Slashdot Mirror
Barbie Demands A Domain
localman writes: "In an ongoing legacy of tormenting Web site owners, Mattel Inc. is threatening legal action against my wife and I for planning to make a non-business all-girl
video game
clan site entitled
thebarbies.com.
Apparently they have
a long history of censoring people.
I've put up a page about the dispute, but what else can an individual do against a corporation?"
Write a
story?
Seriously -- this is a standard trademark domain dispute, it's happened many times and will continue to happen -- maybe someone should write an FAQ for legitimate domain holders who get The Letter.
www.thebarbies.god is sounding pretty good right about now eh? Time to see how .god's stand up? =)
Bradford L.
Bradford L.
http://www.modemhelp.net
as Andover.net's failed attempt to take over slashdot.net.
Oh wait, you never saw that on the front page, did you?
Pathetic attempt at a rhyme aside, I'd like to point out two things - first, different registar's have different policies. The .god domain, for example, says "first come, first serve".. and that is the registration policy. The second point is that "Barbie" and "The Barbies" are two distinct and seperate trademarks under US trademark law. This is why there can be "Engree Systems" and "Engreen Systems" and they can't sue each other. If you want to make maximum brownie points with the judge.. classify your trademark under another category that doesn't conflict with the existing Barbie trademark. I can register "Barbie Electronics" and they can't do a damn thing because it is a seperate category. Just my $0.02.
You know, if they DON'T sue, they will lose their ability to enforce the "Barbie" trademark. Result: millions of inferior Mexican dolls will flood the market, causing untold harm to consumers.
They have to sue. Get over it. It's for the good of us all.
However, nowadays, with trademarks entering the domain frey, a bit of research should have been done to find out what problems might have come from using that domain name. Your research would probably have pointed to the various mattle legal battles that you spotted already, and you may have wanted to change the name or done something different.
Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.
While I'm not sure that your joke content caused teh problem, you should also have a bit more on your page as it stands now as to avoid issues with cybersquatting. Explain that this will be a clan page for "Tribes", and also state that in no way the page is connected with the Barbie trademark or MAttle. That might have also calmed the lawyers and made your case stronger when ICANN reviews it.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Like your link at the bottom of the page, if this site were about something not related in any way with the Barbie, like barbecuing, I could be with ya. But come on, the Barbie has been around what, 50 or 60 years? So they'll have a good legal case against anyone who uses the name in relation to girly things.
:)
Think up a new word. Heck, invent one. I'll get ya started, how about theBrittneys.com.
Sucky band, sucky music extraordinarie, but nevertheless, they won the case when Mattell took them to court, trying to 'ban' their Barbie girl song. Ofc. it's easier to threaten Joe Average to stop/remove something, than it is doing the same to a pop band with Sony or whoever behind it.
The way I understand it is the law protects the right to parody, but in this case a picture of an actual (although modified) Barbie doll. In addition the trademarked Barbie name is used. However, let us suppose someone took a picture of their child playing with a Barbie doll, posted the picture online with a comment stating what the image showed. Once again we have an actual picture online with use of the trademarked name in a situation where no one would consider the law to be broken. What we have here is a question of fair use, the Barbie I presume was properly paid for. I personally feel you are safe, but my opinion doesn't truly matter here. The real question is do you have both the means and the will to fight this. The nasty truth behind this and many other court cases that have received slashdot discussion in recent months is that a large corporation like Mattel can push and bully with little resistance from the man on the street. If (as seems the case) your wpp is prepared to fold under a little pressure their may be very little you can do about it apart from find a new hosting company. That said I was quite impressed that they wrote to you and asked instead of just taking the site down (which many seem to do these days).
Okay, Slashdot has found a way to piss me off. The following domain name disputes have been covered on Slashdot (big idjut corporation vs. little community based site):
eToys vs. eToys
Digital Diva vs. Digital Divas
Mattel vs. The Barbies
However, the following domain dispute wasn't (even though to my knowledge, it was submitted many times to the Slashdot submission queue):
Chunky Monkey vs. ChunkyMunky
ChunkyMunky gave up because a legal defense would have been way too expensive. But I have to wonder if a Slashdot editor had taken the 10 minutes it takes to post that story, the outcome might have been different.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Why are you airing this on Slashdot? There should be a forum just for domain name disputes and the legal hassling over this. On a personal note I hope you win against Mattel but I don't give you much of a chance since they probably have millions to throw at this case.
