Slashdot Mirror
Is "coke.ch" A Violation of Coca-Cola's (tm)?
"The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine ... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland."
Let's face it folks...the word "coke" is slang. It's been a slang representation for both "Coca-Cola" and "cocaine" for as long as I can remember. Does a corporation have the right to trademark such slang? And if a word is trademarked before its inadvertent use in common language, what then? Must we all prefix a "(tm)" after using the word coke(tm) even if when we use the word coke(tm) we are not referring to what was trademarked, but the slang version?
This is yet another case that might call for third-party resolution. As near as I can tell, this domain was not registered or used in bad faith. Therefore, as I understand it, Coca-Cola shouldn't have any rights to the domain. Or have I missed something?
Thoughts?
this isnt odd, most regs i know of are all fictional addresses. only companies use real addresses :) germany seems to be a favorite for fake addresses
In a serach of the US Patent and Trademark Office database ( http://www.uspto.gov/tmdb/ ), there were some 28 entries for the term "coke"; however, all of them appeared to indicate the stylized or typed appearance of the word.
While I am not a lawyer, I believe that he would have to show fair use to a jury, should the case make it to trial. It will be interesting to see how this resolves, but in either case, it shows us something about our society which should make us all sad.
eh?! I found this hacky-wacky arse website with "anti-linux" pics..http://www.polyester.net..Check this out..
Click to en-large the anti-linux movement.. erm. ok.. They got something called "geek satire" also..
Oxygen with Linux? Science fiction could become science fact
Rare meteorite promises glimpse into creation and the source code of Windows2000
Hackers suspected as Microsoft 747 explodes in mid-air due to blue screen of death.
Cisco integrates routing, switching and underwear drawer technology.
IBM plans to change the shampoo world.
Microsoft Unveils Plans for X-Brush tooth brushes.
FACT: 99% of dollar bills contain traces of cocaine.
So that's what those dark stains are!
We're told the same thing in the UK. What does it tell us? The people working in the mint should be more careful maybe?
I am really fed up of seeing private companies owning words. What on earth does this mean ?
Of course, companies have to protect their image, i.e. I cannot invent a new beverage, fill it in a bottle strangely similar to that of Coca-Cola, call it "Cauca-Caula", and hope to get away with it.
But this case, I find it entirely different :
On one hand, the Coca-Cola company could pour its liquid, which I happen to hate, in a bottle with the shape of the Eiffel tower, which is the symbol of my city (not that I really care about it, mind you, but I could), and there is probably nothing I could do about it. Walt Disney can use and abuse the stories of the great writers of the past centuries, because they are now public domain.
But, on the other hand, commercial companies can use their lawyers and vast resources to sue anybody who uses, in good faith, a name close to their trademarks, in a unrelated domain ?
This is not acceptable.
What do you think ?
Nuff said, shut up and give them their trademarked material. That is unless the country in question doesn't have trademark treaty with the US, or a trademark in that country. Trademarks are tradmarks, copyrights are copyrights. Deal with it. Don't create more, if that is your bag, but they do exists, and you will obey, or pay the consequences.
Why do you even wake up in the morning? You sound like suck a fucking looser man. You must of gotten beaten up a lot as a kid saying "oh these guys are gonna beat me, why fight?"
Ya know, I'm real sick of this as well. I'm tired of seeing a media who's foundation was built on free access/use being raped by corporations. I / most of us, never asked them to jump in and try to take control. For someone who lives in the US, I'm getting real sick of capitalism real fast. The "people" were here first, the corporations are a mere infection...I think it's time thier rights end up 2nd best. Whether this person has used his domain is up to him. I'd get off on a rant here, but someone probably owns that word too. dom
Free as in beer?
Actually, Coke does own the trademark for the word Coke in nearly every country on the planet. Let's remember that Switzerland has four! official languages, so the rationale that in French one requests "du Coca" won't really hold up very well. In German, an official language, people ask for a Coke. There are more German speakers in Switzerland than French speakers. The real question here relates to the rights of "squatters" who have taken domain names of well-known, trademarked identities. Coke is arguably the best known trademark in the world, so I doubt pleading ignorance will get this guy very far. I suggest you try some minor "extortion" for a low fee and count yourself lucky if they actually pay you for it.
Surely you mean "...even if you are using it, if politicians feel it is in the best interests of their pocketbooks to let the corporation have it, they can take it..." ? Thought you did. }:) -=^o.o^=
Well, I just checked, and it looks like the Coca Cola company has a web site at http://www.coke.com/. They may run other services from that domain too; I didn't poke around.
If that particular domain (coke.com) is actually owned by a squatter or someone falsely pretending to represent the company, then I would suggest they go after that person instead. Either way, whether coke.com is legit or not, I can't imagine why they would care about coke.ch.
It just doesn't make sense. Why would they want coke.ch, when they already have something from the more appropriate TLD?
Actually "Coke" is a trademark according to the Patent and Trademark Office for at least 21 classes of goods. http://trademarks.uspto.gov/access/search-mark.htm l
I know that's a quote from someone "big" in the industry (knuth?), and other people have used that quote, but I have one question: What makes it true?? Just because someone says you can only pick 2 out of 3, what makes them right? Why isn't "choose one" or zero, or maybe you can choose all three?? Maybe there's a fourth option we havent thought about? I am less impressed everytime I see this quote.
I'd like to look at his work page, but his department's computer appears to be slashdotted. Heh.
...Your concept of what is or isn't property is warped. Your thinking was discredited again and again over the last 100 years. Individuals AND companies have a right to defend their copymarks, trademarks and patents. Egalitarian claptrap about making people's work product free for the taking is immature, bizarre, etc. Are you working for free ? Are you willing to work for free ? There is no sig, so bite me.
As it is, he just looks like a cybersquatter, looking to cash in on a company.
You can use the term "Coke" so long as it can not be reasonably construed to cause confusion with the registered mark holders intelectual property. That is what the lawyers will argue about, and the judge will decide.
It's why I can walk down the street to the "Java Hut" and buy a latte, but I can't sell software from the same location, without an agreement with Sun.
You should read their trademark useage rules. They are pretty through, and enlightening.
The guy is a squatter, anyway. I hope he looses.
Coca-Cola doesn't have a trademark on the word itself. They have a trademark on a logo for a carbinated beverage. They have trademarks on oodles of t-shirts and can openers with the word Coke on it. But they do not and cannot have a trademark on.
Go back and read the original post. He said he was going to make a website. He didn't. I think he was really cybersquatting on the domain, hoping to cash in.
The parent article is a troll, please moderate down.
It doesn't matter that his domain is in Switzerland, Coca Cola pretty much have to go after anything that sounds like Coca Cola or Coke, from "Gocoke.com" to "cokecola.net" For them to retain the trademark on Coke they have to really "own" that word.
Then there is the question of why this man has maintained a domain name for two years without doing anything with it. Has he put up even an "under construction" sign? If he is holding on to the name, can not show any use of it, can not show any kind of plans for a web site, and his no personal connection to the name, then I think he has to be regarded as squatting.
There has been a lot of knee-jerk reactions in this discussion to the effect that Coca Cola is playing the bully here but not everything that large corporations do is evil. And this guy is playing too much the innocent in not knowing that Coca Cola would eventually object to any domain named "coke.*" Brian Brown
My friend started a porn site... www.pornrus.com which got shut down by toys r us which says they have all of the r us, and are us words trademarked. As apposed to fighting the evil toystore he just shut down the site and moved on with his life. I personally think they had no legal basis on their complaint, and that they were just trying to intimidate him.
point b isn't totally valid. "Is coke a registered trademark in Switzerland (or whatever country he actually lives in)?" is the real question.
Mr. Puangngern also owns rencontre.ch, but he's not doing anything with it either.
This guy has "domain squatter" written all over him. I hope Coca-Cola's lawyers pound him.
So, you're agreeing with the argument then. Coca-Cola has a trademark on Coke in Switzerland, wasn't using it (even though they own it) and now want to get coke.ch from the person that took it from them. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. As for "hasn't gotten around to it yet". In TWO YEARS? Give it up.
If you say a web site is the determining factor in whether a domain name is "in use" or not, then I think you've skipped a few steps. Someone had to actually add the A records for www.coke.ch, so someone is in the process of using that domain.
IANAL. but there is THREE definitions of Coke. short hand (slang) for cocaine, short hand (slang) for 'Coca-Cola' and 'coke' as in the by product of making steel in a foundry.
How dare you fight a big corporation which provides an essential product for our society ?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You don't even have a webserver loser.
Next thing Coca-Cola will be trying to shut down metallugical discussions because they use the four-letter word in a manner that does not advance the corporate mission.
Coca-Cola does use the slogan "Coke Is It!" in some of their advertising campaigns, so they can prove prior use.
I'm afraid thats BS guys. So you're telling me that Coca-Cola, with all the domain names THEY have registered all have websites up? Corporations can cyber-squat just as well(maybe better) than your average individual.
Plus as mentioned earlier by others, the word "coke" has many meanings other than Coca-Cola the beverage. Its arrogant to think that any and all uses of "coke" refer strictly to the beverage. Hence they don't have the right to EVERY domain name that contains "coke" of every country of every domain extension. By so doing, Coca Cola is effectively removing the legitmacy of the other definitions of "coke" from the English language on the internet.
To an earlier poster who claimed that cybersquatting was similar to someone stealing your identity and writing bad checks...the analogy does not apply. So far every case against cyber squatting from corporations has been where customers confuse similar domain names...ie the infamous etoy.com spectacle, and thus hurt potential revenue. A more appropriate analogy is if someone with a similar name to yours wrote bad checks and the bank or some other person confused your names. Now, I suppose you have the right to sue that person to force him to change his name so your good name isn't marred...
Very funny, excellent work.
William H. Gates, III
Drug-Lord and Chief Software Architect
Microsoft, Corp.
Coke has a history of trying to trademark the public domain, so this isn't really anything new or daunting to them.
We owe the red-clad Santa Claus to the Coca-Cola company which, in the twenties, displayed the image of a red Santa in order to advertise their brand. Subsequently, when the red Santa became popular and Santa suits began to sell, Coke filed a suit and tried to trademark the red Santa for their own use alone. The courts ruled then that no one could trademark Santa, regardless of his apparel, so there you go.
No, Coke shouldn't be able to trademark this either. But they're big and huge and evil in a very banal way, as most giant corporations are, so they'll do what they feel they can and so be it. Is it right? No. But it's the real thing.
,that your friend didn't die from Heroin. Otherwise, you would be sued by Bayer Corp, which developed Heroin several years ago (1897)..
you dont fight because its not worth it. does a domain name you dont even use mean anything much to you ? pick the fights you have a good chance at winning (and which mean something to you) and you'll always stay ahead. Remember the scottish clan mcdonald who was sued by mcdonalds and nearly made mcdonalds loose its trademark in scotland (they settled rather rapidly) ? now thats a fight you can win. this one is a sure loose loose situation.
In exchange for the domain name name, ask Coca Cola to make a sizable donation to something like DARE in honor of your friend (and a token payment to yourself to cover registration costs and such). If they refuse then you've proven your intent that your reason for having the domain name is legitimate. If they accept, you've succeeded in your mission in no small part. You can always come up with a new domain name when you get around to producing your web site.
Lame. Lame. Lame. I wasted my bandwith to see that?
Agreed. It is sad when lawyers for big greedy corporations with unlimited money for court battles rule for the way they think the world should be and not what is really "fair".
In addition, as noted in the discussions, a Swiss person might reasonably expect coke.ch to refer to a Coca-Cola
Again, a swiss person might NOT reasonably expect coke.ch to refer to Coca-cola because they do not speake english. In frech, coke means coacaine and cola is the short for Coca-Cola.
I own all copyrights and trademarks to the term first post(tm), I am seeking an injunction on you to refrain from using the term first post(tm). Failure to do so will result in court action.
By the way, by just citing the Grateful Dead's lyrics without their express written consent, you've violated copyrights. He owns it. What he does with it is his business. You people need to wake up and realize that the longer you allow these corporations to take from you, the easier it becomes for them to take away your rights. I don't ever recall anything in InterNIC's TOS about trademarks. Continue with your mode of thinking, that it's right for corporations to compromise your freedoms. The blood of patriots has been shed for the American flag, only to be tarnished by the rich. Sad.
...that also means that you can use the word whenever you want as long as you don't use it as it was _your_ trademark.
We have a soda vending machine in our office break room. It's the kind with the giant lit front with a big Coke can (ok, Coca-Cola can) on it. It's stocked with both Coke and Pepsi. I always thought Coke would have a cow if they saw that.
one place, http://www.eResolution.ca
Ingredients:
10% Feces
10% Sugar
80% Contaminated Water
We all understand that the Web is a subset of the Internet. But the guy has no DNS records for anything after 2.5 years.
Regardless of all this bullshit that you idiots keep spurting about how the big companies are being mean and all this crap about who thinks he's actually using the domain and who 'suspects something's fishy' (congrats, you win the sherlock-fucking-holmes award) IF YOU HAVE A TRADEMARK, YOU SHOULD PROTECT IT. That's the bottom line. If I trademark something, and someone uses it, I will investigate. So would every single one of you morons. So grow a fucking brain. Cheers.
.. Actually Coca Cola sales outside of North America are huge. Coke is sold everywhere. It is probably one of the most recognized name brands in the world. Judging by the can sitting in front of me they can and already have 'Coke' trademarked.
Isn't it, though? Sorehands is kind of like the old guy I see every day at the bus stop ranting at nothing. At first I was intrigued and a little bit frightened, then after a while I got annoyed; now I just sit back and enjoy the show. A bona fide crackpot is a rare gem.
just a suggestion.
http://www.coke.ch has been slashdotted, thanks guys.
Not to mention that, given the Dead's history of letting people tape shows, they could hardly be described as vigorous defenders of their copyrighted works.
I always beleived that its only a trade mark in one particular industry, or where there is a danger of one company passing itself off as another to gain benifit from the second companies established goodwill . . .
The trademark is Microsoft(R) Windows(tm), I have never seen MS actually claim the word "windows" is a trademark. After all, the Mac called its portals windows and I would guess the Xerox stuff did as well.
UMR Rulez
Yeah, You've missed something...the site 'coke.ch' is not currently in use, therefore it can be concluded that the owner has been cyber-squating on it. If the site was in active use, you may have a chance at a 'fair use' status of the term 'coke', however, given the current status of the site, you don't stand a prayer.
Amazing how you seem to be able to make some stupid tie in between your sore hands and any subject on slashdot.
Or Bob Dylan (not his real name) suing Apple over Dylan (the programming language), even though Apple didn't name the language? There is no common sense in trademark lawsuits.
Is that what happened to Vinilla Ice... there may be more good to this rabid copyright assault on the net than I thought! On a diff system n forgot me password... Malfeasence
Coca-Cola doesn't have a trademark on the word itself.
Wrong.
They have a trademark on a logo for a carbinated [sic] beverage.
Right.
They have trademarks on oodles of t-shirts and can openers with the word Coke on it.
Not really.
But they do not and cannot have a trademark on [the word "Coke"].
Wrong. They can, and they do.
Glad to see I am not the only one to actually look at a bottle of 'Coke'. This is pretty cut and dried given that this whole discussion could have used onle 'Coke' and I doubt one person would not have known what we were all talking about. Oh, yea I think the trademark is Coke with a capital C since all other usages I can think of would use a small c.
Pulled out my trusty dictionary and low and behold, 4 variation of coke/Coke. 1.coke - the fuel pruduct from coal 2.coke - slang for cocaine 3.Coke - get this, actually says, TRADEMARK, short for Coca-Cola 4. Coke, some british lord from 1600's, hehe was a lawyer.
the design of the Coca-Cola Santa Clauss and the polar bears
Maybe the Finnish tourism agencies should sue Coca Cola for trying to 0wn Santa Claus. I mean, a fat bloke with a white beard wearing red clothes, patented?!
Who drinks Coca Cola anyway? Pepsi Max is the real thing. I've dumped Coca Cola over three years ago completely and have not regretted it. When you go to the store next time, try different lemonades: pineapple lemonade, lemon lemonade, apple lemonade... It's a refreshing change.
Trademark law protects commercial enterprises who are engaged in commerce from other commercial enterprises who deliberately or inadvertently mimic the first company's trademarks, there luring would-be customers away from the trademark holder to buy some other product. The test is whether your commercial usage causes consumer confusion. [A corporation can also limit a competitor's use of a mark to engage in a parody, but this does not apply to private individuals who are engaging in non-libelous, non-commercial speech.]
1) Your use of this "mark" could certainly not qualify as commercial, so no customer who arrived at your site would believe that you are selling Coke(tm) or a coke like product. i.e. There would be no confusion once they arrived at your site.
Even under the new (predictably stupid) U.S. Millenium Trademark Big Corporation Protection Act, commercial use is a prerequisite for liability. Otherwise, it would clearly violate the First Amendment, so you should have no problem finding a host of volunteer attorneys who can soak up a lot of publicity embarrassing the congress and an old economy meglocorp like the soda company in question.
2) The fact that consumers might become confused as to what your domain was about before they got there is not important because Coke would have an impossibly hard time proving that people always associate "coke" with the beverage. Therefore, the underlying principle of trademark infringement, i.e. that you are appropriating and exploiting Coca-Cola's "goodwill" (accrued from years of massive expenditures in marketing by the company), does not apply, because that goodwill applies to a different variety of "coke".
Typical nihilist, wallflower response. Not a prayer they could win this if you fight in the media or in the courts. Exposing the silliness of this law to public scrutiny is exactly what is needed.
I can see it now, drug education going like: "...and after that, because of the gateway theory, I started doing coke. ... Coke is a registered trademark of the Coca Cola company."
How about "Have a Coke and a smile"?
And you bring up an excellent example. I don't feel like searching (maybe someone else could do it), but Apple, the Beatles' record company, sued Apple Computer far back in their early days. The result was that it was not a trademark infringment so long as Apple Computer didn't get into the recording industry. I recall Apple fretting over the high-quality sound that the Macintosh offered and whether or not that was too close for comfort in the recording industry (Apple products have been widely used in the recording industry, Apple just hasn't produced any albums... the key distinction.)
The rule is based on industry. I know there's an issue of national identity, but perhaps Coca-Cola, Inc. would trade coke.org (to which they have no right, since they are clearly a for-profit organization... though NSI caved and let down the rules) for coke.ch? If not, hang on to it. It's yours.
Oh, and if I were you and you felt that you should give it up, don't just transfer it to them. Transfer the ownership back to the registrar and make Coca-Cola, Inc. pay the extra CHF80. Better yet, transfer it to a well-known, large addiction center (Betty Ford Clinic, maybe?). Your wishes would be satisfied because Coca-Cola, Inc. suing the Betty Ford Clinic over coke would be a PR nightmare.
-Derek
i-grub.com
I don't buy it. He's minding his own business. He has not made any attempt to fool people into thinking he represents Coca-Cola. Whether his site is up or down is irrelevant. There may be be a case to be made for him putting a clear disclaimer on his site if it was up just to make sure nobody is fooled but because the name coke has multiple meanings, trademark and otherwise, the Coca-Cola company should have no other rights. The fact that people might be directly typing in the coke name assuming they would get Coca-Cola is their loss, his gain and nothing to do with Coca-Cola. This would not be true if coke only meant the brand and nothing else.
I agree that the lack of a site pretty much kills the guy's argument. If he's really serious about doing something like this, though, maybe he could ask Coke if, at the very least, they could trade him for cocaine.ch or some other similar domain name? If nothing else, it'll prove to them that he's acting in good faith and not just another cybersquatter. Then again, I'm an anonymous coward, so what do I know?
I have no idea whether or not you could win in court over this one, but I belive that the battle would be a pain in the ass. You might have a good chance of having them donate a large sum of money to your favorite anit-drug charity or recovery home of choice. Its good PR for them, and a few hundred thousand or even million dollars will do a lot more against preventing coke addiction than a small website would.
If you aren't squatting, but haven't done it yet, trade them for cocaine.ch. They own the Coke trademark.
coke is coal that has been heated until the volatile fractions are driven off. It is nearly pure carbon and it is used in steelmaking. coke has been in English much longer than "that-beverage-that-is-inferior-to-Pepsi" has been trademarked.
This is probably the problem with many trademarks that are actual words too. "Linux" is a made-up word, it was never a word in English. "Glad", OTOH, is both an English word and a trademark.
If the Coca-Cola Company has the right to coke.ch, then Dow Corning has the same right to glad.ch. Who holds a trademark on "swiss"? That entity would have the same right to swiss.ch.
That wasn't Katz or Roblimo, that was _Katz and Roblimo. who are imposters...
Well in Switzerland "coke" is not a word by which this beverage is refereeded to. In german this would be "gogi" and in french a "coca".
