Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

Abercrombie & Fitch Loses Domain Name Suit 41

Posted by michael from the need-a-brain-for-my-master dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Abercrombie & Fitch has lost a case against the owner of a parody web site, Aberzombie.com, who sells t-shirts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Abercrombie & Fitch Loses Domain Name Suit More

Abercrombie & Fitch Loses Domain Name Suit

Comments Filter:

  • FP? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The level of activity on this announcement shows Slashdot readers' interest in Abercrombie and Fitch related affairs.
    • Perhaps some kind of "least comments ever" record for a /. homepage article...
      Meh.
      • The real Abercrombie argued that the models were "misappropriated" from its catalogue and web site. It also said that the only difference between Chad's domain name and its own (abercrombie.com) was the replacement of the letters "cr" with a "z", making it confusingly similar to its own.

        Umm...who confuses "cr" with a "z"??? I don't think people are that out of it.

        • Re:FP? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by NanoGator ( 522640 )
          "Umm...who confuses "cr" with a "z"??? I don't think people are that out of it."

          Welcome to the legal world. Actually, they probably shouldn't have brought up the whole zombie thing. If they had chosen cn instead of z, then they would have had a case. Abercnombie.com would definitely have been an attempt to confuse people. Instead, by making it say 'zombie', they reinforced the parody defense.

          You're right, the claim that 'Aberzombie' wouldn't confuse anybody is ridiculous, especially considering they
        • Umm...who confuses "cr" with a "z"???

          That would have to be some zacry dyslexic.

  • To late for the Walmartsucks guy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @06:49PM (#6258854) Homepage Journal
    Unbelieveable how inconsistant our laws are. Maybe they should have to re-pass every law or it expires. For example, those stupid ass inter-racial laws in the south, or consentual sodomy (oral-sex), or murder.

    Obviously the good ones would be passed again and the stupid ass 1800's laws would expire and no longer be the grounds for police/legal harassment.
  • That's a pretty weak parody. I wonder what the legal standard for parody is? I guess parody quality doesn't come into it.

    • I actually thought the Q&A [aberzombie.com] section was pretty damned funny.

    • Re:parody? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by macdaddy357 ( 582412 ) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Friday June 20, 2003 @09:15PM (#6259500)
      In the United States, courts usually rule that parody is a form of free speech. That hasn't stopped big companies from bringing slapp suits, and fighting them is very expensive. The little guy will usually back down. Larry Flint could afford to fight Jerry Falwell because he is rich, and he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to win. A clearer law could be made to prevent these slapp suits by clearly stating that parody is free speech, not copyright or trademark infringement, but the same corporations that bring slapp suits also bribe -er, ah- donate to our lawmakers.

  • yep, abercrombie sucks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday June 21, 2003 @09:04AM (#6261143) Homepage Journal
    Why waste hundreds of dollars on clothes that are essentially made out of the same material, look the same, as other clothes, the only difference being they have an abercrombie logo on them? It's like those fucking morons in the 70's and 80's who'd pay 40 dollars for those stupid fucking alligator shirts.

    Same thing goes for Nike, Reebok, Addidas, and lots of other "brand name" products, that sell for hundreds more than other products, but aren't any better. Only a fucking moron would buy them. Even in the business world, there are morons spending 10 times more for a 1000 dollar suit, when that suit is only maybe 10% better than a 100 dollar suit.

    I'm not a parent, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't waste money getting my kids fucking crap like Nike or Abercrombie because "it's in". It is not cool to be a fucking moron and waste money on crap.

    • Mostly I agree, the clothes I buy at walMart are just as good, and cost a lot less. The difference in material quality, if any, is more than made up by the lower cost.

      However, when you get byond the $1000 suits there is a marked improvement. At $3000 you can get one made that fits you exactly, once my dad spent the money for it, he cannot go back to a cheap suit that fits but not well. He is more comfortable in his suit than in jeans and a t-shirt, not because he feels important, but because it fits th

      • So? I've never felt uncomfortable in normal suits. If the material is fine, it's comfortable. I usually wear things overlarge anyways (I'm a natural medium/large, but I wear extra-large [if I gain 100 pounds, I won't have to buy new clothes]).

        You may get marked improvement past the $1000 dollar mark, but you're still not getting your money's worth, compared to $100 dollar suits. Unless having a $3k suit is going to repay it's cost to you something hard (like quantifiable cash), I say it's not worth it.
    • Same thing goes for Nike, Reebok, Addidas, and lots of other "brand name" products, that sell for hundreds more than other products, but aren't any better.

      Do you really think the sneakers they sell at walmart are anywhere near as good as the name brands?

      • There are plenty of high quality sneakers available that don't cost anywhere near hundreds of dollars.

        I bought a pair of leather/swade boot-type (brown) shoes from Dexter's 3 years ago, and they still basically look new, once washed off. $40 bucks, not a couple hundred. I'm sure the same can be said for sports shoes.

        Are Nike's and Reebok's better than non-brand shoes? Probably yes. But they certainly aren't better enough to justify the increased cost. Your paying 400% extra to get shoes that are maybe 30-
    • Even in the business world, there are morons spending 10 times more for a 1000 dollar suit, when that suit is only maybe 10% better than a 100 dollar suit.

      Even in the business world where morons are spending at least 10 times more for an OS and other software when that OS or other software is only maybe 50% as good as the free alternative ... Dev

    • ... It's like those fucking morons in the 70's and 80's who'd pay 40 dollars for those stupid fucking alligator shirts.

      Same thing goes for Nike, Reebok, Addidas, and lots of other "brand name" products, that sell for hundreds more than other products, but aren't any better. Only a fucking moron would buy them. Even in the business world, there are morons spending 10 times more for a 1000 dollar suit, when that suit is only maybe 10% better than a 100 dollar suit.

      ... It is not cool to be a fucking

    • Where else are you gonna get proper thong undies for your eight year old?
  • More lawyers getting richer - I suppose you know it is all a big con.

    I have identified the solution to the conflict of domain names with registered trademarks.

    Honest expert lawyers have agreed it would uniquely identify all registered trademarked words on the Internet.

    Not one lawyer has ever given logical reasoned argument against this. Indeed most are too cowardly to answer.

    You may be interested in the solution and my informed opinion:

    I make no egotistical claim that I was the first to see the solutio

Slashdot Top Deals

GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): April 2, 1751 Issac Newton becomes discouraged when he falls up a flight of stairs.

Close