I would also make sure I read over the Domain Dispute Policy provided by ICANN before registering domains that are borderline legal messes.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
I think they gave you some of the best advice in their correspondence with you, "we suggest that you have an attorney contact me on your behalf.
"
Really, a competant attorney will probably help MUCH more than a bunch of conjecture here.
If Aqua can write an entire song about barbie without getting into trouble, I don't see what's wrong with domain name for something that is totaly different. Mattel always seems to get her panties in a twist about nothing. :-)
On a side but related note, does anyone know what happened to that suit brought up against Aqua (the Denmark music band) by Mattel? Such information might be useful to other "victims" of the barbie company.
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
...thebarbie.com?
The original /. story is here. The story generated over 1,300 letters to Archie Comics, causing them to back down. It'll take more than that to take Mattel on, I'm sure.
Strangly enough, www.veronica.org doesn't seem to be up anymore. Hmmm...black helicopters...
It's pretty obvious that the maker of "The Barbie's" is just trying to get some attention for his stupid little game by picking a fight with a large corporation. I mean, why the hell would anyone want to choose a name so close a trademark like that? What a loser.
Looks like you have a couple different options, like you can give up or you can fight it. Since you haven't given up yet, you should go ahead and do some other things.
----------
1) Send emails to Wired.Com, NY Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post, and a bunch of other news agencies. Tell them what's going on, try not to use too many cuss words.
2) Contact non-profits that protect personal freedom issues. See if they'd be willing to help yet with advice if nothing else.
3) If it does turn into a trademark issue, there's some laws concerning fair use . Basically if you're using copyrighted materials in criticism, review, or parody, it's legal. So, start criticising. Although, you probably qualify as parady.
- Good luck.
"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships." ..-George Bernard Shaw
"Nothing's ever really changed. What difference does it make whether it's the Corporate state or the Nation state? In our struggle for freedom we still find ourselves fighting the state."
-Jay Terpesta
"The only corporate defense against rationality is bureaucracy." -Anon
You are entirely and utterly in the wrong. Trademarks need to be defended, as you probably know, or the owners risk losing them. Why should a company which has spent hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars building a trademark budge one inch when you or anyone else threatens to dilute it?
If this were a parody site, I might be sympathetic, but this is a personal vanity site, and you will benefit from the "barbie" connection, in that you will be providing your visitors an ironic and memorable URL, which Mattel, and not you, imbued with the cultural and iconic associations that it has today.
You are not being tormented, you are being reminded, rather politely, that you are diluting their trademark. As for claiming that your offer to sell the domain was merely a joke, I doubt it. Can you honestly say that if someone had sincerely met your price, that you would have declined?
Further, your Australian colloquial argument is disingenuous to the extreme. Most of the world was unaware of the Oz slang until 1986, when Crocodile Dundee hit the cinemas. Even then, I would be willing to bet that the greater majority of people associate the word "barbie" with the Mattel product, and not with Paul Hogan.
Remember that Linus adamantly defends "Linux," which he has not invested nearly as much energy building. What is fair for Linus is fair for Mattel.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
You should have everyright to have this domain but a couple of noteable things here. 1. Mattel has to sue you to protect the trademark. They also have a chace of winning a good one. 2. This is a legal matter not a right vs. wrong matter, You need to get a lawyer promptly. 3.You should complete the construction of this website and what it was intended for. Redirecting it won't help much. Be prepared for the long ugly fight, Mattel will try to intimidate the company that hosts your webpage also. If decide not to hire a lawyer you better to be able to show them your judgement proof(you have no assests) and that you are prepared to spend all your spare time doing this because you have nothing better to do. I wish you luck and hope you win but realize that today in order to slay Goliath you don't do it with a sling, but the idea that your lawyer can beat up his lawyer.
And registering the mark won't be easy either. If the trademark office doesn't kill it, you have to believe it will face one expensive opposition from Mattel.
I have a hard time thinking that if the blond-haired dolls had never existed, that the web site's name would have been chosen to be what it is. Who do you think is supposed to be capturing the value of that name?
I provide a link to the page from my homepage named "words I live by".