Why not didicate the web site to pictures of coke (i.e. the stuff that you burn in barbeques). Surely then Coca-Cola would look like asses for fighting for the name.
you know, I normally don't like to feed the trolls, but this really made me laugh. it's original, somewhat on-topic, and wonderfully spur of the moment. good job!
"Zero Micro Software", micr0soft.com was a web site devoted solely to trolling MS lawyers. It was the first place I ever saw the Bill-borg picture now seen on Slashdot. It's domain was yanked at the request of Microsoft. In other words, the 0 has already been used as trademark violation.
I think he was saying that there can be two simultaneous trademarks on the word "Coke". One for softdrinks and one for shoes.
I believe the issue here is whether *oca-*ola owns the trademark in Switzerland. I have no idea what the swiss position on recognizing international IP claims is. We can pee on each others shoes all day, but the only binding opinion will be the one handed down by a judge. The real issue is money (as always). *oca-*ola can run pretty much any individual into the ground over legal fees. Just another instance of a US megacorp inflicting it's experience with US jurisprudence on foreign soil. - that made sense when I thought it, honest.
why oh why do so many of these troll's crawl out of the woodwork,
what's a cop killer got to do with the price of fish in Switzerland?,
oh wait, we were talking about this coke.ch.
someone had to cut and paste from the registered domain search,
guess that'd be me then, *shrug*
according to www.nic.ch
Search Result
Domain name: coke.ch
Holder of domain name: [865113] Somjad Puangngern, S Spring APT- C, Springfield, IL
Billing address: [865113] Somjad Puangngern, S Spring APT- C, Springfield, IL
Technical responsability: [865113] Somjad Puangngern, S Spring APT- C, Springfield, IL
Status: inactive
Date of registration: 07.05.1999
I figure that he has a right to keep that dns entry i've
read all the posts thus far, and i tend to agree that he should
be able to keep the dns entry, that is, all this legal mumbo
jumbo aside. If i got hold of a site and kept it under my name,
i.e. i wanted www.superfreakpaperboys.com.au to run a mailing
list (no http), and it was later found to be "similar" to
a trademark (akin to the coke bottle or a catchphrase).
if it doesn't directly violate a trademark in australia, i
should be permitted to do so.
Under this new policy, a registered trademark holder can go through a special administrative proceeding to get a domain name from the domain-name holder. However, the tm holder will succeed only if it proves that the registrant's domain name is: 1) identical or confusingly similar to tm in which the complainant has acquired rights; 2) registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to domain name; and 3) registrant's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The exists or non-existence of a website is not a valid argument for determining domain ownership. You can use a domain without running an HTTP server, and many people do.
coke is a variation of bitumounous coal if my memory serves me right....throw up a website about coal and bingo your in.
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization possibly the dumbest sig of all time?
It wouldn't be viable. Neither Andover nor Slashdot would gain anything except legal fees. I'll admit that it would be useful, but some of the issues that arise would require considerably more than one full-time lawyer, paralegal, etc. Ross (jarmanr@hotmail.com)
Isn't Coke used as slang for the cola because it used to contain cocaine (or is it the other way around) ?
#1 - I feel that .com's should be reserved for companies. If they get other extensions (also or instead of) so what so what. But I don't feel that they should have rights to any other extension.
#2 - If two companies (eg acme xyz) have a legitimate right to a name then whoever gets it first owns it unless they willingly give it up (ie get paid for it.) If not then one company just has to come up with some other name that represents them.
#3 - This person registered the name first. We bought our name (a .com) for $5000 from a high school kid. It could be associated with both his name or ours but his reasons for having the domain name were not important because he had it first.
#4 - Yes domain squaters suck but I don't feel that selling a name should be ilegal. How about just limiting an individual or organization to owning five names? Oh but then what about:
mail.company.com
www.company.com
product1.company.com
product2.company.com
and so on?
chuck 12
of an Ask Slashdot that is better handled by lawyers instead of geeks. And let's face it, in this case, it is far better to ask a Swiss attorney than Slashdot. There's a definite North American slant on postings here. Not that that's a bad thing.... At any rate, I know of two recent cases in North America where the big evil corp lost a domain battle. Avery-Denisen{sp} went after two people who registered Avery.com and Denisen.com. It just so happened that it was their respective last names. The domains weren't registered in bad faith, and both people had as much a legitimate claim as A-D, so there you go... Of course, Swiss mileage may vary....
How about - Coke is yummy! ?
so some company puts a "trademark" on some word that's well-used in other contexts, and now it has all the rights? that's wrong. doesn't anybody think there's something wrong with the whole concept of trademarks? what if my last name is coke, and i want to call my homepage coke.net? why the hell is that company's claim more valid than mine? it's not like i am pepsi and just do it for the hell of it. trademarks are like patents and copyrights. they are there to protect the right to establish monopoly power.
well, actually, trademarks DO work like that ... just because you have a TM in .us doesn't mean you have a trademark in .ch (or vice versa).
I've trademarked the (tm), (c) and © symbols. Anyone attempting to use any of these symbols on their web sites without my authorization will incur the wrath of my wet noodle-wielding greasy-haired suit monkey. Your house will be buried in subpoenas. Your Ebay and Hotmail accounts will be seized. You have been warned.
coke has more meanings than just Coca Cola:
Webster's:
coke(1) 1. the solid carbonaceous product obtained by destructive distillation of coal 2. to convert into or become coke
coke(2) (slang) 1. cocaine 2. to affect with a narcotic drug, esp. with cocaine
Also, in Dutch (my native language), "coke" isn't slang for Coca Cola at all. In fact, we use the word ONLY in the context given above. It's just insane a company from across the ocean sues you cuz in their language your domain is slang for their company.
This is essentially a jurisdiction problem. Can Coke sue the holder of a foreign website? Depends on the website. If it does business in American commerce, then yes. If not, no. So if it is a mere passive website, i.e. one that provides information but does not otherwise interact with consumers, it is probably safe. On the other hand, if it sells something to American consumers or asks for information from them, then Coke has standing to sue. Then the question becomes one of trademark infringement which someone else already addressed.
The Ameraicans seem to sue at the drop of a hat and are fond of taking things to the 'brink' and hope the lesser party crumbles under the pressure..
As I see it, you have a chance to negotiate with Coke to sell the domain name for some good money and use the cash to do stuff that would honour the memory of your friend.
Hi I had cocacola.ro and about 30 days ago Romanian cocacola attorney office has sent me an mail over post,that they are gonna sue me for 80.000$ if i dont deregister that domain name in 48h,there was long explanation about trademarks,romanian law..etc .I went to romanian domain service and deregister that domain soo i am free now,i will never drink coke again,fuck off cocacola!
a domain name does NOT mean a web site. the web is not the entire internet.. (:
According to this article , a red/white Santa Claise was used long before Coca Cola used it to promote it's products.
:)
I don't really see how Coca Cola could have a trademark on Santa Claus, exept maybe Santa Claus holding a bottle of Coca cola.
-= SNw =- http://home.sol.no/~corderud/
What is the point in country codes, orgs, nets and coms if every company name is being registered in as many places as possible?
Coke already have their .com address. Why do they need a .ch address too?
(I know trademarks don't work like that, but in an ideal world...)
This is the most intelligent comment in this thread yet.
Have they (TM):ed Coke?
Make any xerox copies lately?
I have domains used strictly for email. That's a use. Why should I be forced to do the latest trendy thing with my domain to be considered "using" it? If I want to lease a Ferrari just to do the grocery shopping every week, and am keeping up the lease payments, who are you to tell me I'm "not using" my car and "ought to have it taken away from me"?
garbage.
You forgot the http://. Which means that your link was actually pointing to <A HREF="http://www.SLASHDOT.ORG/www.icann.org">ICANN </a> -- which doesn't exist.
well well well, I take it your a lawyer yourself. Now you wouldn't be looking out for your own personal intrests would you? The law belongs to the people, they have a right to discuss and practice it as they will, if the bar sees fit to intimidate us into submission so we can no longer understand our own laws, well then perhaps we need to start discussing the law as it pertains to the existance of the bar. Slashdot is concerned with technology. This means the laws about technology as well as the technical facts at hand. What you are saying is let the slashdotters invent the technology and then let the lawyers get rich off it. I think not. Justice is for the people, not the Bar. In Pro Per, jarrod manzer, jmanzer@ispchannel.com
Coke is a registered trade mark since 1944. Search for Coke and find out more.
Also not Trademarks are not Copyrights. More than one Company can us a Trademarked name the only requirement is that they do not compete in industry. Therefore as long as he isn't using the site in anyway to do with softdrinks (to inclused using it as a draw or doing anything that could be considered an attack on them), he should be fine.
I'm holding a big plastic three-liter Coke bottle. It's empty except for a small droplet at the bottom. I uncap it, and unzip my pants. I stick my dick into the mouth of the coke bottle, getting a big curly hair caught in the threads of the bottle of the mouth. I proceed to piss the three liters I've just drunk back into the bottle. The piss, while sweet-smelling and sugar-laden, is almost totally clear. Now I cap the bottle, making sure the hair remains caught in the threads. I put it in a large carton and ship it to the Coca-Cola (tm) (mf) company with a note making absolutely clear what I've done and why. Do you think they would understand?
As I see it, you have a chance to negotiate with Coke to sell the domain name for some good money and use the cash to do stuff that would honour the memory of your friend. Like buy a few kilo's of coke.
Hey, lay off the Poster. Remember the Gumby incident a year or two ago? It's a kid's nickname, and his father bought it for him as a birthday gift. The family lost. Corporations win, almost period. AcidBurn
True, but the trend these days is leaning towards restricting dilution of trademarks. Where a product with a similar name would detract from the prestige of another trademark. For example, Microsoft laxative.
I don't disagree with your opinions at all; I think you were right, I think you were courageous in the extreme to fight a multinational corporation--and I'm glad you one.
I merely think the *tone* you take in describing your actions is overwhelming, breathless, way too detailed, and not likely to rally people to your cause. In other words, it's your medium that smacks of crackpot-ism, not your message.
BTW: If we'd actually been having an argument, you would just have lost (Godwin's Law: "...the Jews..."). But we're not, so I guess you're safe.
s/glad you one/glad you won/
Meanwhile, Somjad does have a personal page. I looked and looked, but there's no mention of his friend who died of cocaine and no mention of anti-drug activities or groups.
He has a picture of his BMW, though.
"Coke" as visually described in the trademark application is the "mark" for the brand. Common text occurences of the four letters 'coke' are not a trademark. Domain names were common text words before the law went into effect and cannot be trademarked. ( Look at all the dot-coms that make visual logos out of their domain names so they have a trademark that includes their internet addresses. ) yahoo.com is no more a trademark than coke.ch. But that 'yahoo graphic' is probably a trademark.
The act of litigation is a destructive weapon nowadays. Right and wrong have become irrelevant. Can you afford to fight? To lose your job to work the case full time? Or pay lawyers $150/hour for years to decades to do it for you? Coca-Cola can. They're a huge multinational miltibillion dollar industry. In the time it's taken you t read this comment, Coca-Cola has made more money than you have over your entire life! You just cannot win against that. Money always wins.
your point?!?!
what does freeing a convicted cop killer have to do with trademarks?
One point in the matter is that Coca Cola AG already have a Swiss domain. As in most countires, it's cocacola.commercialcountrydomain. They already have cocacola.ch and run a website there, so they have no need for an additional coke.ch. Their URL is placed on bottles and cans (I haven't seen Swiss ones, but that is the case with Norwegian ones), and the cocacola domain is far more logical than the coke one, which can make for confusion. Coca Cola have only themselves to blame for not registering the coke.ch domain, but should be content with their current one at cocacola.ch. Any persecution of domains which they themselves couldn't come up with or be arsed to register is simply childish.
The ".com", ".net", and ".org" domains were not "neutral"--they were US domains because the ARPAnet was a US network. And today, they are adminstered by a US corporation on behalf of the US government. Part of the shortage of names in the US is because people from all over the world rushed to register in those domains. The same would have happened with a ".us" domain, but at least people would understand more what they are doing when they register in ".com".
As a general proposition, who should ajudicated disputes between individuals (which a corporation legally is) operating internationally?
That's hardly very complicated. The ".ch" domain is adminstered in Switzerland, and the administration falls within Swiss jurisdiction. The US can't send US police to the Swiss NIC to enforce whatever a US court decides. That's why this kind of lawsuit needs to happen in Switzerland. However, the US could, of course, impose penalties on US residents if that remedy is imposed by US courts.
clearly you just put your foot in your mouth, I agree with repondant #1 The fact that there is no "cybersquatter type, for sale sign" on the domain name coke.ch indicates that he is not squatting. By the way why all this bullshit about domain names? I can remember my phone number and am pretty damn sure the use of numeric IPs would end a lot of the crap that goes on concerning the ridiculous SCAM being implemented by the idiots in charge of the DNS services for the Internet. I mean come on! Paying $100 for 2 minutes work to point the domain name to the numeric IP is highway robbery!
What I need is a website that helps people to recover from Coca-Cola addiction.
I drink 5l. per day and I'd like to stop. Help me please !
He stated that his intent was to build a website...
...now, if he's changed his mind, fine, he still has the right to own the domain and all, but he should've at least clarified that he later changed his mind about doing a site. or not brought it up at all.
I thought at the time of registering the site of doing a site relating to the affects and some information about helping addicted cocaine users since a friend of mine died from it.
Personally, I think intent does matter, if you're just gonna buy up domain names and not use them, that's rather lame. (this goes for the guy who's buying up ferrai's down below too) but, I wouldn't want to enforce this opinion on anyone, they're free to do what they want.
My, aren't we US-centric. "CH" is Switzerland, not Sweden. If you order a "coke" in Switzerland (or Germany, or France), people will think that you are a uneducated as you seem to be: "coke" doesn't mean "Coca Cola" in either French or German.
Another website 'pornrus.com' is having the same legal issues to it seems. They say that ToysRUs wants them to take down the site because they own "rus". Stupid Large corporations. Fuck them.
Sorry, but registering "coke.ch" because a friend died of "coke" does not seem very convincing to me. It's been two years and there is no website yet.
..well, you get the idea.
I don't want to sound like I'm blaming anybody, but I noticed that attempts to use the Slashdot effect to generate publicity in this kind of legal battles are increasing day by day. It would be too naive to believe that Coca Cola would not go after the "coke.ch" domain, which, after all, uses its most valuable asset, the "Coke" brand. They had spent billions in advertising fees to inscribe the word in almost every human being's brain, and they will do whatever it takes to protect it. It makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint, and I believe Coca Cola should get the domain.
I'm aware that defending the big corporation against the seemingly innocent domain squatter is something akin to saying "Microsoft rules" in Slashdot; both of which will surely get the post moderated down. But hey, this case has "domain squatter" written all over it. In a similar vein, somebody might buy "www.intel.az" and claim that "I have a very intelligent friend in Azerbaijan"; or buy "www.microsoft.bf" and claim to feel deep sympathy for a friend in Burkina-Faso who happens to suffer from
They have the registered trademark for the word "coke" in a crapload of classes.
They have had the trademark for 50 years, and you register "coke.ch" because its cool? so you can battle?
Have fun. Next time, be more original.
Dream on.
"It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
42
not again this thread
slashdot has beaten to death
let's find new topics
<grub> Reading
Your wack.
I dont really think so
Well, major companies like Coca-Cola WOULDN'T NEED to pick fights with lesser companies or the normal individual- IF THEY REGISTERED THESE DOMAIN NAMES YEARS AGO. Coca-Cola has had YEARS to register such names as Coke.com/Coke.de/Coke.ch/Coke.au so they shouldn't have any right to steal away that which is another's. Just my two cents.
They own "Coca-Cola" not "Coke"
"Coke" is just a nickname that was given to it by the people.. "Coke" is also slang for "Cocaine"..
Nothing wrong here.
interestingly, in Kenya (KE), all commercial (.co) domain names do spell coke. ie company.co.ke
1) Does Coca-cola have a (tm) in the nation that holds your site? Score 1 if no, 0 if yes.
2) Are you, have you, were you going to sell a beverage or attempt to confuse the public by presenting yourself as an agent or associate of Coca-cola? Score 1 if no, 0 if yes.
3) Can you afford to fight them? Score 10 if yes, 0 if no.
As you can see, the extent to which someone is infringing on your intellectual property claims is inversely proportional to the amount of money and lawyers at your disposal. We can call this Bezos' Law.
wtf! Excuse me, but I see that you have a large ammount of CD's on your desk, and I happen to know that you haven't listened to them in a while, well it is my GOD GIVEN right to have all of those cd's, becuase I obvously will make use of them. Doesn't matter that you paid for them, you don't use it, you loose it.
The submitter says that he at one point thought about doing a cocaine-support site. That's great, but that's not what's happening. I think the issue would be very different if www.coke.ch was an active site
And what if he just hasn't gotten around to it yet? Or has had other things going on and has been to busy? Again, looking at your house I see a car you're not using, it needs some fixing up and you oviously haven't done it. It is again LEGITIMATE for me to have that car becuase YOU haven't touched it in a few years. I don't care that you paid for it, I SHOULD HAVE IT.
And while claiming my stuff from you, I'm pouring hot grits down my pants.
No there aren't any Swiss coal mines. There is
;))
a salt-mine, and there used to be some gold in
some rivers. That's it. The rest is granite.
For the language: Koks (german for the
"coal"-coke) is indeed used as word for cocaine,
but not Coca-Cola (this is "Cola" in germany,
and "Coci" in Switzerland -- however "Coci"
is used for cocaine as well
And your proposal is brilliant.
Kirth
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
I agree, but be careful with those TLAs.
.pas / .bas / .asm / etc. for source code. .jpg / .mpg for porn sites.
.txt domain, for the kiddies!
I suggest:
.com for DOS sites.
.org for machine code.
.txt for sites with content / Unix sites.
.exe for Windows sites.
.hqx for Mac sites.
.cpp /
.tar for archives (picture / ftp / whatever)
.gif /
Under my proposal, 'slashdot.org' would be 'slashdot.txt', 'zdnet.com' would be 'zdnet.exe', and 'goatse.cx' would be 'goatse.jpg'.
This would have several advantages over the current system:
- Platform dependence. Never be told you can't get the plug-ins, just browse the right sites!
- Easy blocking of sites. Just mass-block all sites with any fluff in them! Better register all your info in the
- Nifty three-letter name extensions. Now if only we could get rid of that darn "www." thing, and limit the other part to 8 letters. This would also cut down on domain squatting, as it limits the number of valid domains.
- Reinvent the existing system. This happened when the web was invented in 1993, and look at the economy now! It's in our best interest to completely reinvent the existing system every 8 years or so to drive interest in technology.
- Get rid of newbies. Ever since Windows stopped displaying file extensions and instead has little pictures, like the Mac, newbies don't understand them. Now that they will be unable to navigate the web, content will be back on the rise, as well as sales of "Domain Names for Dummies". I'm confident that IDG will back my proposal.
Oh, and we'll need a '.idg' for IDG books. (I wanted '.dum', but you know how those corporate sponsors are...)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
OTOH, if your fictional character of Ham Sandwich were to be an interstellar ham smuggler, you'd be OK, at least in the US, because that could be considered to be parody (although IANAL.) :^)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
1. I'm Canadian
2. Who cares if I know what country level domains are which... why don't you correct my speeling as well?
3. What does coke mean in Swedish/German/French or whatever language they speak there.
Maybe instead of insulting your peers as an AC you should try and be a little more constructive.
- Xabbu
- Jimbob
As is widely known, trademarks usually only apply to a single category and a in the countries they are registered in.
Coca-Cola are in the fortunate position of having some of the very, very few trademarks which apply across the categories. Coca-Cola and Coke are both trademarks and both are recognised in this manner.
In addition, as noted in the discussions, a Swiss person might reasonably expect coke.ch to refer to a Coca-Cola site whereas cocaine.ch would meet the requirements for a cocaine site perfectly. It is surprising that Sitzerland has no
If I am not mistaken, Coca-Cola used to actually contain cocaine!! Therefor IMO coke predates Coca-Cola's use of the term!!!
Again, all IMO. The above may be completely inacurate or acurate...
Probably because Internic doesn't have anything to do with .ch domains.
Offer to sell your domain name for, say, USD1000 less than they are paying the lawyers to harrass you!
They make out, you make out.
Of course, you'ld be selling out and succumbing to the corporate goliath. Pilfering a principal for some petty pocket cash...some might say.
OrbNobz
- I hate it when people are redundant, repetitive, and say the same thing over, and over, and over again.
Do you know Bart Simpson? I think he lives there also.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I do not see why a company needs ever single instance of a name expecially if it is not a unique word. Coke may mean different things in different languages and should therefore be free to be used in the local context as long as there is no conflict.
