwd.is.512bit.com
72: i.once.hacked.512bit.com
73: hacked.512bit.com
74: elite.512bit.com
75: erisfreenetwork.net
76: ircd.erisfreenetwork.net
77: erdmanphoto.com
78: some-day.i.will.fuckthenet.org
79: help.me.fuckthenet.org
80: fuckyourmom.fuckyoursister.fuckyourdog.fuckthenet
81: fuckthesystem.fucktheman.fuckthenet.org
82: dot.efnetwarez.org
83: sonya.likes.to.give.blowjobs.at.clubslut.org
...
85: bondanzaproductions.com
86: sunder.theshell.com
87: telekinesis.theshell.com
88: drinker.net
89: 512bit.com
90: smoke.weed.eat.shroo.ms
91: is.tripping.on.these.shroo.ms
92: caps.and.stems.its.all.good.with.blue.shroo.ms
93: seven-of-nine.and.me.like.hot.sex.on.shroo.ms
...
124: pepsi.drinker.net
125: cum.drinker.net
126: blood.drinker.net
127: coke.drinker.net
128: absolut.drinker.net
129: coffee.drinker.net
130: is.a.smoker.and.a.drinker.net
131: chronic.drinker.net
132: terminal.drinker.net
133: urine.drinker.net
134: snapple.drinker.net
135: vodka.and.redbull.drinker.net
136: stoned.drinker.net
137: sierra.nevada.drinker.net
138: powertech.drinker.net
139: margarita.drinker.net
140: is.not.a.drinker.net
141: is.a.two-fisted.drinker.net
142: fuck.the.bitches.and.drink.vodka.at.drinker.net
143: bud.drinker.net
...
177: fud.from.ms
178: i.dont.use.software.from.ms
179: i.hate.fud.from.ms
...
181: has.blessed.theshell.com
...
185: has.a.big.nutsack.org
...
187: marijuana.crack.crank.speed.lsd.cocaine.crystal-m
188: loves.his.account.at.theshell.com
...
190: get.your.shells.at.theshell.com
191: lick.my.theshell.com
192: always.gets.his.shells.from.theshell.com
...
195: really.likes.shroo.ms
196: i.like.shroo.ms
197: does.everything.possible.between.your.girlfriends
198: shaved.nutsack.org
199: envy.the.size.of.my.nutsack.org
200: bill.gates.has.a.small.nutsack.org
201: playin.wif.muh.nutsack.org
202: lick.my.nutsack.org
203: bill.gates.dont.like.girlies.net
204: bill.gates.has.no.girlies.net
205: lemme.rub.your.le.gs
206: quit.staring.at.my.sexy.le.gs
207: your.mom.needs.to.shave.her.le.gs
...
211: crack-this.rsa.512bit.com
...
222: synergy.theshell.com
...
224: nobody.had.best.take.away.my.dr.peppers.net
225: hot.peppers.net
...
227: peppers.net
228: killed.employees.from.ms
229: is.from.ms
230: is.a.reject.from.ms
231: hates.people.from.ms
232: hates.employees.from.ms
233: everything.is.overpriced.from.ms
234: doesnt.trust.anything.from.ms
235: rls-GW-100MB.theshell.com
...
237: tcm.erisfreenetwork.net
238: lag.and.down.servers.on.erisfreenetwork.net
239: user1.on.erisfreenetwork.net
240: politics.suck.on.erisfreenetwork.net
241: encrypted.md5.org
242: I.fuckthenet.org
243: 3.le.gs
244: girl.liquor.beer.drinker.net
245: IRCop.erisfreenetwork.net
246: IPv8.512bit.com
247: my.girlfriend.loves.my.nutsack.org
...
249: stole.cc.from.ms
250: coder.md5.org
251: bigfig.net
252: tequila.theshell.com
253: inspiron.theshell.com
Success (Score:1)
Uhhh... keep at it people.
Advice. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hello citizens of United States Of America.
This kind of thing could never be justified here in Europe (or at least in Denmark where I live). We even had a case once, where some young people bought Jolt.DK, and Jolt Cola claimed the domain name. You know what ? Jolt Cola (r) lost BIG time.
Apparently what you need is an organization that would protect single small business/consumer from the big corporations. It really pisses me off everytime I see some poor individual being screwed by a big company - and that's when I realize - I'm SO happy to be living where I am now..
Simple, pain free solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Battlebots.com will get their hits from people mistakenly typing in battlebots.org, and everyone can get along! If people would just take a moment and do that simple thing if they have a domain that might get accidental hits, we might not have these problems.
Yes, I know. Wishful thinking..
Re:Simple, pain free solution (Score:2)
As I understand, this was one of the two things he proposed in his response. The other was giving them the name for just under $6000 (losses expected from not having the name)... which may be a lot of money to you and me, but really that's pocket change for a TV studio.
Perhaps he really is offering a "bona fide Internet bots service". You wouldn't know it from the web page, of which every single word seems to be about the domain name dispute.
Don't boycott Battlesbots... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pfffff.. (Score:2)
This is democratic, mature, LEGAL and will surely piss them off, especially if everyone takes the time to write their concerns about their actions.
I can't beleive they went after a
battlebots.com (Score:4, Informative)
I am a battlebots fan, and I am going to compose an email to comedy central alerting them that the "geek" fan base they count on is the same group that will abandon them if they pull this stuff. I suggest you all do the same.
[battlebots.com]
www.battlebots.com contact page
Comedy Central Battlebots page [comedycentral.com] (they have a message board)
Let's look at the WHOIS (Score:2)
[whois.corenic.net]
Registrant Hot Networking (template COCO-695905)
email.the.admin.contact@battlebots.org
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA
Domain Name: battlebots.org
Status: production
Admin Contact:
Barrett Lyon (COCO-565137) blyon@theshell.com
9163878649
Technical Contact:
Hot Networking Hostmaster (COCO-565138) support@theshell.com
9163878649
CORE Registrar: CORE-80
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80
Record expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC
Domain servers in listed order:
ns1.theshell.com
ns2.theshell.com
ns1.qwest.net
Database last updated on 2001-09-02 18:26:39 UTC
[root@initialized
--
The record was created August 28, 2000. Battlebots came on the air before then. They very well could be cybersquatting. Then again, battlebots.org may have transferred registrars.
They could prove they aren't cybersquatting by showing a valid proof of purchase of the domain dated before Battlebots went into production. Just an idea...
money doesn't always win (Score:2)
As most of you know, in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins.
Er...not always:
- Sting lost his bid [wired.com] to take over the gamer site, sting.com [sting.com] (WIPO [wipo.int] ruling)
- The World Wrestling Federation recently lost a battle [sfgate.com] with the World Wildlife Fund over wwf.org [wwf.org] (British court ruling)
Of course, Sting seems to have gotten his way eventually, as sting.com is now his site.Re:tell them to suck off (Score:1)