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Last time I checked, Barbie wasn't exactly "intellectual" property.
Besides, it's not theft if it is done as a parody, or in this case, using a derivative of the trademarked name in a totally different market.
You could even make the "fair use" argument here..
So, AC, what part of "superfluous lawsuit" don't you understand?
_________________
JavaScript Error: http://www.windows2000test.com/default.htm, line 91:
Oh my!
I think it's pretty funny how the big, powerful, billion-dollar giant Mattel could be scared by something like thebarbies.com! Suppose this:
1. thebarbies.com has nothing to do with the ugly stupid doll made by Mattel. Consequence: people visiting the site & hoping to find the ugly stupid doll gets depressed and go away. Mattel damaged? I don't think so.
2. thebarbies.com is about the ugly stupid Mattel's doll. Consequence: the fame of the doll keeps spreading over the globe. Mattel damaged? Not really!!
3. thebarbies.com is a site created to sell copies of the ugly stupid Mattel's doll at lower prices. Consequence: this is illegal, I presume. Mattel could proceed. (But who created that site is not so silly as to do these kind of things which mean only troubles for them!)
I think that Mattel could spent its money in a better way, for example in creating better toys and prettier dolls.
Greetings.
should begin with: So you too have been sued by Mattel.
No. She fakes it.
1000 SlashDot sigs
From http://tribesarena.com/thebarbies/:
:) I they did not just make it a 'valuable' name now that it's on /.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous their claim of "trademark dilusion" is, I have included our entire access log from April 16 2000 to May 31 2000. That's right, 4 unique visitors in 46 days, and that includes friends, family, and lawyers. Even if Mattel "wins", they will be getting a truly useless domain for which I can only imagine they are paying thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.
I wonder what the logs are like now
This guy is an idiot.
...
He buys these domains, and tries to sell them. Right, it was a joke...
SQUATTER
This is not a case of good vs. evil...it is a case of a guy that takes trademarked words and creates lame excuses when caught selling them.
Field, Jonathan (JF4991)
un@UNPOSSIBLE.COM
Binadopta
3119 Lonee Court
Concord, CA 94518
510-825-8319
HE IS NOT EVEN AUSTRALIAN!!!
Let this one go guys, he isn't worth it. Next time, maybe it will be www.TheSlashDotters.com
Ummm... you referenced a BBQ site in your correspondance with Mattel. Not that I'm a lawyer, but by placing a picture of a bunch of girls around a barbie (Austrialian for Barbeque grill, afaik), I imagine it would make your position appear much stronger.
It would also fit in with the "Party Tribe for Girls" theme.
And people, remember... there are some corporations that recognize that fan sites and parody sites keep your fan base alive *way* past when you'd expect them to die. Not all corporations are evil.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Isn't the only reason the word Barbie is such a strong reference for women because of the poplularity of that stupid toy? Or maybe you're using the word Barbie as in the famous Nazi butcher? What are you planning on doing for HTML just lift it from the mattel site?
Its one thing to have a legitimate trademark issue, its another to demand that so-and-so evil corporation is taking your rights, especially in a country where the trademark holder is obligated to defend every violation thats brought to its attention.
Considering these facts, the best thing you could do is use a new non-sense word or simply words that aren't used by a big company who has had a history of defending their trademark.
You're only setting yourself up for a fall and even if mattel didn't care, once its brought to their attention they have to do something about it. Blaming Mattel for the law isn't going to get you anywhere, well except slashdot.
...I just realized that the whole .com side of the internet infringes and subtracts from Microsoft's (tm) COM (tm) technologies reputation and trademark.
.com domain names before Microsoft (tm) starts to sue us all. Which they are required to do by LAW.
Better start forking over those
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
second point is that "Barbie" and "The Barbies" are two distinct and seperate trademarks under US trademark law.
Sig11, you ever wonder why you bug people so much? It's when you make statement like this that is so ignorant and stupid. Let me sum it up for you: YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. But you state this as if it's a fact and it's complete bullshit. If you stated things in a little less overly positive manner, you would probably not get flamed as much.
But on to your point: it's crap. I guarantee you that if I launched a company called "The International Business Machines", IBM would sue my ass and win before I knew what hit me.
The key concept here is "marketplace confusion". If there is confusion created (as my l33t company name would obviously create), then there is a case.