They may have registered the name but it is a word in its own right and therefore cannot be registered in most countries with a sane legal system. It may also be a common name for people in some countries and therefore not fit for registration.
Although I am not suggesting it is the case here, what if in in India coke translated to tourism. If I were the head of tourism would I be unable to register the local domain name for tourism just because it was a trade name on the other side of the planet?
If on the other hand the holder of this name is not using it for a legitimate perpose he should have his gonads peeled and be left out on the beach to dry.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
ICANN's UDRP (uniform domain dispute resolution procedure?) is a much better landscape to analyze this question on. at ICANN's recent meeting in Cairo, they decided to create a list of "internationally famous marks". Coke would almost definitely be on this list. no "marks" on the list would be allowed to be registered under ANY tld, including country tlds, unless you are the trademark holder.
actually, this may not even be the UDRP, but ICANN certainly has something to say on this matter. btw, guess who gets to compile the list of famous marks for ICANN? WIPO.
That all sounds pretty good in theory. thing is, of the ~50 disputes settled under the UDRP, only one was found in favor of the original domain holder and against the trademark holder. in the end, it squashes the little guy.
Yes, but can they claim Coke as a trademark? Admittedly, the can of Diet Coke in front of me says:
Diet
Coke
Trademark(R)
Now, the question is what is trademarked? the stylized "Diet Coke", the stylized "Coke", the word?
OK, I'm getting really sick of this. If he registered coke.ch and has a legitimate site about coke (coccaine) addiction, then I don't understand why coca-cola is so peeved. Does he not have a right to have a site up about Coccaine addiction? If he had a site about cola beverages in general, then maybe, but still, I hate this whole trademark infringement crap.
:)
What's wrong with coca-cola limited anyways! It's obvious they're not exploiting the coke branding in any way.
Sheesh!
Anyone wanna start a new Internet with me where it really is free and anyone can do anything they want!
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
I've noticed that only slimy middle-management types use weak words that sound like Ass Toot. I can never hold a straight face when someone says Ass Toot in a meeting. :)
They should pay you a fair market cost of the domain but since you haven't used for anything what is consider fair is really up in the air.
http://theotherside.com/dvd/
If you actually had a site up and it was dealing with cocain problems then this would not even be an issue because you would actually be using the domain for what you purchased it for. The problem comes in now because you have had the domain for 2 years and you are not using it for what you bought it for so in all likeliness you are going to lose because Coca-Cola will bring you to court and you don't have the money to fight it.
In short you should have created the site before this point in time. But the simple facts are that the domain has been owned for 2 years and you did not develop anything so their argument is going to be that you bought it so they could not get it and you were going to charge them for it. You would have to prove them wrong and that is near impossible due to the fact that you did not build the site you said you wanted to. In short I would talk to a lawyer but you will probably have to either give them the domain name or sell it to them.
--MD--
--MD--
You are not understanding. If the whole reason he purchased the domain (we should actually say rented but oh well) was so that he could put up a site about the effects of cocain on people and there is no site up then how in the world do we know that is actually why he got the domain. I would tend to think he got the domain to sell it to Coca-Cola at some point in time for a lot of money due to the fact that he has had it for over 2 years (renewed it and everything) and is still not using it. He is just getting fucked now because Coca-Cola is like no we will not buy it we are going to take it and I think they should be given it.
--MD--
--MD--
Wait, they sued for the author not capiltalizing the word 'coke'? Damn. If you can sue someone for bad grammar/spelling, then slashdot is in a boatload of trouble! :)
(myself included)
---
Drink! OHBC >O+
Step 1. Register your domain, www.bigcompany.somecountry
/. that bigcompany wants to steal your domain.
/.-ted, so you'll get thousands of hits, even if there's nothing there!
Step 2. Wait until bigcompany approaches you
Step 3. Now inform
Step 4. You site will be
Step 5. Show the bigcompany's lawyer how many hits your site is getting. Your business will be seriously harmed by being forced to move.
Step 6. Now is the time to ask for a "compensation" for the loss of income if you move the domain.
Clearly, this one's still at step 4, and now probably on the phone for step 5.
GCS/MU d- s+: a- C++$ USH++$ P- L+> E W++$ N o-- K- W++@ O-- M- !V PS Y+ PGP- t+ 5(+) X- R tv? b++++ y++(+++)
And then there are those of us whose name IS being used by a company... checked out edsmith.com lately?
Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.
Actually that's not entirely accurate, you see when cocaine was made illegal Coca-Cola persuaded the government that the taste of cocaine was vital for its product, so a company called (iirc) StephenCo (no relation) was created under the jurisdiction of the government. This company is the only company in the United States that can legally import cocaine. The cocaine is imported in leaf form, the leafs are processed to remove the addictive properties (which are sold to the medical and research community) and then sold to Coca-cola for that oh so essential cocaine leaf flavor.
And be sure to imply that Coca Cola puts it's corporate image and trademark above efforts to educate the public about the dangers of drugs.
:) Totally random, I know, but the whole idea of slang is sort of resonating with me today.
You can't outright SAY that, but...
Hey, BTW, Beaver College is considering changing it's name due to the slang connotation.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Oh. OK, that makes more sense.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
But Coca-cola is a soft drink, and soft drinks are not an unrelated area, so actually you couldn't have your own Coke brand of soft drinks. "Famous trademark" issues aside, your example with the shoes was spot on, though.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The corporation didn't win in that one, Pokey.org was set free.. Pokey.Org Set Free. It was a claimed misunderstanding, but regardless.. the corporation didn't win..
There are also plenty of people named Coke. I'm one of them.
If Coca-Cola is coming down on coke.ch, image how rabid they would've been over one of us registering coke.com--which Coca-Cola was in no hurry to get when it first registered cocacola.com and coca-cola.com.
Absolutely.
During the production, transportation , distribution, and even storage of coke, you get the formation of a fine dust. This dust forms an explosive combination when well mixed with hot air (and even when given a cold reception).
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Coca-Cola once had Cocain.. a long time ago... this is where the name comes from and why it shares the nickname "Coke" with the drug.
However Coca-Cola has not containned any cocain sence it became illegal.
The nickname Coke belongs to Cocain and is mearly on-loan to Coca-Cola.
I sereopusly doupt you could trademark a nickname in the first place... most certenly not the nickname of a compleatly diffrent product.
I don't actually exist.
First, and assuming that the domain owner's statement about their desired use for the domain is legit -- the word coke is used in even more ways -- coke is also used in the coal industry. I wonder if Coca Cola would be doing this if the site was active as a part of a large Swiss coal mining company [BTW, I admit up front to not knowing if there are even any coal mines in Switzerland :)]
Second thought: with the site not being in present day use, maybe there is a win-win for everybody ['xcept maybe the lawyers?? ;-)]. So that Coke wins, the domain owner wins, cocaine addicts win, etc. My suggestion would be to create a proposal where the domain owner would agree to give up the coke.ch domain and Coca Cola would in turn offer and come through with high-quality sponsorship of an alternatively named domain with information on cocaine addiction, etc. A nice letter to the appropriate folks at Coca Cola, presenting an opportunity for the Big Company to be on the side of the little guy, Coke agrees, the Lawyers go on to other things, [and we don't have to boycott Coke... ;-)], what could be better?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Besides, the answer to this one is simple: Coca-cola is wrong even according to the law. No one else can have coca-cola.* or cocacola.*, but like it's said at the top, "coke" is a slang, and I doubt the corp has the (tm) or (r) on that suckah.
h4ck 7h3 p14n3t!
-davek
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
China is .CN. You can find the country code list here.
BilldaCat
Please Bog, don't make us have to boycott Coca-Cola! Imagine! A world full of hackers on a diet of Snickers and Pepsi. NononononO - That would never do!
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Here, in the French talking part of Switzerland, there's no confusion at all :
... you might get some ... but surely no Coca-Cola !-)
"Coke" means Cocaine.
"Coca" means Coca-Cola.
In the Italian speaking part and in France too.
In the Swiss-German part, you have to say "Cola" to get a Coca-Cola. But if you walk in the street of Zurich and say "Coke" to someone
dict coke
3 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Coke \Coke\, n. [Perh. akin to cake, n.]
Mineral coal charred, or depriver of its bitumen, sulphur, or
other volatile matter by roasting in a kiln or oven, or by
distillation, as in gas works. It is lagerly used where ?
smokeless fire is required. [Written also {coak}.]
{Gas coke}, the coke formed in gas retorts, as distinguished
from that made in ovens.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Coke \Coke\, v. t.
To convert into coke.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
coke
n 1: produced by distillation of coal
2: Coca Cola is a trademarked cola [syn: {Coca Cola}, {Coke}]
3: a narcotic (alkaloid) extracted from coca leaves; used as a
surface anesthetic or taken for pleasure; can become
addictive [syn: {cocaine}, {cocain}, {snow}, {C}]
v : become coke; "petroleum oils coke after distillation"
TYPED DRAWING sounds like this isn't a trademark for the word "coke", but for some kind of logo. In this case he might have good chances to win his case against The Coca-Cola-Company...
Really good post. I agree. I would also suggest another action for him.
In the lines of :
"If you are still interested in doing the webpage, then talk to someone at coke and see what you can work out."
He could work out that they give him some money to start a coke addict webpage on another domain name (with a better name than coke.sh which is not a very good name IMHO for a coke addicted help web site).
Then everybody would be happy. Of course I don't think he is in position to get money from coke, but maybe if he did sign something to make sure the money goes to a coke addict web site, then maybe coke would actually profit from this deal and get out with a positive PR + the coke.sh domain for some insignificant (for them) amount of cash.
I thought at the time of registering the site of doing a site relating to the affects and some information about helping addicted cocaine users since a friend of mine died from it.
Suuuuure......
Oh, and my Coke can in front of me says that Coke is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Yes. I do think this is going too far. Does this mean that referring to the coal product as "coke" is violating their trademark. Do we start picking up the "don't do drugs" campaigns for using the term "coke" in regards to cocaine?
Seems to me that these companies need to realize that they don't OWN the internet. Rather, they participate in it. This being the case... LAY OFF!
(And, now I get an error submitting? Maybe Coca-Cola is already throwing their weight around, because I don't have permission to use the "Coke" trademark? )
"It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
Understood, but:
This guy says he bought the domain specifically for a website. Where is it? I'm sorry, but i think he's a cybersquatter.
I couldn't find ANY hosts using this domains when i looked. The domain is just being held.
what kills the argument is not that there is no website...
it's that he SAID he bought it for a website and then didn't put one up.
----------
Jeff Croft
http://jeffcroft.com
http://industrystandard.org
http://newbeetle.org
----------
Jeff Croft
http://jeffcroft.com
- A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet the terms "trademark" and "mark" are used to refer to both trademarks and service marks whether they are word marks or other types of marks. Normally, a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services.
So in order to be a "trademark", it has to "identify and distinguish" the product. "Coke(TM)" may do so, since coke (as in steel or drugs) is not capitalized. This just points out that wordsin domain names are not likely to be protected. (Expect a rush of trademark requests on [myproduct].COM!)Note also that in the domain name dispute policy, section 8 indicates that a trademark holder has to present both evidence of ownership, and "the legal harm the trademark owner is incurring". I don't think the Coca-Cola (TM) Company is being harmed by an inactive domain, nor do I think they're likely to be harmed by anything short of a "Don't Drink Coke" site at coke.[whatever].
My personal (IANAL) recommendation would be to try to initiate dispute procedings yourself, providing background for your use of the word "coke" and claiming no harm to the Coca-Cola Company and try to get something from NSI to indicating you can continue to use the domain. If you do, send a copy to Coke(TM) to snort.
CH = Confederatio Helvetica = Swiss Confederation. (Switzerland has four official languages, so maybe a fifth, Latin, was needed for the official acronym...)
Ontopic: As far as my understanding of Swiss patent law goes, the crucial point is the possibility of people mistakenly associating "Coke" with Coca Cola (TM) instead of yonder white powder. Since few Swiss know that "Coke" is a slang expression for a drug in English, but many use it referring to the beverage, the company may have good legal standing on this one.
(IANAL, just a 2nd semester law student in Berne...)
BTW, cocaine.ch is already registered to some guy in Montreux, Switzerland. The site doesn't seem to be up, though. For Swiss accounts, Switch is the place to look.
Sell it to them for 500K or some absurd number and donate that to drug rehab (and register coke-addicts.ch) to do your stuff on
Actually, Bayer lost the trademark on Aspirin after World War I as a part of war reperations to France, England, Russia and the US; it's still a trademark in other countries, such as Canada, where generic brands of acetylsalicylic acid are sold as ASA. Useless fact: another trademark Bayer lost at the same time was Heroin, which was invented by the same chemist who perfected ASA and marketed by Bayer as a cough suppressant. See this ad.
- But they do not and cannot have a trademark on [the word "Coke"].
They have a trademark on the word Coke when referring to carbonated beverages, i.e. I can not produce a new cola drink and call it Coke. I can, however, produce a piece of computer hardware and call it Coke, because it's a different industry. Also, since coke is slang for cocaine, and because it also means something else (don't have the definition on my head, but it's been posted 1000 times under this story), I don't think Coca-Cola has any more rights over the word than anyone else unless the site deals with carbonated beverages and their addiction factor or something.Wrong. They can, and they do.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
great...
I had a bunch of people standing behind me at work. I blindly followed link.
Quite embarassing, really...
It seems to me that Coke is a regitered trademark, they use the phrase Coke is it in adverts. Maybe you can argue that since it isn't capitalized in your domain name, it doesn't infringe upon their trademark
.^
Hmm.. I wonder if they would sue me for registering bitethewaxtadpole.com
^.
Already happened. Quepasa.com Settles Whatshappenin.com Lawsuit on /. not too long ago.
<RANT>I could argue either way on this coke.ch situation, but this QuePasa.com vs. WhatsHappenin.com lawsuit was revolting. Any human being who might confuse these two domain names probably lacks the cognitive and motor skills necessary drool, let alone operate a computer (even an iOpener ;).</RANT>
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Pardon?
/., IANAL. These are just my personal opinions.)
I believe the actualy trademark is "Coca-Cola" not "coke", although I may be misinformed. The word "coke" itself has meanings outside of the soft drink. (Someone else posted an actual dictionary definition, if you don't feel like taking the effort to look it up yourself (I didn't).)
As an aside, I dislike the increasing ownership rights that corporations are being granted by both the law and public apathy. Trademarks, to my knowledge, do -not- grant a corporation ownership of all possibly related words in the language.
To avoid being off-topic I'm not going to rant about things like the DMCA and the UCITA giving these same companies rights to more and more of our life.
(Remember, like most of
I don't believe ICANN has any jurisdiction over the .xx country code domains, so I don't believe the conflict resolution policy comes into play here.
Um. Yet you aren't seeing any corps, individuals registering under .gov either are you? They're controlling at the gate.
Coca-Cola is a multinational. They do business, pay taxes, employ people, register trademarks, and sell product in dozens if not hundreds of different countries.
And this is registered under .ch which happens to not be the TLD for France (.fr). It's the TLD for Switzerland, where there are four official languages and French is not the most predominantly used. By your logic one could claim the 'slashdot.org' domain because 'slashdot' means something in Swahili.
first off, i'd like to acknowledge a good point someone mad: you've had this for two years and not done a damn thing with it. if you really were the activist type, you'd have had something going soon after you acquired the domain. i don' mean to badmouth your plight, i myself had a friend who died, mostly due to an addiction to meth. i understand that you purchased the domian with good intentions, but you don' seem to have done much with it and it will probably cause you more trouble than it's worth. another thing that you could have done would have been to register coke-addict.xxx or coke-addiction.xxx, which probably would have gotten you more of the traffic you were aiming for. like others, i also hate the big fish trying to overpower the little fish, but it might solve a lot of problems for you just to give it up or sell it to coca-cola. undoubtedly, if this did make it to court, any reasonable jury would feel for you and not make you give it up, but i just don' think it's worth all the hassle (mostly due to the fact that there's nothing there). there's my two cents....take it as you like it.
what the hell was that?
man im not feeling very well and when i saw that i almost shit on my self literally.
john
-- john
Lately in the news there has been some stuff about Coke Industries doing a lot of polluting somewhere around the US.
actually i'm pretty sure this company is spelled koch (its just pronounced like coke)-and they own kochind.com.
john
-- john
Now THIS would be interesting then. The Swiss Post has their website on http://www.post.ch
But I don't think they'd sue anyone for using the word "post" in a domain name. What for anyway? They have better things to do. And besides, everyone in CH knows that "Die Post" is the guys with the yellow cars delivering you paperspam, bills and parcels with hardware you ordered via the web.
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
And yet, www.pilot.com belongs to neither of them...
Even though I don't use my website for commerce (I do have a resume & other stuff about me & a few outdated web publishing tutorials), I registered it a few years ago to prevent some company from grabbing it up. MailBank already grabbed my last name dot com, so I was forced to grab the dot org of it and first + last dot com. Of course Donaghy is a rare name, and Smith is a common one, so there is more competition for smith names. I guess it is a case of who got there first.
-Michael [Remove two parts of address to mail me]
I once worked for a ISP (we didn't do design, just hosting). I happen to know that it took a notable percentage of customers over a year to get a production level site (beyond a 'comming soon...' page) that describes their company / N.P. organization. I would say that taking 2 years to get up a site is long, but not totally out of the question. Granted, if you put your mind to it, a month, week, or even an hour can produce a half-way decent site, but the last time I checked, nothing says you have to instantly publish a website for a domain you registered. I know several people just use a domain for e-mail only & have no web service. It is possible, but unlikely that the guy in question might want to answer e-mails about cocaine.
Another relevant question is how much content has to be on a web site before it is classified as utilized? One, five, twenty, 100, 1000 pages? I don't see how you can make a clear definition of what consitutes using a web site. Is static content sufficient, or is dynamic also required? Each person / corporation has a different level that that want to [spend to / have time to] utilize internet technologies.
-Michael [Remove two parts of address to mail me]
Corporations don't, but the monopoly known as the government does. The problem is that "big" corporations now think they can act like the government and force their every wish down on individuals.
I don't think it is right, but it *is* happening, if we like it or not.
-Michael [Remove two parts of address to mail me]
I was actually making a fairly obscure Garfield (the cat) reference - he said that whoever invented diets should be 'drug out into the street and shot'. Extreme words to make an otherwise boring point.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
That the name is used in a variety of other ways doesn't negate the copyright. Witness the Pilot pen company's ongoing (and so far successful) legal effort to prevent Palm from calling thier handhelds "Palm Pilots". While I dont have a dictionary in front of me, I'd bet there are more definitions for Pilot than Coke :)
As stated in the article:
... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland
The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine
This is about registering the name in Switzerland. Where "Coke" may not be easily be assumed by a "reasonable person" to be a web site for the Coca Cola company. When I want to go to the web site for Coca-Cola, I will try http://www.coke.com and not coke.ch.
Now, I haven't heard, but is "Coke" registered as a Trade Mark in Switzerland to Coca-Cola. Doesn't Trade Marks only count for the countries that they are registered in?
I believe that this site is done in good faith. It is not another soft drink trying to pass off as
Coke(tm). And it is not trying to cyber squat the domain. It seems to be a legit name for the country that it is being used in.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Yes, but is it a trade mark in Switzerland?
Does anyone know?
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Come on, you registered one of the best known words in the world. Talk to the Coke dudes, ask them for a small sum of money to transfer the domain to something useful - like cocaine-addiction.ch (translate at will). Hell, make yourself a .org, and a non-profit institution and ask them to make you a tax-deductible donation.
This is the .ch domain? Then what ever company has licensed the right to register the .ch domains form the (suisse?) will make a discision. NSI is only good for .com, .net, .org. we seem to keep forgeting that NSI is not the God of the network naming bussness. They controll a very small number of potential domains.
So what happens if I trademark cokeauctions.com as within the Coal/Steel manufacturing and wholesale markets? Can I go after The Coca-Cola Company for control over cokeauction.com?
Cheers,
Slak
The difference would be that Gumby does not (AFAIK) have multiple uses in the English language in the same way that "coke" (or, more accurately "Coke") is used to refer to 1) a form of coal (probably the oldest version of the word) 2) slang for coccaine (sp?) or 3) the soft drink.
A more accurate comparison would probably be the Ajax.org dispute. Ajax, of course, refers to many things and has quite a long history.
Cheers,
Slak
Why don't you try to negotiate with Coka-Cola for them to trade you for cocaine.ch or some other variation. You kind of are taking their name, and you haven't put the site up yet (I don't think) so I think they should have the name. But as a gesture of good faith, see if they'll work with you on the topic.