I'm allowed writing anything I like about Ford without stepping on theit trademark rights. But if I start painting Ford logos on Ladas and reselling them, I might get in trouble! This is a similar situation -- Mattel is just protecting Barbie's good name.
Anytime you have too much power in the hands of too few, you've got problems such as this.
Abuses due to government corruption and abuses due to corporate greed are equally destructive.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Thank you. I think that is the real issue here. I have no problem with companies defending their trademark, but Barbie is a woman's name and if we're not trying to create confusion, I don't see how we're liable.
There once was Mattel, toys their bag
They had trademarks about which they bragged
If they want you in court
Shout a blackmail retort:
"I've got pictures of Elmo in drag!"
Uhm, I don't think that the article was posted because it had anything to do with Barbie dolls. The subject matter of the legal debate is just an incidental aspect of the article itself. It was selected because of its relevance: Large company "A" with piles of cash to throw around sees item "B," in this case the word "Barbie," which they rightly or not-so-rightly believe belongs to them. Said company tries to bully average citizen "C" into giving item "B" back (for lack of a better term) to them by threatening legal action. Average citizen "C" posts on /. and asks for feedback. My point here is that he could have been writing about anything: Barbie, Intel, Rob Malda, or rutabagas. He was asking about for advice on how to handle the situation. -----
So who thinks that this site just might end up on the "Adult" list in Mattel's censorware product?
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
It only encourages him. When he sees this kind of moderation, he thinks it means his opinions matter and people care what he has to say. This is clearly not the case. The only moderation bojay should be getting is down.
One morning, I found a beheaded Barbie about two blocks from my house.
Hate to think about Ken's fate...
If you listen to the Aqua song "Barbie Girl", it is every bit, if not morso related to the Mattel trademark than our clan site - and it was made for profit. That means it is a legitimate trademark dispute. However, a federal judge threw out the case against Aqua. Aqua was backed by MCA Records.
In our case, we may or may not be able to follow through because we are backed by no one. I don't want to "win" the case, I just want a fair chance.
The internet puts people and corporations in the same battlefield moreso than ever before. There needs to be a way to level this out or all these stories will have the same outcome regardless of who was right.
There should be a first-come first-serve policy.
Registrants with the intent of domain squating should have their domains revoked.
Domains and anything associated with dns are just arbitrary names for systems and should have nothing to do with actual trademarks. It's really sad how big corporations can get away with this type of crap.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Why would "thebarbies" appeal to women if not for Barbie dools?
Fact is you are violating their copyright. If you disagree with the copyright concept, too bad, it's the law.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
A: See if you have a zillion dollars for lawyers fees, or journalists who can drum up publicity for you. Otherwise, you're out of luck.
Next time send it as "plain old text" instead of "HTML formatted." More readable, I think.
Ever hear of principals?
You lose rights inches at a time. If you don't fight for your rights you lose them?
In my case when a judge asked Mattel what was libelous, Mattel asked to dismiss their countersuit.
Fight Spammers!
Push congress to pass a law that bars a lawyer from practicing law if they take a frivolous lawsuit to court. That includes corporate cases....
Watch out, if you say anything negative about Mattel, they may sue you too.
Fight Spammers!
One thing I noticed is if it is a non-business site, why is it .com?
.com and other things like that.
Just of the top of my head, this is how it goes:
.com : Commercial Sites
.net : Internet Service Providers
.org : Non-profit organizations
Then the country ones.
I have seen many nonprofit sites using
I just do not like it
Interesting...I just read a magazine article in which Julia Roberts won a dispute over someone using juliaroberts.com. In the dispute, the guy who had registered the site was found to have no legitimate claim to the site. It made me wonder though...If I shared a megastar's name, do they win the right to the domain name? Also, what about the Barbie twins? or anyone named Barbie?(I've actually met someone by this name before.)
Can I bum a sig?
Let's see if I've got the SlashDot view on trademark correct.
.com site, nobody here seriously thinks the name was just accidental, do they?
The DigitalDivas should be able to stop Microsoft from using the term Digital Diva, even though their usage is very different, it's a fairly generic term, and virtually nobody thought that 'Digital Diva' was a reference to the prior group.
But Mattel is evil for objecting to the use of "TheBarbies" to refer to an online group for young girls, even though the reference to the doll is obvious to everybody.
C'mon, get real. It's simple theft of trademark. This guy's using the popularity of the Barbie doll to push his own
Had TheBarbies.com been a site about barbecuing, then he'd have a point, but this is simple trademark theft. The nature of the original trademark has a direct connection to the new business.
If I bought www.quake.com to create a site about earthquakes, that's my right. But if I put up a gaming site, id software has every right to object to the theft of their trademarked name. And that's the way it should be.
Why don't you and all the others reading this article who disagree with this (bullsh*t) lawsuit do what I intend to do? Write to the powers that be at Mattel.
Robert Eckart
Matthew Bousquette
Pleasant T. Rowland
Kevin Farr
Neil Friedman
Mattel Inc.
333 Continental Blvd.
El Segundo CA
90245
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
- They used the
.com TLD, which may give "The BarbieCube" an extra argument to slip by an unsuspecting judge. Of course, that may be the only TLD available for that name, but that's a pesky detail at this point. - The game mentioned is Starseige: Tribes. If this was a Quake site, the torches would already be lit.
As for Mattel, the Barbiecube is about to assimilate some more mindshare.Wrong, wrong, wrong! It is Signal 11 you need to be moderating down. Not me.
hey isn't government.com owned by a commercial company? I though it was supposed to be a government of the people, by the people for the people. Where is my IPcash? Giime my eIPcash! how about my congressman, is he my eIP bitch? I need my house cleaned.
Take this personaility test.
The ChunkyMunky boyz are a bunch of jerks, looks like to me. It says the woman who owns the "Chunky Monkey" trademark agreed to not stand in their way! She had no objection to them using their domain for non-profit purposes along the lines of what they were currently doing. But they refused to go along with it and posted their bitter bile instead. I don't get it.
----
Everytime someone tries to stop you from doing something you want to, Slashdot screams out cliches claiming murder. You cry it out often enough and soon no one will come even if you're not lying.
I'm refering to, of course, the claim that this is censorship. This is NOT CENSORSHIP. Quit crying wolf.
DISCLAIMER: I think you have a very legitimate grievance and Mattel is in the wrong here - but don't let that take away from the fact that you're accusing them of something they're not doing.
Mmmm.. Donuts
www.timemag.com
I hope this is helpful to the owner of thebarbies.com
Youa re tryign top use thier trademakr "barie" to draw peopel to your site. Oterhwise why not just chose a different name?
This is what Trademark law is designed to prevent. Your capitalizing on their marketing and potetnially even damaging their marketing efforts.
Calling this censoirship is like calling your ownserhip of your house theaft. I know some true socialists who might be able to make that claim (as well as some indigenous groups) but IU'd think you'ld be the first in that case to point otu that by our scoieties laws your claim is legitimate.
Laws don't only work when they protect us... they have to protect everyone to be effective.
It actually legal for you to start a company whose name included the word "barbie" as long as:
- the goods and services involved are not similar
- there is no evidence of actual confusion by consumers
- the intent in adopting its mark is not detrimental to the company
There are other issues too, but those three are enough to make it clear that Mattel owning a trademark does _NOT_ remove a pre-existing word from the language.Furthermore, in this case: dilution does not apply to non-commercial use. The law seems to support that you have the right to use the word "barbie" (or other trademarked words) for your own non-commercial reasons.
Hopefully this goes before a court of law - instead of the corporation getting what they want because most people won't or can't make it there.
...maybe someone should write an FAQ...
Dunno about a FAQ, but there's a mailing list/lobbying group at Ajax.org. Good luck.
This Internet Phenomenon is essentially redefining _property_. It's redefining what "property" is and henceforth redefining what "property" is worth. That's causing some excitement as well as quite a bit of concern. These sort of "intellectual property" issues seem to be in the process of building to a crescendo (e.g recent WIPO/Julia Roberts). It would seem that these issues are going to be addressed and largely decided within the next couple years. That presents an fine opportunity to wield a disproportionate influence through coordinated action.
You know at least sig11 is TRYING to stay on talking. You act like your cool hacker telling posters whats good and whats not. Your just wasting time yelling at someone who prolly isn't even reading your flambait. If you want to be a little trol, do it. Just don't think your being anything better than a troll.