IANAL, but I play one on
Excellent point!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Here in the USA, the word "Coke" is a common term, referring to both the beverage and the drug. Even though the Coca-Cola corp has a trademark on the word "coke". You might be able to make a good challenge.
Not sure how they look at these things where you are and the caviat is that once you get a bunch of lawyers and a judge involved there is no limit to the nonsense that can be generated.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I remember reading something about a guy in Russia producing Windows Beer and that he had a trademark on Windows for food, drink and tobacco products. I think that as long as the products weren't related, two companies could have the same trademark. So create a company that has products unrelated to Coca-Cola and trademark Coke. Then you can argue that you have a trademark for Coke too. Of course IANAL, so this might not hold up in court. Any lawyers out there that know if this would work?
Look at the trademark database. MS has registered the word "Windows" for use in a number of ways relating to computers. So it's actually Microsoft(R) Windows(R).
I used to work for a company that made handheld GPS systems. Our advertising originally called our programmable split view screen a "windows" feature. MS sent a nastygram, and it was no longer called that...
At least, not under US law. The TM on Coke cans and bottles covers the word Coke when shown in a particular artistic representation, and, arguably, when the word coke is specifically applied, one might say mis-applied, to soft drinks. Mis-applied in as much as soft drinks are not made of coke, or probably ought not to be, coke being a form of mineral coal which has been treated to remove the volatile compounds. A supplier to the blacksmith's trade can print coke on bags of coke without fearing a lawsuit.
Were coke not an actual word the Coca-Cola company would have every right to claim it as a unique reference to their product. This is not the case.
But they do have skillful lawyers, and lots of money.
Stinks, don't it?
The closer you are to the code, the happier you are. - Ancient Geek Proverb
I am obviously not a lawyer, so I was wondering: Is it legal to trademark simple dictionary words? Coke is a real word. It's not just slang for cocaine or Coca-Cola. If I had a company called "Water", and had a web site "water.com" could I sue water.to for trademark infringement? Isn't the reason Intel named their chip the Pentium that they weren't allowed to trademark "586"? I think he has every right to that domain. English words should not be owned by companies.
Wow, the Gods really must be crazy(TM)
I have visited parts of the US where they call any type of cola "Coke"... It could be Pepsi, RC Cola, or any other brownish black fizzy drink.
I think this is a case of corporate america wanting every piece of the internet they can grab that they don't already own (Regardless of whether they will ever use it or not, and they won't, so what does it matter to them? Nothing. Their lawyers are bored....)
That's all I have to say without going into a serious rant about this....
-Paul
I always thought it sounded too much like "coq", which is chicken, as in, Coq au Vin.
Maybe KFC should get involved... Chicken addiction is a terrible thing.
_____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Coca-Cola has trademarked the 'coca-cola' brand name, not the word 'coke'. Why should they be able to tradmark a word out of the dictionary? How can they PROVE that the domain name 'coke.xx' means or implies 'coca-cola' without a shadow of a doubt to the unweary web surfer?? How is this proven? I cannot see how they even have a case against you.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
>Doing business internationally isn't the same as >not being based anywhere. (...) All the
>international branches are just that, branches.
Of course they gotta have a central headquarter somewhere, but that doesn't mean the branches aren't regular firms in the country they belong. I mean in France where I live we have 'Coca-cola France' ; I guess there's 'Coca-cola Switzerland' too. I don't think there's any legal difference between them and other national companies. I may be wrong as I'm no lawyer but then I'd be surprised.
Of course it doesn't give them the right to bother that guy for somthing he's registered a long time ago. BTW I don't know about other countries but I've been taught that French trademark laws prohibit the registration of words like 'coke' which refers to a controlled drug.
Sure. From the usually reliable UL Reference Pages:
Moreover, at least one of the ingredients called for in the recipe would be next to impossible to secure in the U.S. (or to bring into the country): decocainized flavor essence of the coca leaf. As it now stands, only Stepan Co.'s New Jersey plant possesses the necessary DEA permit to import the leaves and remove the cocaine from them. Anyone looking to reproduce the drink would have to go to Stepan to get one of the key ingredients, and Stepan would refuse to sell to them.
From http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/formula.htm
I don't have any way of checking the sources they cite, but there is an article about "Things Go Better with Coca Extract." that sounds promising. I hope you have access to Lexis-Nexis.
Walt
You must have more money than coca-cola. If you do, it is yours.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
I think that your case doesn't apply since I belive that the law about trademarking and domains was made after you bought the domain.
> Registration Date: April 15, 1997
Don't you find it odd that Coca-Cola registred the trademark only 3 years ago? The "coke" slang for the soft drink as been around for much longer than that.
Also, if the guy is opperating a cocaine addiction web site (that is not the case, apparently) then there is no trademark violation. Trademark apply to a specific market. I can register the "coke" trademark for a computer game (if the game is not related to soft drink in any way) and Coca-Cola will never be able to sue me and win (of course they could make me go under because I don't have enough $$$ to defend myself).
You got my point. I was being sarcastic, but I guess im just wasting my breath
There a big company with lots of lawyers, shorely they must have more rights then the rest of us pions.
exactly. Why even put these names up for sale? If your going to allow these big companies to just steal the names, why doesnt internic just use sometype of software to compare all posible names with every trademark on the books, and then only sell to the company with the trademark. Or you can take it one step further, and require a trademark to get a domain name.
Is'nt coke an English word for a mineral or something? Used or a by product of smeltering? I'm not sure, but if it is, I can't see how they can just take what they want. Hell even if it was'nt an English word, it's not like the site is cokecola.* or something.
However, I would also like to say that a friend of mine has been addicted for years, not to cocaine, to ~Coke~Cola~. He drinks about 2-3 litres per day and has done so for years. Now doctors believe that his heart condition has developed from the high cafeine intake he gets from this black shit that rots your teeth.
Also, in Australia, the contents of all food products must clearly be stated on the packaging. So is ~Coke~Cola~ violating this law?
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Ok, this is what I found in the Microsoft Reference that comes with Office97 Pro (OK, guys, I'm sorry! I'm at work and not allowed to put Linux on the network. Lord knows I've tried politically).
coke (kok) noun
The solid residue of impure carbon obtained from bituminous coal and other carbonaceous materials after removal of volatile material by destructive distillation. It is used as a fuel and in making steel.
verb, transitive & intransitive
coked, coking, cokes
To convert or be converted into coke.
coke (kok) noun
Slang.
Cocaine.
Coke (kok)
A trademark used for a soft drink. See Regional Note at tonic.
Don't ya just hate big fat greedy American Companies?
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
BTW, their trademark is Coke and not coke.
Without the capitalization, it does not necessarily refer to the trademark, neither does it refer to their trademark if coke is the first word in a correctly presented sentence.
For eg.
Coke sucks!
:)
I mean come on, who really digs this bubbly carbon stuff anyway?!?!
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
"By the way, by just citing the Grateful Dead's lyrics without their express written consent, you've violated copyrights."
I think an excerpt that short probably falls under fair use.
Well, unfortunately, we aren't talking about a plot of land; we're talking about a domain name (every @%#$%@#$ who calls it a "web address" should be summarily executed.)
A plot of land is a tangible asset. It has an intrensic, calculable, monetary value. The governing rules have centuries of legal refinement.
A domain name is a virtual construct: a word, a name, a phrase, some junk that means something to someone... It has no value to speak of. And it's relative value to native spanish speakers will be different to that of native arabic speakers (for example.)
Attempting to apply the rules for tangible assets to intangible assets is proving to be a serious mess. (trademark litigation, patent disputes, insane copyright rules...) It's difficult to define what's mine and what's yours when you litterally have nothing to stand on; you cannot put in a box and lock it up, nor can you surround it with razor wire and post armed guards.
I'm glad the "old west" mentality no longer exists (well, in civilized society anyway) -- when someone steals one of your cows, you don't pull your gun and fill him full of holes.
So does the US Govt. We don't see them harshly cracking down on whitehouse.com...
Of course, they tried to cut off all forms of communication out of Kosovo during their little stint there...
-Vel
it seems unlikely that a recovering cocaine addict would really want to associate themselves with a program named coke.whatever. would a rape victim want to spend time at rape.com? would a MS-basher want to spend time as msn.com? Something sounds fishy. I'm betting Coca-cola & their legal counsel have a tough time trying to side with you on that defense.
- As others have pointed out, coke has multiple meanings that no one owns a trademark on (and, of course, can't).
- That said, I am curious if the owner can present any evidence of intent to use coke.ch as part of a campaign to help cocaine addicts. This was the key issue in a (U.S. District Court) case last year in which a local reporter was busted for trading kiddie porn, which he claimed he was using in a freelance undercover story. Based on stories at the time, the judge hinted that he would have taken that defense seriously had the reporter given evidence that editors were aware of the story, the author had a contract, etc. A number of organizations (1) (2) contested the ruling on other grounds, but I can see the same logic being applied in potential cases of cybersquatting: "Can you give me evidence that you really planned -- to any degree -- to use the microsoft.net domain as a hyperlinked glossary to terms used in William Gibson's books?"
I am, of course, not a lawyer, and my limited understanding of law is essentially zilch outside the US.A trademark on 'Coke' (as in the soft drink) is only valid in the context of soft drinks. If a farmer's market that sold all sorts of fruits (perhaps they're in Washington state and specialize in apples) and veggies had beat the software company to the apple.com domain, the computer company would have had to do something drastic like (gasp!) register applecomputers.com, instead.
If coke.ch was being legitimately used for a purpose (i.e. the owner is not a cybersquatter), it's Coke's problem for (A) not registering the domain a long time ago or (B) not putting their efforts in the right place -- like lobbying for more-specific top-level domains.
I'm not saying it'll always happen like this, but it would seem like you'd at least share your great idea w/ someone in a manner more permanant than a verbal chat. I think that would go a long way in helping your argument.
Personally I would consider selling the domain for a nice price(use a lawyer for this). Up to $100,000 USD might be acceptable to them. Also make sure to include in the contract they sign with you that you are free to pursue other names with "coke" in them, and you are free from prosecution form them for using the name. Possibly have a few specific ones in mind and place them in the contract.
From what I read they haven't seemed too hostile yet, so perhaps they want to acquire the name amicably.
IANAL
BTW- coke describes a byproduct of coal used in furnaces for the production of steel.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying.I said I though the company was being nice about it. (i don't have fist hand experience though) "Coke" is too generic to protect, unless the name was being used in conjuction with a beverage of some sort. I don't think they are doing anything wrong, but neither would the person who currently has the domain if he asked for a relatively large sum of money for it. (Yes I have been on the corporate side of this whole thing before. Eventually we got the domain, and didn't have to sue.) P.S.- your infantile remarks show that you barely comprehend what you are talking about, and the points you do make everyone already knows, and is old hat. (And wrong in some cases)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Someone buying a domain with the name of a registered trademark is a nasty business.
:)
Ofcourse it's understandable if you want to have a help site for cocaine drug addicts but I can't see ANY page on coke.ch at all.
This just points to the this guy is a domain squatter and then Coca-Cola inc. should have this domain.
I think registered trademark only goes if the page is in the same GENRE as the Coca-Cola.
How can they own a dictonary word? They cant!
Anyhow... coke.sh is bought buy some domain service but not by Coca-Cola inc.
Let the sharks take care of it
-- Merlin - www.scrolls.org/merlin merlin@bofh.is --
One of the things the Coca-Cola company has neglected is there are other entirely different meanings for the word coke. Sure, it's a shortening of Coca-Cola in slang terms, but it's also the slang term for cocaine (like the author wanted to use it) as well as the residue of coal left after destructive distillation and used as fuel. This is a case of one company getting greedy. What's next, Wal-Mart sues the owner of wall.com?
-----
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement.
The relvant law is probably Swiss, not US law. Even under US law, however, I wonder is this is a legal absolute. Most jurisdictions around the world give special protection to very well known trade marks, as they are required to under TRIPS. (This is so even for unrelated goods.) I doubt if TNN or Clue qualify for such protection. Coke(tm), on the other hand, might may well.
My advice is don't ask Slashdot for legal advice, ask a lawyer who is familiar with the trade mark law in force in the relevant jurisdiction, or perhaps a specialist in having the forum shifted.
That being said, thanks for telling us all about this case. It just that the format of "any suggestions would be helpful and appreciated" seems less appropriate than hey look what happened to me, let's all have a bitch about it .... :sings " ...better get a lawyer son ... better be a real good one ..."
Does that mean that every time some freaking coke-head makes an order he is violating Coca-Cola's TM? Cuz in that case I'm screwed..
But on a more serious note; Coca Cola would have to have a Trade Mark in Switzerland to be able to take action on this case would they not? Do they have one?
Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
Huh?
Suppose I registered a domain for the sole purpose of using it for email, and have no website for it at all.
Or as an IRC server.
or as a BBS.
Or maybe I haven't decided on a use for it yet; however, I registered it out of good faith.
Then a year later, Big Corporation comes in and decides that somehow Im infringing on their trademark. Does the lack of a website validate Big Corp's attempt at theft?
I think not - the lack of a website does not give any support to attempted theft. Domains DO have more uses than just websites.
--
Syg
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
This is a purely legal issue and it is touching on many of the ways the Interent will be changing international law. Since different countries have different laws, how will companies protect themselves on-line? Especially with nebulus things like the definition of the word "coke". It's slang in a foreign language for either soda or drugs. Will we have laws that actually dictate that you can't have a domain that might be confused with a trademark in some other language? I see this making lots of law firms rich, but I don't see any solutions coming soon. I doubt that Coca-Cola enjoys going through this crap any more than the original poster.
Jon Sullivan
Jon Sullivan
www.jonsullivan.com
From Coca-Cola.com:
k .html
Early advertising discouraged calling the product "Coke." It urged "Ask for Coca-Cola by its full name; nicknames encourage substitution." Since people kept asking for "Coke," the Company relented to popular demand. In 1941, the trademark "Coke" received equal prominence in advertising with "Coca-Cola," and in 1945, "Coke" was registered as a trademark.
http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/tccc/trademar
Jon Sullivan
Jon Sullivan
www.jonsullivan.com
I'm getting tired of reading about people thinking that if you have a domain name that you MUST have a website. There are other uses of domain names in case you haven't noticed.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
When I ask my coal merchant for half a dozen sacks of coke, I do not expect either white powder or a brown drink of indeterminate flavour. Coke is a black lumpy substance that has been produced from coal for quite a long time.
The original Doctor Dark.
I believe I read somewhere that the word coke refers to coal which has been purified.
Coke is a refined version of coal used in the production of steel. Perhaps the UMW should sue the Coca-Cola Company for infringing on prior art. -carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
or at least pretty damn close to it...
http"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
And tell them they can kiss my hairy geek ass.
Court decision available at www.clue.com/legal
ericr
Eric Robison
Clue Computing, Inc.
It was Judge Woodlock, in the US District Court for Massachusetts, with a gavel.
Coke IS a generic term for carbonated soft drinks in some parts.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Since "coke" is slang, it should not be a problem, but if it has been trademarked, Coca-Cola Corp. has a leg to stand on. IANAL, but a friend of mine was sued by a French company in France for this same kind of thing and the company won.
In any case, the matter will be settled according to the laws of the country in which the suit is brought, if any. Since Coca-Cola has such big pockets, they will probably pursue this unless enough negative sentiment can be raised against them for picking on the little guy and it becomes a PR problem.
I believe that current projections (based on the speed at which consensus currently being reached on this subject) indicate that the universe will implode quite a while before any new top-level domains are added.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
But there is coke.com and coke.ch - or should, as said before, we just ditch those TLD's, and go straight for www.coke?
No! There is a reason for TLD's!
Education is the answer, the problem being there being far too many stupid people on the net who cant figure out the meaning of the last 3 characters.
Is Coca-Cola going too far? I say they are not going far enough! They obviously have a large cadre of lawyers they need to keep busy, so I propose they go after every street dealer of cocaine out there who uses the word "coke" in their dealings, as this is obviously trademark infringement. One can see the potential for confusion when, just after selling a stolen TV to the local fence, someone plunks down his money with a local dealer and ends up with...cocaine, instead of the Coca-Cola he obviously intended to buy. This must stop - we can't allow this type of confusion to run rampant in the ghettos of America!
To do is to be - Descartes
To be is to do - Voltaire
Do be do be do - Frank Sinatra
Exactly my point over here (for those that might not have noticed). Wish I'd said it.
Constitutionally Correct
Doing business internationally isn't the same as not being based anywhere. There has to be a central corporate headquarters somewhere, right? All the international branches are just that, branches.
If you are truly multinational and don't like the idea of being restricted to a country TLD, we could have a ".int" TLD instead. (Visit www.coke.com.int to quench your thirst!) And that would be the only TLD they could register in. No .us, .uk, .ch, or anything else.
Point is there's a better solution than buying your trademark in every TLD. That effectively negates the TLD. Might as well try to navigate the web by keyword, as I mentioned before. Good luck.
It shouldn't be hard to convert to such a system. If someone tries "www.coke.com" just return all matches of "www.coke.com.*" for the user to pick from.
Constitutionally Correct
The easiest solution, if you're serious about wanting to make a site detailing the evils of cocaine addiction, is to do just that. Put up a server. Prove your intentions. Then Coke can't (or shouldn't be able to) touch you.
For example, if my name were Jim Coke and I wanted to open up a cleaning business and call it Coke Cleaners, I could do that because:
- It's my name, fercryinoutloud.
- It has nothing to do with the soda business.
(Or at least that's how I understand it; IANAL of course. And that's assuming that I don't use anything that looks like Coke's logo in my advertising.)The problem is, you never did do anything with it.
Oh, and another thing: as I understand it, companies are legally required to defend their trademarks and copyrights. If they don't defend every case of possible infringement, it can come back to haunt them.
I think the classic example is "celophane" which was a patented DuPont (I think) invention and when the patent expired they lost the brand "celophane" as well because the courts deemed that there was no substitute word. DuPont should have called the stuff "Celophane" brand transparent wrapping material or something similar.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
There are places in the US (notably Georgia) where the word "coke" is used generically for soda of all flavors. But anyone who orders Coca-Cola brand soda at a restaurant in the US has probably had this experience: Patron: I'd like a Coke please. Waitron: We don't have Coke. Is Pepsi OK? Patron: Sure. or No. The reason for this is that Coke works very hard at preventing the word "Coke" from becoming generic. One way they do this by sending an operative into a restaurant that they know serves Pepsi. The operative orders a Coke. If the waitron merely brings a glass of brown fizzy sugar water without offering the non-Coke disclaimer, the contents of the glass are kept and analyzed. If it turns out to be Pepsi, the restaurant will be used as an example. The Coca-Cola Company may instigate a full infringement suit that the restaurant couldn't possibly afford to litigate. The Coca-Cola Company may not settle but press it all the way to the end. This would be done as an implicit threat to every other restaurant. The message is: Don't Fuck With Coke. And the restauranteurs know this. So when you order Coke and they don't have it, you hear the "is Pepsi OK" magic words. I don't think Coke's march toward genericness has gone as far as you think it has. Coke has been much more aggressive for much longer than either the Kleenex or Band-Aid mark holders have been. But if you were to try and use "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" in a publication without the capital letters, you will hear from their attorneys. More to the point, "Coke" the trademark has not lost it's distinctiveness in the sense meaningful here: the legal sense. If it had, I could market my own brand of brown sugar water and call it "Coke." A mark is either distinctive (to varying degrees) or generic. That's it. I don't think anyone really believes that "Coke" applied as a brand (as opposed to using it as a noun in the steel industry) is in any way generic.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
There's already legal precedent for this. Clue Computing defeated Hasbro, owners of the game "Clue", when Hasbro sued for the domain name. Info available here.
--
Mike Hoye
This situation does require that Coca-Cola not get the domain name. As was pointed out, "Coke" in French refers to cocaine, not Coca-Cola. Any "reasonable" person whose first langauge is English would assume that the site was for Coca-Cola. The web is not an anglophile-only club however. So now the definition of "reasonable person" is one that speaks the regional languages. If Coca-Cola wants to protect their precious name (and not drag it through the mud in yet another ill-concieved domain-name grab) they should try trademarking the French equivalant to "Coke": "du Coca".
--Ford Prefect
Well, now you've come to the fundamental problem with the intersection of trademark law and comain policy. In traditional trademark law, there would not necessarily be a conflict-- however, given a flat namespace that does not differentiate (very well) based on geography or purpose, the conflict occurs. ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) governs the conflicting claims and is pretty clearly on the side of the trademark holder. Since a trademark exists for "Coke", the Coca-Cola company seems to have a pretty strong case.
Someone asked if the term coke is a trademark in Switzerland. If you can read German, go to The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and see if there is a searchable database.
refers to the fact that Coca-Cola actually contained cocaine...umm, wait, that doesn't actually logically lead to anything. okay, anyway...