One question for the clan, who the hell do you know if your players are all girls?
I'd like to give a quick shout out to a real clan, DMOT. Led by the plucky No Skillz
Do not wright in this space.
(5) Rob Malda smokes crack
(7) It costs one dollar fifty
(5) when bought from hemos
~Somebody stole my pants~
There once was a man who loved hot gritz
Who defeated Taco, the man with smelly armpits
His name was Open Source Man,
He ran of with Yeoman Portman,
and now they promote the Troll hits.
~Somebody stole my pants~
Question: I bought and use GoSports.org. Disney and the Go network own gosports.com and gosports.net. IS there any chance that they will come after me even thought I have a .org name? <br> BTW I do not think there is a trademark on gosports.
Thanks.
Ever heard of McLibel? McDonald's tried to silence several protestors using British libel law, which as many of you know is weighted almost entirely in the plaintiff's favor. Most of them knuckled under, but two of them went to court. The case took years, but McDonald's eventually won a judgment.
But, many of the points that the protestors had been making -- in pamphlets seen by a few hundred people -- had now been proven in a court case watched by millions. McDonald's lost big in the court of public opinion -- so big that, when the defendants refused to pay the judgment, McDonald's did not pursue the matter.
Corporations don't threaten or sue because they have a solid case -- they do it because they know most people will be scared off without a fight. They've read their Sun Tzu -- Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
..against Signal 11. You can't moderate him up forever just because you're afraid to get 'bitchslapped' by Rob Malda. Be a man and stand up for your beliefs!
So why does Mattel think they have rights to your method of using the name Barbara. They should be challenged in terms of what specific way "thebarbies.com" impinges on their corporate ownership of a toy named "Barbie". If you can show that your use of Barbie and their use of Barbie are different you may be able to dismantle some foundational arguments and get them off your back.
You don't have to be a lawyer to point this out.
I'm surprised that Ben & Jerry's hasn't jumped into this seeing as how they're owned by a global mega-corp now.
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Does mattel own the product, or the specific letter sequence: b a r b i e Seriously. if I wanted to register, say, shrimponthebarbie.com, would mattel sue me for infringing on their product rights, when its clearly a domain about australian cooking, in american eyes. If that were the case, if someone marketed a product 'o' which was something (anything), regardless of success, how much of a right would they have to accuse say, /. of infringing on their propeties rights? I could be wrong, but this sounds ludicrous.
First, I just want to observe that people on both sides are -way- oversimplifying the case. On the one hand, it is a simple variant of a toy trademark on a site that is going to be about a game. On the other hand, Barbie -is- (or was, upon a time) a nickname for Barbara and saying you can't name any character 'Barbie' anymore is a little extreme - -and- it is a non-profit site. So. Whatever. Both sides have points, and this is nowhere near as obvious a case as etoy/eToys. As a non-lawyer I won't even speculate who has the better chance (though I'm inclined to side with the 'thebarbies' guy.)
Beyond my idle observations, my actual constructive suggestion is that a general appeal to slashdotters that a faq would be nice is all very well, but creating some sort of advice center on this topic seems extremely well suited to the recently formed OpenLAW group, if they can spare time away from the DVD issue (or if those not interested in the DVD issue wanted to work in parallel on a different subject... volunteerism is about interest not allocating 'workers' as we are reminded in every 'is this the best use of programmers?' thread on the various open-source-software topics).
Of course, it would be foolish to ignore the already existing efforts at ajax.org, and then there's my favorite organization, the EFF; but all in all, I think OpenLAW (maybe working with ajax.org's domanin name advocacy group) is the way to go on this particular issue, if anyone with OpenLAW is motivated by this case or ones like it.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
You do have to show a "use in commmerce", but the requirements for that are fairly minimal. Read the Nolo Press book on trademarks for the rules. A banner ad or an affiliate link to something probably qualifies, as long as there's potential income.
Even if your trademark application is rejected for the "principal register", which means you can keep others from using it, you can usually then file to put it on the "secondary register", which means nobody can keep you from using it. You still get to use "tm", and it's a trademark for ICANN domain dispute purposes.