If CocaCola(tm) has a trademark on Coke that is valid in Switzerland (i'm not too clear on international trademark law), then I think they should get the domain. If not, too bad for them.
Then again, I could be wrong.
Footwear? Pardon my ignorance, but... does that mean Coca-Cola makes footware of some sort? Although I know some people that would relate Coca-Cola soda to old, used, unwashed gym socks, I don't recall Coca-cola making Footware... I wonder if the patent on "Nike" saids, "Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 054. G & S: Carbonated beverages". Hmmmm...
ad astra per alia porci
I think that this is the perfect occasion to use that good old French expression "Allez vous faire enculer" to our friends in the Coca-Cola company. You're untouchable.
Adam:What kept you?
God:Rome wasn't built in a day
Now, if people start using domain names as coke.ch for advertising foods, sofdrinks, cocain for consumption etc, then I think they are overstepping the border, and that website should be closed. But there should be nobody who can attack the name itself.
I registered terminal.dk myself a few years ago, and never had much of a website on it (http:/www.terminal.dk really sucks), but I have used the domain name for mail, and uses it for my own machines at home, private IPs etc.
If all this attacking domain names continues, I wonder when somebody will try a hostile takeover of terminal. It could be anybody trying it, from a death-help center to computer makers.
It is starting to look more and more like US patent law. A law designed to protect, which is actually killing more ideas and creativity than it will over protect.
Let the domain names be, and if they are used as an attack against a trademark etc, hit the owner. And if he continues to abuse the domain name, take it away from him.
Recreational coke use.
Serious coke use
Coke use rampant!
The international conspiracy money trail.
What coke did to beer.
These sites only touch on the truth. The true horrors of serious coke use were best documented by Charles Dickens.
I have to admit to recreational coke use. My wife enjoys it also, but she thinks that everyday is just too much. We've had some really great times that way, and she does not think it could ever be a problem. I've heard some horror stories, mostly involving gasoline, but I don't know anyone who has actually died this way.
Serious coke use is very different. It does indeed kill many people in all phases of its exploitation. Production and transportation is supposed to be the most dangerous activity.
holy moly, Somjad Puangngern is my neighbour.. harsh.
HarveyNeon
S Spring APT- B 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
"..Constructive critizism is always welcome however."
> If I own a piece of unused land in the middle of > an area that some big corporation wants to build > on, do they have a right to take that away from > me?
Actually, yes they do, even if you are using it, if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people to let the corporation have it, they can take it, provided they compensate you for it. Of course that is the US, not switzerland, I don't know what the Swiss law is, would someone who does care to elaborate?
Stupid is as stupid dies.
It would make some sense to me to use Coke(TM) to refer to the beverage and coke to refer to everything BUT Coke(TM), e.g., cocaine. In the end, it's only really about company exposure, thence $$$.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Take from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we have the following definitions of the word coke:
: the residue of coal left after destructive distillation and used as fuel; also : a similar residue left by other materials (as petroleum) distilled to dryness
: to change into coke : to become coke or like coke
Main Entry: coke
Pronunciation: 'kOk
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps from dialect coke, colk core, from Middle English; akin to Swedish kälk pith
Date: 1669
Main Entry: coke
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): coked; coking
Date: 1763
transitive senses
intransitive senses
Seems to me that Coca-Cola hasn't got a leg to stand on, seeing as how these words came into use over 200 years before they even existed.
If the domain isn't in use...the bottom line is going to be can you afford to defend it? Coke can certainly afford to tie you up in court until your broke and cannot afford to fight it. Your choice but many of us would be interested in the outcome.
-=RR=-
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
i used to be a delivery driver for the coca cola company, here in the united states. however, after being brought up on charges of indecent exposure, i was given the choice of being fired or taking up the new route in a small village near the serenghetti.
i'll never forget my first delivery. two small native boys were standing there waiting for me like i was santa clause. the younger one asked his older friend, "what do you think it tastes like?!"
the older boy smiled, "my dad says it's like kissing a girl!"
the boys giggled and watched as i unloaded the first coca cola products to ever make way to their village.
eventually, i finished that particular delivery and readied the truck up for the next one. i looked in my rear-view mirror as i drove away. i'll never forget the heart-warming vision i beheld.
the boys had already run into the store and gotten one bottle of coca cola apiece. the younger one took his first drink and smiled. he plunged his toungue into the long neck and moved it passionately around in the top of the bottle.
his body spasmed with euphoria as he passionately caressed the dripping wet bottle of delight. the older boy watched with excitement.
the young boy dropped to the ground and began rolling around in the tall grass. the last thing i saw was an animated piece of rubber dog feces approaching the boys to ask for directions.
i wiped a single tear from my eye. it's those moments that sustain me as i lay here dying from that hideous ebola virus. somebody should really keep those monkey carcasses out of public areas.
thank you.
As I understand it (IANAL and all that), trademark infringement only covers uses which cause confusion with the trademark holder in a particular line of business. So while "MacDonalds" might be protected for the restaurant business, it would be entirely permissible to use the word "MacDonalds" in conjunction with, say, flower arranging or shipbuilding. The key criteria are whether there is a possibility of confusion or an attempt at deception, aka "passing off".
If the domain's not being used at all, I can't see how either of these criteria can be met.
No one "forces" a company to pay anything. The company chooses to. Why should Coca-Cola have the "right" to coke.ch?
if someone took my company name and named a channel the same name, I'd sue
Channel? As in IRC channel? You'd sue over the title of that? How cheap and petty can you get? (Not to mention suing over irc is pretty pathetic in itself). Not even the king of litigation, Disney, has gone that far.
Isn't there a new(ish) body that deals with domain name conflicts? I believe they do it without the huge legal bills, the massive time, and also without bias. Unfortunately I can't remember what they are called. Someone here will know.
I think I might get lost in the crowd but I definitely believe coke us should pack its bags and drop this one. The more we get into fights about domain names, the less domain names actually get registered. As a partner of Net Sol, we oppose that state of affairs. Why doesn't Coke just register ducoca.ch instead?
he who has the fastest cart always has the best lie.
When I worked at Levi Strauss a few years back, there was quite a brouhaha about someone who had registered the domain levis.com, and what they could do to get it from him.
The thing was they couldn't do anything, as levis is in the dictionary listed as an old medieval English plural for leaf. Because it was in the dictionary, and despite the fact that almost no-one knew it, there was nothing they could do.
They have control of it now, but I'm not sure if they paid for it or not.
Find funky gifts
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
If this guy wants to fight Coca-Cola, perhaps he should change his legal name to Coke.ch whatever-his-last-name-is. It seems that would be difficult to fight.
Just because you are not paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
Should this case involving a multinational corporation, a US citizen, and a foreign domain be ajudicated under US law, Swiss law, or international law?
Now, the kicker: if a Swiss citizen had registered coke.us (I know, .us domains aren't available that way, but accept it for the sake of argument.), who should ajudicate the case?
AFAIK, ICANN procedures only apply to .net, .com, and .org TLDs. International law as I am familiar with it in terms of treaties and organizations mainly deals with disputed between nations. All this leaves me with one question:
As a general proposition, who should ajudicated disputes between individuals (which a corporation legally is) operating internationally?
"New Coke" is the trademark, not just "coke".
-- Napalm sticks to kids.
I think this is just another situation where a large company is afaid that they will get bad propaganda or something, and want all of the advertising they can get. They only see this as one less advertising opportunity they will have. Chances are that Coca Cola won't even use the URL to post a site anyway.
-- Napalm sticks to kids.
They don't have a "right" to anything that they HAVEN'T TRADEMARKED in whichever country you happen to be in. In this instance, it's Switzerland.
(I always thought
Find out if Coca Cola owns the trademark for Coke in switzerland. If they do, you're going to have to give it to them. If this is the case, offer to sell it. You'll get a couple thousand, which is always nice, and you can buy cocaine.ch or some other variant (don't know the WHOIS server for that domain, sorry
If they don't own the trademark, tell them to screw off. They can't take it from you by force if they have no legal right to it, and even if they register the trademark now you predate it.
Enjoy your domain.
--
Well by a lot of reasoning coca.com or cola.com should be similar enough to coca-cola that coca-cola should own these domains. But they don't. Why don't they sue for these domains? Probably because they don't have them trademarked or couldn't get them trademarked. I don't know if Coca-Cola has Coke trademarked in Switzerland nor do I know the trademark law that applies to Switzerland. But the law probably favors Coca-Cola. I would say settle out of court and come up with some kind of agreement that both parties can live with. If their willing to sue for it then it must be worth something to them. Although that would just make you another cyber squatter.
I went to law school out of frustration that critical decisions of technology policy were being made by luddites and morons. The discussions here on Slashdot are often better reasoned than those in my law classes (though that's a few years back.)
Though you may wish it for job security, limiting legal and policy discussions to attorneys is absurd, and reverses the intent of the implied constitutional imperitive that a lawyerly class never seize control of the system by making it impervious to the common citizen.
More lawyers should be participating on slashdot - to learn instead of dictate ill-thought legalisms. No one is foolish enough to take patent advice from slashdot - ut it is a perfect place to discuss what the patent system SHOULD be.
I am reading trough all the postings and see pro and cons ... So far my understanding was that this guy is living/from Switzerland and he claims to have registered this name 2 years ago. Well, if you search www.switch.ch (the swiss doamain authority) I get different infomration: Holder of domain name: Somjad Puangngern S Spring APT- C 1142 US-62704 Springfield, IL United States Date of last registration: 07.05.1999 Date of last modification: 24.11.1999
Look, if the guy really wanted to use it as a cocaine awareness site he would've had a site up already (after two years). And besides, I'm not saying that coke should win, all I'm doing is deffending their rights to do something about it. If someone had my companies name as their web site name I'd be pissed. If the courts feel that I am legaly in the right to demand my domain back then who are you to say I can't? The only reason cybersquating laws are so strict is because of the malicious people who forced companies to spend millions of dollars to purchase domain names that they should rightfully own. The web is a new media much like TV used to be and if someone took my company name and named a channel the same name, I'd sue. Maybe we (meaning corporations) have gone a little nuts with the law suits, but it's all of those people out there that try to make a profit off of trademarked items that mess it up for all of us. So the next time you see a story like this, don't blame the corporations for doing what's within their legal rights, blame the jerks who started this whole thing by trying to use corporate names to gain publicity and money.
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
You know, I'm really getting sick of this. Just because a large company is deffending its rights doesn't mean that they are wrong. This guy, after 2 years, is not even using the site, and coke is a registered trademark. Why is it that when anybody patents anything they are automaticcally termed evil? They are protecting their own interests, much like any of you would in the same situation. If he were not a cybersquatter he would have already had his site up. He was probably just waiting for coke to come around and offer him money for the domain. I was recently involved in something where someone tried to infringe on one of my clients' trademarks (and guess what, they were not a big company either) but they faught it and won. Does that make my client a big bully? We need controls, cause otherwise people who do these things with malicious intent will win, and it won't be the big bad companies that lose, it will be the small ones that rely on these types of things.
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
Either you're completely insane or a Karma Whore...It's a domain, not like the guy is trying to infringe on anything or anyone. You know, it's pretty nauseating that we nitpick about these trivial little things. I have to laugh when I see a Nike logo fuzzed out on a music video. It's stupid.
To quote you, my intelligent (and not to mention grammar deficient) friend...
"Don't create more, if that is your bag, but they do exists, and you will obey, or pay the consequences.
First of all I didn't know Austin Powers read Slashdot, second...where the hell do you even get using the word 'obey'??? This guy doesn't have to 'obey' crap, if he doesn't want to. This isn't some drawn out conspairacy, even though I think you wish it were...by this joke you call a post. Be serious. Quit trying to write flamebait posts to impress your middle school friends....bet you sent them the link in study hall, didn't you? You sure showed them, huh? Brought some reason and wisdom to the esteemed readers of Slashdot. Quite frankly I don't know what anyone else thought about your little rant, but I thought it was comletely ridiculous, and I want to thank you...For the biggest laugh I've had from an article in a good long time. -Q
This seems pretty stupid to me... These companys are trying to get as much as they can from the little people...I say," Fellows, got two words for you..." Bite me!"
They still use "decocanized" coca leaf in the syrup. The extracted cocaine goes to the Dental and Plastic Surgery market. Extraction is performed at Malinkrodt (sp?) in Teterboro, NJ. "New Coke" was an attempt to remove this ingredient. Coke tm addicts rebelled, forcing the company to resume production of CocaCola Classic tm.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Please remember that the source of Coca Cola was as a medicinal in the late 1800s that used the coca leaf (cocaine and all). It was later that it was a "soft" drink.
Results from WHOIS server whois.nic.ch for query:
rencontre.ch
whois: This information is subject to an Acceptable Use Policy. See http://www.nic.ch/terms/aup.html
Domain name:
rencontre.ch
Holder of domain name:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Technical contact:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Date of last registration:
30.10.1997
Date of last modification:
24.11.1999
Lemure, wtf! Don't you mean Lemur?
In case you weren't aware, the entire image of a fat white bearded old man wearing red was CREATED by the Coca-Cola company as an advertising campaign (in the 20s or 30s?). Up to that point, father christmas had been portrayed wearing traditional greens and browns. The image took off, and since then everyone uses the "coca-cola" father christmas. So YES they DO own it.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Acutally, it's Slashdot - not slashdot. :)
kwsNI
it's the taste of a new generation!- -----
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, the ICANN resolution rules are only the first step in resolving these type of conflicts. Many of the decisions to date say things like 'There is no evidence that this name was registered or used in bad faith, but the parties may choose to move this issue to the courts where it belongs' (I'll try to find the decision and post it as a follow-up). So, really, there is recourse beyond the resolution rules. the parties can still get a court to rule on their behalf and attempt to compel the registrar to move the name. Now this is where juristictional issues come into play because if the registrar is in the US, they are bound by US law (i think...IANAL) and if the registrar is in switzerland (i think that's where he said he was from) they would be bound to act in accordance with a decision by swiss officials.
In short, the resolution rules are only a condition of doing business with ICANN registrars, and only seem to apply to your ability to remain in some sort of good standing there. The actual patent laws of the land would seem to take precedence.
Anyway...that's how I figure it works...
But anyway...trademarking "coke" is pretty silly. It'd be like if I registered apple.ch to sell fruit. I dun think that apple computers could take it from me because my limited (again IANAL) understanding of trademark law leads me to believe that the services provided or business done must be at least remotely similar to that done by the trademark holder.
just my thoughts...
Wrong. There is no evidence at all the name is being used in bad faith. Think about it--it's possible for two companies to have the same trademark (Acme Toilet Paper and Acme Furniture, for a hypothetical example). One of them might have the name acme.com. Assuming they're NOT using it against the other company, the other company has no rights. I.e., the second company could sue over the firsts website detailing the seconds labour practices, but not over the firsts website detailing the history of toilet paper.
Be nice --
ask for "expenses" (you did host the domain for 2 years, after all)
stall if they offer nothing --
be gratious with whatever you get.
Cheers --
--
.sig coming soon
TomV
TomV
Coca-cola's lawyers (or all lawyers) should be drug out into the street and shot (maybe with a snurf gun).
Drug out and shot? Like mainlining? (coke perhaps?)
Or dragged out and shot? Keep using that Oxford...
You mean the way Micro$oft has a trademark on the word Windows? Get real, you can trademark a common word if you apply it to a specific product or process.
One doesn't need a web site to make use of a domain name. I've had one registered for 4 years, and no web site. It's based on a name/nickname I've had for MANY years. The domain has been active for my mail since I've had it, but that's all.
IMHO, you don't pay continuously for "owning" a domain. What you pay for is to stay registered in DNS servers - without which, of course, just "owning" a domain would be useless. This means that you "acquire" the domain for a "life time" (let's see if this system will still exist in 5 or 10 years), but you have to pay a yearly fee to stay registered/connected.
Regards, Neo XLII [fourty-two]
From a moral" point of view, of course, you're absolutely right. But the prob is that you have to see this thing from a historical point of view. When the Internet was installed in the first place, it was a US-only show. So back that time there had to be no such thing as country-TLD's. BTW .com domains are "traditionally" considered as US domains, which is right most of the time, but on the other hand _anyone_ can register a .com domain. (As a European, I do own several of them *g*)
Regards, Neo XLII [fourty-two]
oops sorry!
&qoutmoral" should have been "moral" of course!
Regards, Neo XLII [fourty-two]
I think what they mean is pokey.
There was/is a website called pokey.org. It was the kids nickname who registered it. The people who brought us gumby decided that they wanted it and there was (IIRC) a legal battle. If there was in fact a legal battle the Gumby people must have lost becuase www.pokey.org is still up and running.
Not only is it slang for cocaine, it's a generic word for a type of coal. It's use in this way probably predates even coca-cola. Just try and sue me for not CapItaLIzing!!!!
coke, n.
The solid residue of impure carbon obtained from bituminous coal and other carbonaceous materials after removal of volatile material by destructive distillation. It is used as a fuel and in making steel.
You may be interested to know that trademarks can be made effectively useless by the general public. Xerox makes it a point to send materials that explicitly lay out the requirements of discussing copies. For example, they say, if you declare that "You've made some Xeroxes", you are endangering their trademark. If a trademarked word becomes a colloquialism, then it becomes part of the "public domain" (open source fans should love that one).
If lawyers can convince a judge that a word is in the "public domain", then it cannot be trademarked. Trademark laws prohibit trademark protection of colloquial words. That's why you can have a company named "Apple", but you can't have a trademark on the name "Apple". Instead, you'd have to trademark "Apple Computer" and "Apple Computer, Inc."
I do not believe the word "Coke" has been challenged in a court of law, but there will come a time when it will because of its use in common lingo.
The fact is, Coke may be a trademark right now, but it may not stand up to a court challenge -- and if that happened, the word "Coke" would be in the "public domain", rendering it useless as a trademark.
NOW, whether or not the poster has the INTENT to use this domain or not is a matter for legal experts (legal experts in the poster's country, not the US)...
Remember.... law is law until someone challenges it and wins... and then it becomes history.
Smokers
I believe this is another case of the large corporation stepping on the little guy because he has something they want. If Coca-Cola pursues this legally, it would be a very bad showing for that company. They really don't "need" that website anyway. Why would it benefit them? Coke.ch should stay with its rightful owner.
Trademarks were made to prevent people from 1:) piggy backing on a companies hard spent marketing efforts. 2:) defaming the companies product.
So to violate trademark law (in the US, no idea about over there, but since the whole copyright/trademakr/intellectual proprty treaties everyone has signed, it is probably pretty close)you have to mis-use their trademark in the context of their product.
So selling Coca-Cola from the site would be a violation. Putting up information about Coca-Cola would be a violation.
Owning the domain name "coke.ch" is not. why not?
It is contextless. We're talking about a word with three definitions. Coca-Cola has the right to use that trademark in the context of the beverage business. They have the right to defend it in that context.
But they have neither the right nor the need to try and wrestle control over a dictionary word from the general public.
His use/disuse of the domain has no effect on if it violates trademark laws. If anything, it merely insures that he hasn't.
Ryan
That is where the name "Coca Cola" comes from, so they should not have any grounds to say that a site devoted to cocaine addiction damages/diminishes their mark.
Get a law team together of some pretty good lawyers, because you are dealing with a huge Corporation. Chances are, you won't win. Tough =P.
austintsmith.com
No, sorry, I missed that one. If it's relevant to what's happending here, could you please explain or provide a link as to what the "Gumby incident" was? Thanks.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
OK .. perhaps I'm going to lose /. Karma here, but I'll gain *spiritual* Karma (OK it's probably a draw)
...????? An "American Company" and a "group of fools" lost in old paradigms who(m) still think advertising is market driven and relatively infallible?
Here's a stab!
"Why in the name of sanity does Coca Cola want to [own] coke.ch for anyway?"
Because they are a company
Assumption A:) (made by original poster as well as *MOST*): Companies do things in the name of "sanity"
Assumption B:) (counted on by advertisers)
People make their decisions based on initial impressions combined with cumulative propoganda.
Do you have a mind?
Use it!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Actually .. I'm wondering the opposite. What makes the US so arrogant that they consider themselves to own a large percentage of the net hops ... as if the net maps to physical geography???? Why is *.com a US site .. while *.au.com a site from Australia ????
What the *GROK* does a nodes physical geography have to do with it's prescence on the net???
Old paradigms die *HARD*
Lets kill them quickly and painlessly!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I thought my response was excellent, because from a legal perspective it was *FOOLPROOF* (i.e. it might or might not hold up depending on if the judge was constipated or not, how recently he's (she's) been laid, and if they drink Coke or Pepsi), but the response I read that rated 3 *TRULY* rated three! Forget legality .... SPIN wins every time! Coke would love to make you out to be a cocaine snorting pedophile ... but make them out to be what they *ARE* (A company more interested in their trademark than recovering addicts), and *PUBLICISE* (sic) it, and they'll fold like the Corporate Disregarde' that they are!
CHEERS to pragmatics!
P.S> I make no apologies to *ANY* corporate lawyers. I *LIVE* for all lawyers to try me!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
*WOW*
.com how will he make his money .. Oh wait ... lemme guess ... it will be an on-line comedy store full of excellent "three's" like this.
/. destroyers. /. communist.
.. I must have missed something. What's funny about "why doesn't the guy just give up his rights like a good little netizen and then violate all previously established protocols"???
"Just sell the domain name Coke for cost"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a 3 ??????
"I just checked and www.cokeabuser.com and www.cokeaddict.com are both available."
Given the
People who rate this shit funny R
F'ing
And what the *FUCK* does having an actual site up or not have to do with anything ??????
if ((score_2 == insightful)
&&(score_3 == humourus))
this = score_4
// i.e. as_ignorant_as_the_moderator_who_scored_this
I'm sorry
Oh yeay! wicked Fucking funny. I'm laughing your rights off!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
same way that Band-Aid and Kleenex are no longer trademarks in this country.
Um, I hate to tell you that Kleenex is a trademark in the U.S. Band-aids are a product, Kleenex are not. Kleenex is a COMPANY, they make TISSUES, not kleenexes (it's just we all refer to tissues as kleenexes because of their dominance). So bah to you and your weakly researched supports!
~Mask of Bongo
This can get endless. We as responsible ciizens MUST put an end to this. Soon, for saying "reboot", we'll have to pay royalty to Microsoft... they can't just take words and copyright them - the Oxford English dictionary will go bankrupt paying money to these visigoths.
Whether or not Coke is a valid trademark, it's the responsibility of the Coca-Cola company to enforce it. If they want to keep it, they are legally obligated to try to stop people from also using the word Coke. They might withdraw their claim later, but certainly not until they have come to an agreement with the domain owner.
And there is the valid point, raised by others, that "Coke" = "Coca Cola" for English speakers only.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And "Coke" was *first* registered in 1945: Word Mark COKE Owner Name (REGISTRANT) COCA-COLA COMPANY, THE Owner Address P.O. DRAWER 1734 ATLANTA GEORGIA 30301 CORPORATION DELAWARE Serial Number 71-468708 Registration Number 0415755 Filing Date 03/27/1944 Registration Date 08/14/1945 It's been pointed out that "Coke" is owned by Coca-Cola pretty much everywhere, so they can always defend it, no matter where. The interesting point is about the use of trademark in the same industry. The problem with domain names is that it's an extremely scarce resource -- there's only one coke.[whatever] in each hierarchy. That pretty much kills off that one aspect of patent law. So the question is, is trademark law the governing law in this situation? Who knows. Trademark law is very locally geographical in nature -- and there are no local geographic bounds on the Internet. Very very interesting stuff... BTW, "Coke" is not part of the English language like Xerox or Band-Aid. Those refer to the generic product of a copy/copier or a self-adhesive bandage. No one would use the word "Coke" to refer to "cola". Otherwise, "Coke" and Pepsi or your supermarket brand cola would be interchangeable to people. It's clearly not.
Surely the entire case hinges on whether or not Coca-Cola have registered the trademark Coke in Switzerland. Let's assume they have, simply because it's a world-renowned brand name and foreigners visiting may well ask for a coke.
.com.ch or.org.ch means that coca-cola have no definite claim- if for example you had registered coke.com.ch (if there were such a domain) I'd have thought that the conclusion would be pretty foregone. However, by the same token, coke.org.ch would be less likely to attract legal action as the domain implies a non-profit enterprise.
The fact that there is no such domain as
The fact that neither of these exist means that you are stuck in some sort of limbo between these two worlds. I'd say that as coke is both a trademark and a well-known slang word, then Coca-Cola would have a hard time proving that you wanted it in order to stop them having it. As a result of this I think that you'd probably get away with it in court (BICBW, IANAL).
--
Said it couldn't last, said it wouldn't last... This is the last stand against tomorrow's world.
If I were you, I'd sell the domain name to them (with profit ofcourse) because:
- You WILL lose a lawsuit
- The Coca-Cola(tm:) company has a lot of money to spend.
You could make a little money out of this...
Never let it come into court - you'll lose, I hate so say it, but it is a fact. I personally think you're right, but the judge...
Does coca-cola make 'Coke'? no... they make coca-cola. Also, Coke has come to be a slang term meaning any soft drink. A common offer would be "Ya wanna coke or something?' similar to 'Ya wanna beer?.'
What about trademarks that are adopted into language. Say in many places
kleenex refers to facial tissue
band-aid denotes adhesive bandage
Obviously it doesn't work the other way either;
Either trademarks and words must be exclusive (i.e. all trademarks cannot be existing words) or they must refer to different subjects (i.e. Coca-Cola can only prevent someone from using "coke" to refer to a carbonated beverage)
coke(tm)?
:P
oh, ok, so I should not advertise my business as 'I clean Windows' because I'm violating the M$ tm?
shiiiiiiiiiiite
sorry if someone said this b4, I ain't reading thru 400+ posts
.rage.
US Patends and Trademarks do not apply in foreign country. But Coca-cola did register their mark in Switzerland.
I take a look at the Swiss Coca-Cola website (.ch) and take a look at their policy
Here is the english translated version:
II. Informations Copyright
So there is a case for Coca-Cola, or so they are thinking.In my point of view, since he did not do anything I am aware to sell his domain name to the company or do business under one Coca-Cola patent name, there not enough point to attack him. This is just an other exemple of corporate law "we have the money to do what we want against not as rich people as we are".
--- Bouh !!! ---
First of all I think US Trademark does not appply in foreign country so the "Coke" word has to be registered in Switzerland before any action.
Second, because "Coke" in french *REALLY* mean cocaine the Coca-Cola company never used the term "Coke" to market its product. They refer to it as a "coca-cola" or "coca" in its short term and 99.99% of French speaking people as their native tongue always think it's about drugs when you talk about "Coke" and not about soda, the "Coca-Cola" company should apply their trademark rights in this case.
No one in Switzerland would log on to "coke.ch" to access the Coca-Cola company website but to access informations about drugs.
Also I think the "no domain squatting" law that has passed the Congresss some years ago do not apply in Switzerland anyway.
--- Bouh !!! ---
OOG UNDERSTAND COKE WANTING TO PROTECT TRADEMARK, BUT THINK THIS GO TO FAR!!! OOG ALSO AWARE THAT COKE ALSO MEAN COCAINE OR KIND OF COAL IN SOME CASES??? HOW CAN COCA COLA CONTROL THIS USAGE??? THOUGHT OF COCA COLA TRYING TO STEAL INTERNATIONAL DOMAINS AS OPPOSED TO TRADITIONAL .COM EVEN MORE ABSURD!!! OOG NOT LAWYER LIKE HIS COUSIN, UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER, BUT OOG THINK YOU COULD WIN IN COURT, ESPECIALLY SINCE SITE PROVIDE SERVICE FOR COCAINE ADDICTS!!! TRY SETTLE PEACEFULLY AND ASK IF YOU COULD USE DISCLAIMER OR WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM AS COMPROMISE!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
No Way, if you capitulate to their "threat" then you're just falling for bully tactics. In Canada and the U.S up until VERY recently he-who-gets-the-web-site-FIRST-OWNS-IT. This is your case, and you can win. Because you registered the site 2 years ago BEFORE the new laws came into effect, which gave Domain-Name-Servers the right to hold/return trademarks and copyrights to companies that hold then YOU were operating under PREVIOUS law. This means that your lawyer can successfully argue that "Possestion is 9/10s of the Law" and that YOU own the rights to your domain name. If Coke wants it OFF of you, they have to do what EVERY OTHER company (prior to the new legislation) had to do, which was they had to offer to purchase it from you. Stick to your guns, you have a winning case AND the onus is on Coke to offer you a settlement for the name YOU own, if they want to use it in Switzerland. There are cases here in your favour where major companies payed big bucks to purchase already-registered Domain-names, that they -wanted-. We have a case in Montreal, where "MontrealOnline" was registered by a joe-blow und purchased for $100,000 by a local newspaper. Bottom line is this, YOU own the site now, Coke doesn't want bad publicity, and they DEFINITELY don't want to be known as "picking on the little guy" so you stick to your guns, get a lawyer, and Coke will settle with you. Virtually guaranteed. Truth is, if COKE had a case, they wouldn't be trying to convince you to give it up and threatening law suits, they'd just do it. Turth is, they KNOW the area is sticky and publicity could turn ugly for them, so imo, move to negotiate, and don't settle for less than $100 000 dollars U.S for the name. Bottom line is, YOU own it, if they want it, they have to purchase it from you, not try to bully or scare you into giving it to them. If you don't want to give it up PERIOD (are not willing to settle) then you're talking Internet law precedent setting here, in which case you should be able to find a lawyer that will take the case for FREE, because it's gonna be a huge publicity case. -- Michael Xavier Maelstrom Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Earth, Sometimes.
My advise is that you go see a lawyer who specializes in international intellectual property law. A close friend of mine does this and not more than a month ago he gave me a breakdown of what all this really boils down to:
These names are public domains, meaning trademark laws do not apply. Nearly the only thing that a company can pin you for is if you attempt to buy the rights to a public domain (in your case coke.ch) for the purpose of extortion. Let me elaborate; you say to yourself, "hey, nobody has coke.ch, I think I'll buy it so I can sell it to coke for $100k." At that point, your intent for purchase is extortion, which is a baddie. You _may_, however, have buy the rights to coke.ch and put up a "Coke Sucks!" or even a "Coka-Cola(tm) Sucks!" page, as long as it has some content which proves your intentions are not to extort money from Coca-Cola(tm).
Now, you are not in this position, so they have nothing on you (although my friend never really went into Swiss law with me...). Sounds like you are for the most part in the clear.
-ManiaK
Save your lawyers fees and think about your options. I had a simmilar case: a domain, no website behind it, because it was in development. A major european company came up and asked me to hand out the domain for free (!) to them. They did not even intend to pay for the development investment. Well, what came out: The ".de"-domain had to go to them, because the possession of a domain itself violates copyright-issues in most european countries. Luckily I had the same domain as ".com", which is now online on an US-Server :-) Will see what happens...
They are automatically wrong only because they are a big bully. The are a large powerful corporation, and your suggesting that we give the benifit of the doubt to thme over a real person? to hell with that.
Just to let you know, there is a law that states once something becomes common slang, it cannot be protected by trademark law. This happens all the time. Examples of this are: Trampoline, kerosene, dry ice, and many others. These were once trademarks. But once they are common slang for a type of product or anything else, they are no longer protected. Don't worry. They don't have a case on you.
Boff! The Coka-Cola[tm] boys should shut up right now!. Here's what Webster's dico says: coke [ME; akin to Sw kälk pith, Gk gelgis bulb of garlic] (1669) : the residue of coal left after destructuve distillation.... coke [by shortening & alt.] (ca. 1903) : COCAINE. Coke trademark -- used for a cola drink. IMNSHO, if you only use the word coke with a small letter at the beginning, and in an unambiguous context, the Coca-Cola[tm] boys haven't a leg to stand on (although they can probably buy some fairly strong legal legs). I don't remember how Tademarks work in other countries, but IIRR in France (where I live) you register a trademark to cover a "domain" of activity (i.e. food and drink, in the Coca-Cola[tm] instance) and its use in two (?) contiguous domains is protected (?). But your use of the work "coke" is clearly not an attempt to usurp the notoriety of the brand or the trademark... so where's the problem?
Perhaps the best (maybe not moral though) is to fight the big corporations with FUD. Ask Coca-Cola(tm) if they really want to be known as a company that takes down web sites that help people with their addiction to cocaine. I'll bet they back off really quick. PR is really imporant, esp to soft drink companies.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Go to http://www.siug.ch (all german, though),
the Swiss Internet User Group. There's a paper
on this: http://www.siug.ch/positionen/SIUG-Domain.shtml
Furthermore, the SIUG might take a look at this,
and can probably do something.
Depending on the case, this is probably a blatant
act of domain-piracy through law on Coca-Colas
side or an act of cybersquatting on yours.
Kirth
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
That said, this still reduces to an absurd situation where you can't put 'Coke' in any domains, subdomains, etc etc without being hassled. What's needed is some good solid rulings in court saying "Grabbing and holding the .com is ENOUGH! You don't have to hassle everyone on the planet. If 'coke' means 'small purple fish' in Zabongahelian, well then "coke.zb" can go on meaning a fish restaraunt's web presence WITHOUT weakening Coca-Cola's trademark claim- because they hold the .com and are doing business using that as a trademark in many countries.
It's the fear of the unknown: "Does coke.zb mean that we lose our trademark all over the world? *quake, tremble*" that causes the abuses. You have to immunize these big companies from their fears of losing what they're entitled to. They have a perfect right to own the name 'Coke' as applied to beverages. They've a right to be scared if they think they could end up losing that. They need some clear rules formally making them safe from the threat of losing all their trademark stuff just for not hassling domain holders in Zabongahelia. Without such assurance, they are compelled to really be destructive and draconian, because it's out of fear and nobody can tell them they _won't_ lose their important trademarks over such a thing.
If I open up a grocery store called Apple Produce, I'm not infriniging on Apple Computer Inc's trademark. But if I call it Apple Computer Supplies, then I may land in hot water.
``Apple'' is a common dictionary word, so unconditional trademark protection cannot reasonably be applied to it. Such is the case with ``coke'' as well.` Coke is a product derived from coal, which, I believe, is useful because it burns at higher temperatures than coal. More recently, the word is also slang for cocaine.
I think that these crooked corporations are simply going too far when they oppress people for using common words in a way that is unrelated to their industry.
Why should it have to be active? As the owner he has the right do use or use it as he sees fit.
If I own a piece of unused land in the middle of an area that some big corporation wants to build on, do they have a right to take that away from me?
Bah!
They see a domain that isn't being squatted. I can't pull up anything under www.coke.ch... so why shouldn't they push to get it unregistered... Had our reader done something with it 2 years ago and not let it stagnate then I bet that the big boys at Coke would have said hey.. this kids doing some good with this site.. lets leave it alone.
.ch domains come from? That may also have some relevance.
I disagree that coke is a slang word. Coke has been commercially associated with the drink longer then it turned into drug slang.
What does Coke mean in Swedish? Or wherever the
Regardless of the readers good intentions (Don't get me wrong I fully agree that they are valid) the domain is being squatted.
- Xabbu
- Jimbob
Should those companies have the right to stop you from using those names to prevent confusion? ("There are better names for a person to use, anyway...")
A "reasonable person" should make no assumptions about any trademark issues based solely on a domain name.
--
They are an aggressive company that can't stand competition as if it would kill them. Coca Cola was nice enough to supply the breakroom where I work with a refrigerator, along with a big poster wire-tied to the front that stated "No competitor's products may be placed inside." (all caps removed here to prevent blindness!) In my mind, they are more arrogant than Microsoft (not by much.)
Coca Cola is the American way. Its thier way of marking property, just as a dog would do.
What I'm getting sick of is people that think that just because someone owns a domain name means that they have to have a web site. How about confused@coke.ch? How about [ftp.]coke.ch? How about [irc.]coke.ch?
Just because there's little/no HTML content on coke.ch, doesn't mean the domain isn't being used.
Another interesting point is that in the "real world" you can have a word that is trademarked multiple times to cover different spheres of product useage. For example, the same trademark could be used in plumbing supplies and in shoes without overlap. But now that everyone if fighting for their place on the web, you have trademarks collapsing into the same namespace.
And the one with the most lawyers win. (Who cares who was there first.)
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
We are now seeing a net where some have greater rights than others. Where certain feudal lords are allowed dominion over the lesser peons. Ask yourself why a "trademark" should have more validity for a domain name than a slang term, a common name or some other usage? Yet that assumption is made in all of these cases.
Programmers and techs built the net. Afterwards the marketing and corporate slime came in and said "thank you. We now own this." We are being treated as serfs in our own land. Creating value for the landowners and then kicked off the land when they find it has value.
Maybe it is time to build something else...
Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I'm the CIO for GoatSe Communications Corp, based in Chicago, IL, and we've entered into a lawsuit with the controller of goatse.cx. I feel that it's important to protect our intellectual property, and I don't need any crack-smoking hippies abusing the good name of GoatSe Communications Corp.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
It has been a trademark since the "New Coke" was introduced in 1984. The Coca-Cola company has already won a lawsuit in America, suing the publisher and author of a novel, for not capiltalizing their usage of it. The suit was victorious.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Yes, my mistake.
This is hardly a matter of opinion. They either have a registered trademark or they don't. They apparently claim that they did register the trademark. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
is a derevitive of coal used in the mfg of steel.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
--
Simple: so you do a swap for another domain which is satisfactory to your use, having CocaCola pay all the fees for your trouble. Heck, even require them to leave a forwarding pointer at coke.ch to the new site.
Of course, leave it up to them to aquire the "acceptable" name.
I have wondered for a while now why Slashdot/Andover.net doesn't just place an attorney on attainer to answer these questions as they come up. Law advice from someone in the profession would be most useful to us on the technical side of things and would help to stifle stupid and bad advice from people who slept through a Law 101 course.
I'd appreciate it if the person who owns coke.ch would contact me - I'd like to compare notes.
jtl@molehill.org
jtl@dietcoke.net, for the moment at least.
...somthing Helvetica(?) (hence the font name) :)
That's what the CH sticker on cars means: you either bought it in Switzerland or bought the sticker there
GB = Great Britain, FR = France, IT = Italy (IIRC) etc...
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Okay, playing devil's advocate here, let's assume that the guy is domain squatting. Then no way does he have rights to the thing.
.com, .org, .net that we can use, which makes things a little easier to deal with. But other countries don't have this.
But, there is a problem in this whole domain name mess. You can sell a product in a noncompeting industry and call it something that is trademarked in another industry. So, for example, I could make a new quadruple pane window frame for use in new house construction and call it Windows, and Microsoft, who owns the trademark Windows in the computing world, could do nothing to me since I am not competing with them in the computer industry. If I started to sell software to design quadruple pane windows, then I could not call it Windows. This all makes sense, and IMHO, it is the right thing to do.
But, now we get into a problem here on the net.
Say that I own a company called Slashdot Farm Implements and it is trademarked. We have been in business for 100 years, and back in 1998 we finally got an ISP in Podunk, Wyoming so we want to set us up a website. We find out that a bunch of geeks back in 1997 went and set up a website called Slashdot that deals in computer geek news. Since they are not in the farm implement industry, they too could get a trademark on their name, which they do. Who the hell has the right to the domain? They are not squatting, we are both in different industries, and neither of us are competing with one another.
Granted, here in the states we have
Who would get the name slashdot in that case if things were pressed?
Lately in the news there has been some stuff about Coke Industries doing a lot of polluting somewhere around the US. Does Coke have the right to go after them? What if Coke Industries wants to set up a domain? If they call it coke.net, is Coca-Cola going to go after them?
I'm confused now.
It is clear that the word Coke has been used to refer to way too many things for way too long for it to be protected by a copyright or any other intellectual property law. Coke is a form of coal, too.
Don't forget: Coca-Cola is named what it is because it originally contained cocaine. Did Coca-Cola copyright cocaine as well? I think not. I'm sure they would rather we didn't remember their origins in what is now an illegal drug.
Sure, but what does that have to do with domain names? There isn't a set of domain names for softdrinks, and another set of domain names for shoes. Nor is there an internet for shoes, and a different, unrelated internet for softdrinks.
There is just one, big internet. Everything is related.
-- Abigail
But there is coke.com and coke.ch - or should, as said before, we just ditch those TLD's, and go straight for www.coke?
coke.com is for shoes and coke.ch is for softdrinks?
No! There is a reason for TLD's!
Ah, I get it. Only Switzerland has cocaine addicts, right?
-- Abigail
I don't think this situation deserves the same outrage as the etoy/etoys fiasco. Coke.* could easily be assumed by a "reasonable person" to be a web site for the Coca Cola company and the person who registered the domain had to know that. There are probably better domain names to put the addiction web site under.
-B
It is *so* unfortunate that this is true. Hardly any issue can be won on substance or common sense any more.
The very twisted version of the Golden Rule now applies:
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
I really wonder if we are seeing the decline of civilization as we know it? I know that sounds a little extremist, but we run a great risk of becoming a homogenized, bland and useless species if we let corporate interests win over human interaction.
Russ
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
It's ironic, don't you think?
Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine
One could argue Coca-Cola is almost a trade name for something containing cocaine. It's obvious that coke is a synonym for cocaine, just like 'tater and potato.