On a positive note, you may recall the bitter and expensive lawsuit over Aqua's c. 1997 pop song "Barbie Girl" Mattel actually wanted the song removed from the album Aquarium. I don't know the details, but in that case Aqua and the record label won. (But I am pretty sure at one point during the case CD single copies of the song were withdrawn pending further progress of the case.) Of course, you probably don't have the perhaps millions of dollars the huge record company may have spent to win that one! Too bad Klaus Barbi died before Mattel could sue him! :) TWR
...and I'll throw a shrimp on it.
I'll make a website about barbies and the art of throwing shrimp (and drinking fosters), and warming up steaks... Aussies unite!
(Disclaimer: Only americans drink fosters, and shrimp tastes like shit).
Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Am I the only one a wee bit suspicious about this? Sounds to me like he thought he could get them to rollover for a big wad and is now trying to re-direct the damage. If you're going to take a name which includes a name that's heavily trademarked and protected you're asking for it. Even if this is all true where do you think his wife got the idea for "Mondo Barbie"? From Barbie her hairdresser or Barbie the dolls they all played with when they were kids?
Maybe I'm just too cynical.... nah.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
One of my favorite online cartoons, The Adventures of Beverlee, just got into a similar situation.
They use Barbie dolls, starring the infamous "Share-A-Smile Becky" (Beverlee, the paraplegic-wannabe) to make the most wonderfully perverted cartoon you could ever see.
It seems to me that they have a good case for fair use, and just no desire to fight the Man (woman, doll)?
Check out the letter for yourself at Cripworld. Unfortunately, you won't be able to see the cartoon that I've laughed at so many times...=(
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
1 "an initial confusion on the part of web browsers using the [incorrect] domain name ... is not cognizable under the trademark laws" ... is not use of the name as a source identifier" and therefore not considered as trademark use by the PTO.
2 "unlike a patent or copyright, a trademark does not confer on its owner any rights in gross or at large"
3 "The use of an Internet domain name as a mere directional reference, similar to use of a telephone number or business address
quoted from Timemag
This case is another example of Mattel's abuse. Once Mattel stops acting like this, then I don't need to fight! But until then, I will keep fighting and try to get everyone together to coordinate the fight.
Fight Spammers!
Many of you mentioned a recent case about Julia Roberts vs. a 'cybersquatter'. . . This is yet isn't related. The 'squatter' really seemed to have no plans for his site--if you go to http://juliaroberts.com (beware of the bad javascript), you can see that he tried to make a bulletin board out of it. In essence, he just occupied the space, and who knows what his eventual plans were. I can see someone getting upset over this. Read the details here.
Meanwhile, the case we have here is nothing like that at all. Its about a corporation protecting a trademark, and further more there seems to be no malicious intent at all from these people to infringe on that trademark. The name 'barbie' in the clan DOES refer to a Mattell toy as an icon applied to women gamers, but if the site was about bbqing, would Mattell still care?
The domain name was simply a bad choice. I think it sucks, but it'll probably have to go.
-S
http://students.washington.edu/steve0/
steve0@u.washington.edu
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Or something like that. If we ceased to exist, so would Slashdot. (Andover even? Who knows.) My point was, anyway, that the /. community could possibly do something about it.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If you find that your legal bills are costing too much, 2600 (www.2600.com) will take the domain off of your hands and fight your legal battles for you. They are willing to do this for any domain that they are given. It may be just what you are looking for.
Tell me this isn't crazy.
Probelm is, these large corporations have colonized and are now in the process of domesticating the Internet. It's a huge digital shopping mall they want, and it is a huge digital shopping mall they will get - be it by hook, crook, or legal team.
If my name is Jim McDonalds and I registered mcdonalds.com back in 1994, why should it be determined that I must give up my domain name to a corporation? Or, in the case of thebarbies.com, simply hand it over? (By the way, I don't know who the first McDonalds was, or if he/she were engaged in cybersquatting, or if the name was registered, I simply use this as another obvious example).
Problem is, when the rule changed and business was allowed to populate the Internet, there were no parameters in place to prevent this kind of nonsense. If I register Sears.com because my name is Hans Sears, and I did this before Sears the corporation, and my site has nothing to do with Sears the corporation, well then I should be able to keep that name. It is completely irrelevant if somebody ends up on my website believing they are going to Sears.com the retail corporation. It is up to the consumer to find Sears the corporation on the Web. That's what search engines are for.