I hope I didn't give the Tater Tots people any ideas.
IANAL, but if you're not using the domain, and they want it, offer to sell it to them for reasonable costs ($50, or whatever it cost you to register it).
Ask for more, and you're a no-good domain squatter. Try to fight, and you're toast.
Tell them you'll take payment in kind. Hold out for at least 240 cans.
--
E_NOSIG
Hi,
:-)
I can understand Coca-cola's position on this one. Now you try to keep in mind that you're dealing with Businessmen. So here's my recommendation (I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc)
If, as you say, your purpose was legitimate, ask them to negotiate - ask them to buy the "cocaine.ch" domain for you (or another domain you think would be appropriate) and tell them in exchange you will gladly relinquish the domain. Your site stays up, they get back their name. They might even agree to add a link to your site for your old users for a year or two.
You are dealing with businessmen, not goons. Be polite and tell them your good faith reasoning, while allowing them a clean Win-win deal. Most businesspeople would rather spend the few bucks for the domain you want (and depending on the price, maybe even buying it off the original owner for you) and trade it with you (while making you sign a few papers relinquishing the "Coke" name forever) than pay for lawyers, media spin (so they don't look like the bad guys) and that kind of thing.
Above all, be civil.
Hope this helps,
- David
- No Sig Today
It has to lose its distinctiveness AND there can't be an alternate word in order for it to lose its status as a trademark. People can call it xeroxing for all they want, but as long as "photocopying" still exists, Xerox Corp doesn't have to worry about losing its trademark. Needless to say, this sort of thing only rarely happens.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
If 500 new TLD's were added, you can bet that Coke would want coke.sex coke.vacation coke.stock coke.servicebureau coke.doctor coke.art coke.singles
Next thing you know, companies will complain about their names being used in subdomains.. Would coke mind if slashdot served all of it's images from coke.slashdot.org? Would Coca-cola mind if pepsi had a site called coke.pepsi.com. Would they have **LEGAL CLAIM** to the site or to stop it's usage?
what about coke.addict.org ??? Could they sue for slander/libel?
When is anyone going to realize that the current system just doesn't work anymore, and that "FAIR USE" and uniqueness on the internet need new definitions.
What about c0ke.ch ?? spelled with a zero, not O -- it's a unique ASCII string. Does their trademark cover that? What about cokes.ch? what about coke-soda.com what about cokefan.com what about betterthancoke.com, what about cokedexhaustvalve.com (referring to the carbon called "coke")
see the problem???? even if you can have 60+ character domainnames, you're going to be including something/word that's someone's trademark and they're going to sue you to change your name!
... and by the way, what's wrong with domain squatting??? If someone staked out the prime real-esatate and bought it when it was cheap, people would call that person shrewd. I think everyone now just has sour grapes syndrome 'cause they didn't think of registering simple words.
I think the slashdot crowd is pretty lame for condemning people who registered interesting domains. Slashdot users are usually for "free everything", "release your source", "too bad it's not free", "we need a free replacement". But on domainnames, they seem to just kowtow to big busienss and US law and say, "Shame on you for trying to cross big business!".
Oh wait, I get it... Slashdot users are against anyone making a profit. If you register coke.ch and use it for opensource software, that's okay and we'll stand behind you, but if you try to sell it to Coca-cola, you're a slimy demon that we all hate?
Yeah, right.
Regardless of what Coca-Cola says on this issue, the mark _has_ lost its distinctiveness. Even when used in the context of beverages, the word "coke" now typically means a cola beverage of some sort. This includes "Pepsi," "RC Cola," generic colas, etc. This situation is thus very similar to "kleenex" or "band-aid."
As to distinctiveness in this particular context... Were I to head down to the States, purchase some Coca-Cola, and head back, I would be very hesitant to respond to the Customs Agents queries with the work "Coke."...
Customs Agent: Have you anything to declare, Sir?
Me: No, just picked up some Coke while I was down - it's pretty cheap down here.
Customs Agent : Step out of the car, keep your hands in plain view!
The confusion exists already. If anything, the fact that there is _not_ a website operating should work to this person's advantage, as there is clearly no potential for confusion here.
The fact is that coca cola the company has [a] more lawyers [b] a registered trademark [c] lots of money to litigate and [d] lots of time.
Why not just register cocaine.ch or something which cant possibly be trademarked ? Its a helluva lot better than fighting coca cola forever.
yes, it sucks, but the bigger guy with the baseball bat usually wins.
Why in the name of sanity does Coca Cola want to coke.ch for anyway? As if someone was looking for Coke, and would think, "Hmm. I wonder what the URL of Coke's website is? I think I'll try cocacola.com. No! Wait! It's probably at coke.ch!"
It might be different if it was an "I hate Coke" site or there was a site that looked like it was endorsed by Coca Cola, but this is madness.
Well, just food for thought... I don't have the energy to think it through right now.
Why not limit the number of domains that a single company can own? Corporations can't pay off the USPS to give them thousands of different vanity mailing addresses; why should they be able to have unlimited domains?
As a bonus, this would also increase public awareness of just who actually runs the sites they're visiting... i.e., people would notice that everything ends in aol.com.
MSK
"Kleenex" is a product of the Kimberly-Clark company, and is still a trademark. So far as I know, "Band-Aid" is also still a registered trademark. Trademark protection is why (for those of you of a certain age, in the United States) you'll remember that the cutesy musical jingle went from "I am stuck on Band-Aids" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand". Check out this Johnson & Johnson site and this filing from 1924 for trademark details. {Jonathan Ezor, author of "Clicking Through: A Survival Guide for Bringing Your Company Online" (Bloomberg Press 1999)}
You might offer Coke's lawyers that in return for dropping the suit, you'd be glad to sign an agreement binding yourself not to associate the site in any way with Coca-cola or any other beverage products.
[Or if that doesn't satisfy them, agree to only setup the site with material specifically oriented around cocaine, and/or setup tighter clauses about who you can sell the domain name to so they can't be burned that way.]
Hiring a lawyer to do this negotiation wouldn't be a bad idea if you're serious; otherwise, they'll probably sue and you'll end up as little guy bug meat, hate to say it. Unless you can get the EFF or someone on your side.
You didn't say whether you'd actually put up any material on the website dealing with cocaine; obviously actions of that sort would strengthen your argument and case, as would marketing/promoting your site as a source of knowledge about cocaine. It'd be much harder for Coke to convince a judge you are infringing when you have spent time and effort (and money) on meeting those goals that your motive is trademark infringing.
--Greg
The word "Coke" Is already an English-language word describing a type of Coal used in Steel-manufacturing. Perhaps you remember Billy Joel mentioning it in ALLENTOWN: "But they've taken all the coke from the ground/and they're closin' all the factories down". How can they TM a word that already exists?
This tagline is umop apisdn.
What the hell is wrong with you. This guy spent his money on the domain before Coca-Cola company did. It is his.... no matter what he intends to do with it. So if Coca-Cola steals it from him and doesnt use it for a while, can I steal it from them? Do I hvae to have a name that sounds like Coke? This is bull, its hims, let Coca-Cola buy it from him if they want it.
Everyone wants a catchy domain name, for good reason. Would you choose thedangersofcocaineabuse.ch or coke.ch?
The idea that you have to check trademarks in every spoken language incase your domain name infridges one of them is madness. Who knows, maybe cocaineabuse is a world tradmark of a famous toilet cleaner sold in every country in world, perhaps their sales are small in your own country, small enough for you to not have heard of them, but everywhere else they are a household name. They have a presence in your country, so they have to defend the name cocaineabuse.ch. I'm trying to show (and failing miserably) that thos whole concept does not work well across language and country borders.
As an aside. Unlike The USA, in the UK coke = any brand of black fizzy stuff that rotes your teeth. Coca-cola = brand of drink. I.e. you walk into a pub and ask for a coke and you're just as likely to get Pepsi
Of course, if ch had org.ch and co.ch then this problem would never of occured.
cjk.
You will forget this sig before you next see it
- There should be more domainnames for all kind of websites, like
.com for international commercial organisations .org for non-profit organisations .nws for news-sites .sub for sites on certain subjects .shp for shopping sites .ser for sits which deliver online-service
- It should be made clear to the public that there are differences between these domains, most people nowadays don't know the difference between
.com and .org - There should be an equivalent of "What's Related", like "What's more" which contain websites which also have good reasons to own the domainname. These organanisations could get domainnames like
.com2, .com3 . The organisation should of course carefully look before people get such a "sub-domain", and people who don't deserve it anymore should be kicked out.
I realize that this way the organisation becomes very powerfull and this isn't a free-market-system, but if we keep going the way it is going now, withing 2 years it will be a totally chaotic system with absurd prices for domain-names.US IP law has absolutely nothing to do with domains outside .us
Most words of any language are trademarked somewhere. Many of them are trademarked multiple times for different areas ("Linux" for example)
A trademark on Coke as a beverage is not a generic right to the word "coke" anymore than Microsoft can prevent a glass manufacturer from selling "windows"
All opinions are my own - until criticized
DO NOT DO THIS!!!!
Offering to sell a domain to a company with a trademark similar to the domain is seen as prima facie evidence of "cybersquatting." Any offer of mayment must be made by the trademark-holding party first
Offering to sell will strip you of all rights-- don't do it!
I could put that same statement on my web site, too. Don't you think that Coca-Cola'$ opinion just might be biased? I think that all their claim on their website tells us is that they claim it, not that they have any right to it in this particular instance. And we already knew that they claim it; that's what this whole thread is about.
So, I'm afraid that link isn't very enlightening.
See what I've been reading.
OK, on the one hand, I don't like predatory companies. On the other hand, it does tread fairly close.
Who's right? Let's take a few arguements on both sides.
1) Does Coca-Cola own the trademark to the name, "Coke" in Switzerland? If not, one point against Coke.
2) Have you been using the address? Regardless of original intent, if you haven't been using it, it looks like cybersquatting. Half a point against the current owner.
3) How much will you relinquish it to Coke for? Registration costs for a new domain? Some annoyance at having to switch? Or, the amount of money that it's going to make for Coke. If it's the latter, chalk it up as cybersquatting again, and half a point in favour of Coke.
(aside: Naturally, if these all go in the opposite direction, then switch the points around appropriately)
Maybe you could suggest to Coke that if they let you keep your domain name, you'll put a link to their real web site on your home page. (i.e.: "Looking for Coca-Cola? Click here!!!")
And as someone else very astutely mentioned, remember that you're dealing with businessmen, not goons or a faceless corporate entity.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
if your business/organization/company has the same name as one, but is durastically different than a company, you can use the name (ie. McDonalds Clothes Store). I know this is true in American and Russian law (consulted my lawyer/mom).
Benny (aka) ~ The Psychadelic, Hippy Monk ~
So what does it say on the side of the can? Or bottles or any promotional signs they give out? People have said that you order a Coke some other way, well, frankly, so what? You can order a "tonic" in some areas and get a coke. The question of trademark is whether they are using "Coke" in their advertising or packaging.
Once we figure that out, we can argue about whether a domain being used to combat cocaine addiction has a common use that trumps the trademark, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows what a coke can looks like in the country in question before you flame people about if they have any right to the word or not.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I'm wondering why so many countries, particularly European ones, haven't set up "com" and "net" etc. under their national TLD. In Australia, there would be no such thing as "coke.au", only "coke.com.au" or "coke.net.au"... this would help solve this problem... Coca-Cola could grab "coke.com.ch", and this dude could, because he is essentially creating a non-profit information website about cocaine, could grab "coke.org.ch".
This method works great in Australia... Microsoft haven't even registered "microsoft.net.au" in Australia, because they are a COMpany, not a NETwork.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
I don't see how this argument could have any validity. That's like a corporation asking you to give up a piece of land you own so they can make a mall. Would you say "Well, since I don't have anything on the property, take it. I'm not using it."? No. Coca Cola does not own the rights to the word coke. Why should they bully someone with a coke domain out of it?
kwsNI
It's really sad to see the Internet becoming so much influenced by big corporations. I'm not talking about e-commerce, I'm pointing to the user experience. It seems that the wish of many is to spread the idea that the Internet should be "surfed" through portals with their own content and links to corporate websites. Someone referred to this change, IIRC, as the Internet becoming a shopping mall where we would be forced to live in the back load delivery areas. Corporations don't own the net, but they would love to.
I don't see such a clear cause-effect relationship in owning a trademark and thus being entitled to own the domain name. Courts, OTOH, are easily fooleed into thinking so.
Now, if this guy had set up his site he would have much more reason to complain. He should also put a clear link saying something like "if you want to go to the "Coca-Cola Company website...". Things would be much easier. Many companies don't rely in the country letters, they have pages like "www.acme.com/france", which I think is the best way to go.
Coca-Cola has a history of strongly defending the trademark (their main asset). If you paint their logo in your business and the tone of red is not precisely the same, or if the tail of the third "C" in Coca-Cola does not pass through the "l" loop exactly as in their model, they force you to repaint it. That capitalization issue someone mentioned is another good example. This guy is having a though fight ahead.
I will walk and chew gum at the same time.
Fight Spammers!
Even if Coke is trademarked, they can't block the use in unrelated areas. You can have Coke softdrinks and Coke shoes for example.
Trademark dilution has changed that to an extent. The main issue is whether there would be confusion, or that uou are using "famousness" of their mark.
Coke had referred to cocaine and also for by-products of coal product for years. Also, you are using it for a non-commercial purpose (unless you tried to sell it to them).
I tend to think that they don't have the right.
It could be a PR nightmare for Coca Cola, that they are preventing people who are fighting cocaine addiction.
You might suggest that they hire you to run the site and reimburse you for your costs. Then Coca Cola can do something good and help people with and/or help prevent cocaine addiction.
Fight Spammers!
Ok, so how do I improve the message? How do I get the message out, without smacking of crackpot-ism?
Fight Spammers!
Whether he's using the domain or not isn't really the issue here, the fact is that it was his first, and regardless of what he planned to use it for it's clear that it can't be used ONLY in relation to Coca-Cola the product.
He paid for it, he holds it, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Are we now going to make a rule that unless you are using a domain you can't have it anymore? I shudder at the litigation that could come from that!
It seems the smartest choice in this situation is to try and sell the domain to the company. With some slick talk, I'm sure he could convince them that they'd rather hand him a check than pursue a lengthy and unfavorable legal battle that would raise resistance all across the net.
I worry for what happens when the new TLD's come along. Who will own coke.web?
-Mad Dreamer
In Coca-Cola's beginning, all three names belonged together. Check out the history of Coca-Cola and some of the previous ingredients.
Screw Micro$oft.
************************************
... has been since before Coca-Cola ever started using the name. That's the first (i.e. true) derivative. Now Coca-Cola, who derived their name from cocaine (the real "real thing") ... back when there was actual cocaine in the product., wants to claim they derived the word Coke from Coca-Cola .. which was derived from the name Cocaine .. A.K.A. Coke. I wouldn't give up a thing unless they forked over *HUGE* cash.
Coca-Cola hasn't a prayer as I see it
************************************
Here is a guy that wants to use the name Coke as a derived term from cocaine, just like Coca-Cola did. He is using the accepted first derivative, while Coca-Cola wants to slide in the back door with a second derivative claim and claim first derivative rights!
What do I mean?? Street slang for cocaine is coke
******************
Or in other words:
******************
Cocaine ---------------> Coke
|
|
+-----> Coca-Cola ----> Coke ????????
Coca-Cola is *NOT* the route of the term; Cocaine is. If the site in question was about something other than Cocaine all bets would be off, but here the case (no pun un-intended) is clear! (IMNSHO)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
There are many companies who own the same trademark, just in different industries or different countries.
:) But there's a musician who goes by "Mr. Fingers" too. Should I lose my father's site because someone else uses the same adopted moniker?
It is unreasonable to say that only the one with the deepest pockets can own the web site with that trademarked name.
I registered 'ajw.com' years ago, and have been using it for almost all that time. I'm sure that somewhere in the world is a company with a trademark on 'ajw' - should I have to give it up to them? If that's true, there's a whole boatload of domains that are gonna change hands!
Or another example... My father was a magician; he went by the stage name "Mr. Fingers". When he died last year, I registered "mrfingers.org" and "mrfingers.com" (yeah, there's a weak page there right now...
Personally, I don't care what the reason is for registering a domain, I think the domain name should go to the first person (or company) registering it. If Coca-Cola (tm, r, c, whatever) wants all the "coke.xyz" sites, then they can go register them. They're big enough to afford it. Domain squatting? Tough luck!! (or smart thinking, depending on your viewpoint!)
As more and more companies worldwide get connected, there are going to be increasing conflicts. I think that the only reasonable way to handle domain names is first come, first owned.
- ajw -
At that point, it is possible to trademark. Then there would need to be third party to settle the dispute. There are mitigating factors on either side. However intent and action are not the same thing. While it is possible that the current leasee of coke.ch wanted to make a site about cocaine addiction 2 years ago, he hasn't. Or if he has, he has stopped maintaining it. Since there has been little action or proof of action by the leasee, I would not tend to automatically assume he is not cyber squatting just because he has a good story or honorable sounding intentions.
Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As far as I can see, if he does not put up a well researched, well designed site that appears to have taken 2 years to construct, then he is cyber squatting.
And as for why Coke should "bully" someone with the domain out of it: suppose someone were to say use your name at a place of commerce. I think you may see how someone stealing your identity writing bad checks for easily pawnible goods may give you a bad day. Metaphor applies.. Coke is the name and the Internet (unfortunately) has become a place of commerce more so than information repository.
I would also point out that "The Coca-Cola Company" does not market their beverage name as "Coke" but as "Coca-Cola".
The word "coke" is not used in french to mean their beverage only because the Coca-Cola company refused to call it as so.
--- Bouh !!! ---
You seem to forget that the "no domain squatting for resell" law adopted by the US Congress does not apply in Switzerland (remember, it's a .ch domain).
Also you have to prove he want to sell his domain to the "Coca-Cola" company in order to this law to apply.
Concerning the trademark law: since this domain name point to no computer, no site was done and no business transaction done under this name, there is no case.
I can make a website on my computer called "Amazon.com" or a software called "Micro$oft Word". If I don't put the site online (at any URL), or market the software I can't be charged to use a trademark.
--- Bouh !!! ---
Here's the relevant legal docs, assuming domains registered through Internic. The folks at GreatDomains.com (who probably know a thing or two about name squatting-- they're the ones who sold "loans.com" for US$3 million last month) say in their FAQ:
Our coke.ch friend sounds more like a case of the latter, but since he's still just thinking about setting up the site, it seems to undercut any cred. Coca-Cola is one company that'll protect their trademark worldwide, whether they have the use for a site or not. I hate multinationals as much as the next free thinker, but this ain't a battle worth fighting.
btw, I've heard that courts can make you stop using a domain name but can't force you to turn it over. true?
"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
Some of the folks who responded earlier that "Coke" is not a trademark because it is just a nickname that consumers came up with. Let me say first that I'm not an attorney. Also, everything I'm about to say applies in the U.S.; I don't know about trademark law in Switzerland. What I'm about to say is based on a book that I read about trademark law a few years ago, so some of the law may have evolved since then. In any case, the use of the term "Coke" for "Coca-Cola" is put forward in the books as a textbook example of a case where a company has rights to a trademark without having created the name itself. Since the term "Coke" is popularly understood to refer to Coca-Cola, the Coca-Cola Company could have successfully sued another company for marketing a beverage called "Coke" (The Coca-Cola company did in fact later file for a trademark on "Coke" to reinforce its position). The basic question in trademark law is whether someone is unfairly benefiting from someone else's product image. As for totally different products having the same name, the question here is more subtle. If your name draws on general cultural motifs (say, the names of Greek gods) or general positive words such as "Imperial", you can't do anything if someone else markets a totally different product with the same name (so if I run Imperial Cleaners, I can't sue you for trademark infringement if you sell Imperial Tomatoes). However, if the word is one you coined yourself, it's different. Someone once tried to market Kodak brand cigarette lighters, and the Kodak-Eastman Company successfully sued because it was a term it came up with itself. Under U.S. law, it looks to me like a site called "coke.com" which is about cocaine is not in violation of Coca-Cola's trademark, because "coke" is widely understood as a term for cocaine, and the individual in question can't reasonably be said to be benefitting unfairly from Coca-Cola's corporate image. I can't say whether the same is true under Swiss law.
A couple things are in his favor.
First, he's not in the US, so they will have a hard time forcing him to hand over the domain (since countries maintain their own domain registration services, and the US "cyber squatting" law doesn't even apply).
Second, he has a legitimate use for the domain (even though it's not in use at the moment) that is unrelated to Coca-Cola.
Third, he hasn't caused Coca-Cola any damages, so they don't have much to go on if they are going to go after him for trademark infringement.
Fourth, he has made no gestures to sell the domain for cash to Coca-Cola or (for example) a competing cola company and thus is clearly not a "cyber-squatter".
My suggestion is to be open and as helpful as you can be to Coca-Cola. Make it clear to them that you will try as best you can (and you will hope they will try as best they can) to resolve the conflict. Avoid being hostile as much as possible. That way, you may prompt them to deal more fairly with you, and it makes it becomes more difficult for them to make the case that you are "against them" in any way.
If there's no website after two years, it's a little late to be crying about having to give up the domain. Give it up.
Not just that, but when was the last time you saw one of the editors post in the comments? I've seen Katz/Roblimo a few times recently, but it certainly seems to me that all these sort of suggestions to Slashdot go unnoticed by those in charge.
;) Sure each of them probably get 50,000 emails a day, every post now starts off with 100 posts when you reload every 2 seconds, but could it hurt all of them to read up on the high scoring posts like this one, and post a little blurb, explaining why they posted a story, whether they can/cannot fix things (Apache stories color scheme for one), etc? Better connections with your audience can't be bad.
Back in the olden days you could at least get a "no" from CmdrTaco when you suggested something here.
Oh, and yes, this is a place to get good advice on geek matters, what people think of such-and-such topic as it relates to free software, but let's not pretend this is a free lawyer service. I think it was when the judge released the paper on MS being a monopoly where the Slashdot editor went play-by-play with a lawyer on what the judge was saying in plain english. That was very nice, and it would be great to have more like that when issues of patents/copyrights/domain hijacking come up like this.
I was in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland over the summer last year, and attempted to order Coca-Cola by asking for a "Coke", and all I got were blank stares until I said "Coca-Cola" and then they understood that I was just a stupid American.
The moral of this story, in switzerland, no-one refers to Coca-Cola as "Coke", so Coca-Cola should quit whining, especially since it's obviously not a case of domain squatting considering he intends to use it as an anti-drug site.
Trademarks were not designed to scale globally. They are made to work with geographical restrictions, and most importantly, within certain classes of goods and services. In the US, "Coke" is a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company within class 32 (Non-alcoholic maltless beverages...) and a few other classes in which they sell products. If you're not selling something in one of those classes, and you're not doing something that could confuse or dilute their trademark, there's no way you can be violating their trademark.
The important thing about domain names is that there is no way to tell what class of goods/services a site belongs to simply by looking at the name. You can't even tell if they're even selling anything! The only way that a domain name might be a trademark violation is if it's being used in a bad way. It can't be in violation on its own.
Unfortunately, a lot of large corporations don't like it this way, and it's possible we'll see the law changed so that any mention of any trademark anywhere has to be approved by the trademark holder. That's unfortunate for us as individuals (or even small businesses) -- we're literally having our language stolen from us.
--
When you want to extract money from a large corporation by cyber squatting, you're supposed to grab the domain name early, put up a token web site and establish yourself.
Then when they come knocking you have a leg to stand on.
Instead, I suggest you spin-doctor it: "Coca Cola to remove website over drug addictions".. and then go on to say that Coca Cola is *really* going after you because it doesn't want it's name associated with drugs. Bring up the colorful history of how Coca Cola *REALLY DID* have narcotics in it.. maybe a few claims of revisionist history?
I'm not joking here - you need to sensationalize it if you want to stand a chance. Good luck.
I'm not sure if this has any bearing on this case or not, but it's a question that popped into my head.
From a legal standpoint, do we really "own" domains? After all, if you own something, you don't have to continue to pay for it. We pay for domains on a year to year basis, and therefore, I would see our relationship with domains to be more of a lease, with the lease length being how long we've paid for.
Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts view this? I started to do a little research, but frankly, I have a cisco test tomarrow, and can't get too sidetracked with this..
--knick
Well, coke is obviously a trademark.
Is the domain being used for anything? It appears not to have a website, and whether or not it's being used for e-mail purposes is unknown.
I would say that unless the owner of coke.ch is using it, the Coca-Cola company has a legitimate gripe. The submitter says that he at one point thought about doing a cocaine-support site. That's great, but that's not what's happening. I think the issue would be very different if www.coke.ch was an active site. As it is, it's pretty easy to make a case for "well if he's not using it, and it's our trademark, we should have it"
is to plead your case in front of the slashdot community. Ok, you've done that.
:-)
/. thread...
/.ers to dig further into the registrar databases to see the other domains you have taken, and then we'll decide whether you are a squatter or a noble cause.
The next step is for the slashdot community to check out your claim, flame Jon Katz, moderate down firstposters, discuss trivial unrelated details, and finally come to a rough consensus.
If your claim seems just, we will rally to your defence, spreading the word of Coca-Cola Corporation's big bully tactics, mirroring your site on australian television, and attempting to correct clueless journalists on why you are right and why hacker!=cracker.
If you are nothing more than a domain squatter looking for sympathy, then you are TSOL (except for a handful of hotgritters who will believe anything
-=0=-
Jumping to the tools immediately at hand, we find the following facts to start a proper
DNS shows no current IP address for coke.ch or www.coke.ch, so you have no website up for us to take a look at. Thus all other tools like traceroute and netcraft are useless.
WhoIs produces
Domain name:
coke.ch
Holder of domain name:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Technical contact:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Date of last registration:
07.05.1999
I'll leave it to other
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Apparently Coke didn't read this part of ICANN's Dispute Policy.....
A site about drugs is usually non profit and almost always fair use... It's not your fault that the product was named after its original ingredient (Cocaine)!!!!!!
c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint.
blah blah blah
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Available at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm
In the US, it used to be the case that that trademarks applied to a specific type of product so that you could have an ACME brand of soap that didn't infringe on the trademark of ACME brand cars. With the web, this seems to have changed so that if you can pay your lawyers enough, you can own ACME.com and prevent all the other ACME's from even using the word ACME in the name of their websites.
Swiss law might be more forgiving. The ETOY controversy I think was decided in part that ETOY was a Swiss company and the US company ETOYS wasn't able to enforce their US brand their. (Peter E. Wild in Zurich was their legal counsel)
Also, I think Switzerland is one the few countries that upholds Pivo Budvar's right to the Budweiser brand for beer.
Given that your site isn't selling another brand of cola, I think you have a good shot.
PS I can't access your site due to a DNS error. Is it already up and running?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Why dosen't the guy just sell the domain to Coke for his costs ~$100-200 US and get himself another name. I just checked and www.cokeabuser.com and www.cokeaddict.com are both available. I'm sure he could get a useful name. Hell mabey coke would reimburse him with some of waste byproducts they generate from their cocao leaf extract process. Just to help him attract some new customers to his site.
If only he had a site up, we would all be championing him.
I suspect this may be redundant with 400 posts already but I dont have time to read them all.
no sig.
Some people don't mind being stopped by the police and questioned without reason. Well, if you are not doing anything wrong, what is the problem?
In Germany, when the Jews were asked to wear identification people would respond, "what's the big deal?"
Some people consider me a crackpot because I made my employment discrimination claim public. Other people responded, "hey, that's happening to me, what do I do?" or "hey, it's not just me!"
Now it's a free speech issue. What if Clinton sued Paula Jones for libel? She did not prove sexual harassment. Mattel has not proven my statements false. They are mostly my opinion, though you may not agree with them, there is no such thing as a "wrong opinion." Maybe a crackpot opinion, but not wrong.
Freedom is not free, it must be fought for.
Fight Spammers!
BUT, if people always give in, then companies will keep bullying people! Sometimes, you have to fight!
I'm bigger than that little guy with the slingshot..Goliath
Fight Spammers!
Well, I did a whois and noticed that the coke.ch domains is owned by someone living in the US. Isn't that pretty odd ? .ch and then they should have the domain. The domain has not really been registered that long either.
Coca-Coal company probably sell coke in
So this guy is probably a squatter trying to turn people against Coca Cola Company.
Domain name:
coke.ch
Holder of domain name:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Technical contact:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Date of last registration:
07.05.1999
Date of last modification:
24.11.1999
Coke is a product of a process called coking, in which a coal is heated in a coking oven, out of contact with air, in order to drive off moisture an volatile matter.
Coke is the fused solid residue left when certain coals, pertoleum, or tar pitch are heated in an atmosphere excluding oxygen, so as to expel their volatile content. The process of thus decomposing these fuels into their gaseous and solid fractions is known as destructive distillation or carbonization.
Coke is, and has for a very long time been, used in metallurgical processes such as the preparation of steel from iron, and the creation of various alloys.
Add to this 'alternative' connotation the fact that the Original Coca-Cola was so named precisely because it was infused with the addictive essence of the coca plant, and you have the a very sad situation.
Coke is an engineering and fossil chemistry term. Coke is street slang for cocaine. Coca Cola was made with cocaine due to it's taste, mind altering effect and resultant 'captive market' of addicts. Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.
That Coca Cola is going after a site named (arguably) after the substance to which Coca Cola owes it's very existance, is laughable. The fact that Coca Cola is trying to leverage it's 'trademark' above the importance of a scientific and engineering term, is down-right scary!
It's like Nabisco trying to sue Apple (or better yet, NASA) over the word Newton.
"It's not a cookie Mother, Newtons are fruit and cake."
WRONG junior executive, Newtons are a unit of force!
Common sense people, that's all we ask.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
But is it a trademark for cocaine, or for addiction resources? If not, no conflict exists; it is possible for the same name to be used by multiple entities without infringement.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
coke(1) n. & v. --n. 1 a solid substance left after the gases have been extracted from coal. 2 a residue left after the incomplete combustion of petrol etc. --v.tr. convert (coal) into coke. [prob. f. N.Engl. dial. colk core, of unkn. orig.]
coke(2) n. sl. cocaine. [abbr.]
Trademarks are only really effective against items in the same genre, or other things that are trying to profit from use of an established name... If I had a kids show, and trademarked the characters names (say Ham Sandwich (ham is an uncommon but real first name, and Sandwich is a valid surname), then tried to enforce my copyright on Oscar Meyer for use of 'Ham Sandwich' on little lunchpacks, I should be drug out into the street and shot. Similarly, if this isn't just a case of domain squatting to gain money, and there is a historical non-soda related use for it, Coca-cola's lawyers (or all lawyers) should be drug out into the street and shot (maybe with a snurf gun).
And I mean that is the kindest way.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Conflicts are not the issue with trademarks. Confusion is. The Coca-Cola Company owns a great many properties, real and intelectual, and does a great many things. One of the things The Coca-Cola Company does is manufacture a soft drink they brand Coca-Cola. This soft drink is also branded as Coke. The Coca-Cola Company owns trademarks to protect these brands. These include "Coca-Cola" (tm) and "Coke" (tm).
The Coca-Cola Company is probably the best commercial branding enterprise ever created. By spending untold millions (billions?) over the years marketing Coca-Cola the soft drink, The Coca-Cola Company has created a very strong association in the public between the trademark brands and the products. Be honest now: when someone says "coke" do you think soda or coal? In truth, it doesn't matter what you (or any specific individual) think. It matters what the hypothetical "average person" thinks. If you market a product branded Coke (e.g. Coke-brand cedar shoe inserts) and the "average person" would think that your product was manufactured by The Coca-Cola Company, then you have created Confusion over the mark and the courts will slap you down (remedies available to owners of trademarks whose marks are violated are extremely far reaching). It doesn't matter that The Coca-Cola Company doesn't (I presume) manufacture or market any cedar shoe products. If people are confused you are violating The Coca-Cola Company's mark.
Trademarks are unique in US IP law. Unlike patents and copyrights, a trademark need never expire. The protections offered by the law are far reaching. However, the protections are not automatic.
A copyright lasts until it expires, no matter what the "author" does (short of explicitly transfering the work to the public domain). A patent is still a patent whether or not the patent holder enforces it. But trademarks are different. They need to be regularly renewed. The owner of the mark must proactively police the mark. If they do, they can develop very strong trademarks that mae their brands powerful money making machines. See "Coke" for a good example. If they don't the mark "loses distinctiveness" and becomes generic. This means the mark dies. See "aspirin" which used to be "Aspirin" and owned by the original Bayer.
Trademarks holders that don't police their marks lose their marks. And a mark holder cannot decide to let certrain "benign" infringements pass. If they do they risk losing the mark entirely. The only available options are licensing the mark or forbiding its use. And if you decide to license it you create a huge number of potential headaches for yourself. What if the licensed product maims somebody? After all, they trusted your mark as an indicator of quality. Blah blah blah.
So when somebody registers coke.ch, The Coca-Cola Company has to go after them. And besides, who is he kidding? coke.ch? Why not cocaineabuse.ch or something like that? "Coke" the mark is powerful because The Coca-Cola Company made it powerful. They are entitled to reap the benefits of the powerful mark and have an affirmative duty to protect the mark.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
There has been a lot of noise about how to reconcile domain names with trademarks over the last while. Personally, I can't see why we've let this happen. I am against all of the recent anti-"squatting" regulations that have been introduced to try to solve a non-problem. Public administrators are just being lazy and derelict in their duty regarding this issue. (As usual, IANAL.)
First, note that domain names were not originally constructed with the intent that they would be proxies for trade name ownership. There is nothing that necessarily says that this has to change. This is very important to understand. For example, I can put "Coca-Cola" on a sign in my property, even if I sell things publicly from that property, and not violate any trademark. Further, Slashdot can forward this comment to you and make money off of advertising without violating Coca-Cola's rights.
Now, if I try to sell you something and I specifically state in the course of this business that I, in some way, represent a holder of a specific trade name or their goods, then by all means the trade name holder should sue my pants off.
There are two key problems with the concept of equating trade name law and internet domain names. The first, and less troublesome to some people, is that there is some implied prior right to the name as an internet resource locator simply by registering the domain. If someone comes along later and trademarks it, the domain registrant should be able to retain all rights to the use of the internet domain if that domain's registration occured before the filing of the trademark. I believe that this is the current wording of, for example, American anti-"squatting" law, but I would go further and propose that even if the trade name registration occured first, the domain registration should be allowed to stand. The owner of the domain name should not, of course, contravene the original restrictions imposed by trade name law. For example, they can't pretend to be the company that sells goods under the auspices of that trade name. But the precise nature of these original restrictions, and a better reason to be leary of allowing trade names to "trump" domain names, is best analysed by discussing the second fundamental problem with such a system.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding of trade name law goes something like this. (Note that I'm sluffing over the difference between trademarks and trade names; if I remember correctly it's not crucial. Also, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html ) I can apply for protection of a particular word or term used in the sale of products. I can only make this application if I currently sell products using this name in the jurisdiction of the registering administration, and as long as no one else has already registered the name for this particular purpose in that jurisdiction. The particular purpose part is essential; the legal protections offered me by such registration will only restrict others from using the name if they are selling a similar product to the one that I sell, such that there could be a reasonable customer confusion (in a legal sense) brought about by the conflicting use of the name.
You might doubt that last bit about similar products. But note that there's nothing wrong with trademarking "Yankee Coke" to sell charcoal, despite Coca-Cola's trademark on the word "Coke". (You could even sell "African Cola Coke"; check a good dictionary!) Coca-Cola Inc. (or whatever their official designation) owns the Coke trade name only in relation to soft drinks. (For the third time, I invoke thee: IANAL.)
This is the second key problem with any scheme that equates trade names with domain names on the internet. First, note the dreaded "J" word: "jurisdiction". If it's only legal for one entity to own the trademark to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in Canada, and only legal for a different entity to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in the US, who gets the ".com" domain name? What if there are legal "PowerTool" registrants for an identical product category in different states? Will it be illegal (or at least fiscally hazardous) for anyone to register a ".com" domain name for business use unless they have international registration for the trade name and sell into multiple countries? If so, we better tell people fast!
You can't even fix the problem by forcing everyone to work off of a nested domain naming system, such as "powertool.orange_county.ca.us". What if someone in Orange County sells specialty lego pieces using the PowerTool name? Who gets the domain now?
These two essential contradictions look like a double death blow to the viability of any scheme that equates trade names with domain names. However, the suggestion of nested domains does point the way to a possible way around this difficulty. Note that this is simply a political difficulty, NOT a problem - it's just an opportunity for current trade name owners to extend their reach. Of course, we'd all like to have some way to find Coca-Cola Inc.'s "Coke" site if we're looking for it, and search engines are not enough to placate the needs of the legally anal around us, since these people reason that the public could still be fooled by accidentally visiting a site with an implied link to Coke. (Whew! IANAL.)
The solution is too sensible to be undertaken by most governments. It also doesn't allow them to scapegoat anyone, it doesn't allow them to stomp all over the previous custom of a minority, it doesn't pander to corporate interests, and of course it requires them to actually get off their duffs and be constructive. Don't expect to see it anytime soon.
However, it would be perfectly simple for any administration that oversees trade names within its jurisdiction to simply set up a web site that references those legal names to the holders' internet addresses. Uh, they're called links. If more than one business type owns the rights to a particular name, list both links under the name and include some identifying information about each owner, such as a brief description of their class of goods. Link to sites that contain higher-level jurisdictional data, as a state might defer to national registrations - or better yet, put together the technical means to include those registrants automatically in your lower-level searches. It's actually fairly straightforward.
So, why do domain names have to equal trade names? Why did we all allow this to slip toward a standard assumption? Why can't I register any domain name that I might please, and expect to have actually done so? Why do those who protect trade names feel that they must convince the public that domain names necessarily connote legal trade name ownership? Why don't they see the obvious problems with that system? Hey, hire some programmers and the "problem" disappears. And there are plenty of coders around, you just have to be prepared to pay them and have a clue!
That our governments are too lazy to hire competent programmers to put together systems that effectively manage their jurisdictions' registration programs is an abrogation of their duty, but it's exactly what we should expect. Who's surprised that they're also blaming domain registrants (aka "squatters") for the "problem"?
Word Mark: COKE
Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: footwear.
FIRST USE: 19880311.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19880311
Mark Drawing Code: (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number: 75114281
Filing Date: May 17, 1996
Published for Opposition: January 21, 1997
Registration Number: 2052760
Registration Date: April 15, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT): Coca-Cola Company, The CORPORATION DELAWARE One Coca-Cola
Plaza Atlanta GEORGIA 30313
Type of Mark: TRADEMARK
The date listed is the "date of last registration", which means that the domain name owner was last registed on July 5, 1999 -- which could have been a renewal. (Not sure, my own domains aren't up for renewal yet.)
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Several (most?) of the "Ask Slashdot" questions I've seen lately involve legal issues better suited for attorneys and legal scholars.
:)
This site is targeted at "nerds" -- apparently the technical/computer kind. What good are legal questions in such a forum? I can count on one hand the number of real attorneys I've seen posting on this site in the past. Of those, I only see a few still posting these days (where did you go, Hawk?
Questions like this tend to elicit a lot of knee-jerk emotionalism, a lot of "IANAL, but I think my Business Law I professor once said....", and a frightening amount of uninformed or just bad advice. Worse yet, some of the bad advice gets moderated up, perhaps giving an impression of credibility. As proof, I offer a recent copyright-related story in which a highly-scored post suggested a "poor man's copyright" -- mailing yourself a registered letter with the song inside. Five minutes of research will show that this is a popular legal myth.
I often find a lot of good technical information in "Ask Slashdot", but I consider these diversions into legal matters to be somewhat pointless at best. At worst, they are dangerous. Woe be to the person who follows a course of action based on what they read on Slashdot. They may well find themselves on the losing end of a lawsuit. I don't think, "The guy on Slashdot said it was ok," is a defense most judges would honor.
For this reason, I ask the Slashdot editors to please reconsider the number of law-related "Ask Slashdot" articles. Technical questions may not generate as many comments, but they may provide more useful information. You have an audience of technical professionals, not lawyers (although I'm sure some of them are honest-to-goodness attorneys).
For those who are considering posting to "Ask Slashdot" for legal advice, I urge you to find a real attorney instead.
Thanks for your time. Now back to the peanut gallery.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
All the more reason to move to national TLD's across the board. Duke it out in your own country if you want. Coca-Cola is an America company, and as such, couldn't say diddly squat about something in the Swiss TLD.
Either that, or open up those new seven TLD's that have been talked about forever. Heck even they could be under a national 2-letter TLD. Big corporations are bullying the web too much.
There are only so many reasonable domain names available, and LOTS of people that want to use them. There is going to be name collision across TLD's. Face it. If every trademark owner has to buy up their trademark names in every TLD, there'll be nothing left for anyone else to use! You might as well eliminate the current TLD's then and go to www.coke, or www.pepsi, or www.nike! Having various TLD's is supposed to allow for exactly the kind of thing they are trying to squelch!
Trademark law needs to be updated to handle this exact situation. And big corporations need to get their hands off domain registration policy-making.
Constitutionally Correct