After all, doesn't the NSI contract now state that they own all domain names registered under them? And since you wouldn't be the official owner of the property, you should (in theory) not be liable for infringing on a trademark...
:)
Oh well, it probably wouldn't work anyway. It would just be fun to see these two fight over it.
What answer?
Negative moderation could mean either "Yes, you're absolutely right, we're a bunch of elitist geeks who refer to any authority but our own as fascism so shove it up your ass!", or it could mean "No you're just an idiot who doesn't understand."
Every time the little guy wins, it encourages others to fight for their rights!
Fight Spammers!
Three words: Davis and Schroeder They are the premier domain name law firm. Remember a few years ago when that idiot trademarked Linux? They are the ones that won it back. They have one some of the largest domain name and trademark cases in law today. They helped me keep one of my domains when an extremely large telecommunications company tried to take it. Check them out at: http://www.netlawyers.com At the very least, there are many articles on domain name law on the site. -Rob
I don't really see how the "Linux" trademark and Linus' defense of that trademark are similar to the "Barbie" doll trademark. To begin with, Linus didn't even register a trademark for Linux at first. He made what, in a rational world, would have been a correct assumption: that it wasn't a big deal, since he was going to let anyone use it anyway. Naturally, the patent and trademark office gave the trademark on am operating system called "Linux" to an individual named William Della Croce sometime around 1995(this is just another example of all the fine research the folks at the Patent and Trademark office put in. Honestly, does anyone else think that it's just about time for a class action suit?) This fine, upstanding citizen, shocked to witness the number of flagrant abuses of his valuable trademark, and began sending out letters demanding 10% royalties. So, several organizations got together and filed a petition to cancel the trademark. It took at least a year and I don't know how much money and effort to actually get the trademark transferred over to Linus. Can you imagine how much effort it must take when the case isn't absolutely cut and dried like this one was?
Anyway, the reason that there even is a "Linux" trademark is obvious. It's a protective measure. And any adamant defense Linus performs on behalf of the "Linux" trademark is for the purpose of keeping it free for everyone. Linus might, for example, use the trademark to prevent someone else from trademarking a generic term like "Linux Expert", but would not try to prevent someone from using it in a legitimate service mark like "S.U.S.E. Linux" or "Red Hat Linux" or what have you.
So, Linus' defense of the "Linux" trademark seems to be almost the opposite of what Mattel is trying to do with their "Barbie" doll trademark.
The whole charade where companies have to make a show that they're defending their mark is kind of ridiculous. It almost seems like a welfare system for IP lawyers (personal note: My big sister just graduated law school. I'm very proud of her, but I'm still going to torment her with lawyer jokes for years). "Hey, look at me boss, I'm doing my job, look at all of these trademark violators I've caught stealing from the company!" Let's face it, you can't really have a very famous product without it diluting its own trademark. I'm pretty sure that most people are like me in thinking of most plastic dress up dolls as Barbies in a vague sort of way. Due to the doll's fame, most people in this country have a mental image of Barbie, the unrealistic, "realistic" plastic doll who lives in a perfect pink and purple plastic world, has gobs of money, and whose apparant source of opportunities and happiness is her enourmous wardrobe. Barbie is a phenomonal business success, and, as such, has entered into our collective consciousness. They can't just say: "Buy the dolls, but don't you dare _think_ about them".
In this case, I'm sure that the name of this clan is in some way inspired by Barbie the doll. So what. They're not selling plastic dolls as far as I can tell. Maybe they're planning to distribute customized models or skins or whatever for Tribes (If you can modify the game in that way, I'm assuming you can, since to not be able to would be stupid) that look like plastic dolls. Aside from the fact that the models look like plastic dolls anyway, that still doesn't feel like infringement. It just doesn't feel right for Mattel to act this way, since they aren't hurting Mattel.
Why not be a smart 4ss and use barbee instead of the more correct version. or ihatemcdonlds.com (i dunno if that exists but you get my point)
.com but not
Personally i think trademarks shouldnt apply for domains. Except prefence should be given to trademark holders for
iluv.com....
after all, its promoting there trademark for free. Publicity is publicity either way.
So, AC, what part of "superfluous lawsuit" don't you understand?
It seems Mattel doesn't understand the concept. They sue everyone and anyone. And most of the time they lose. (Mattel vs. Aqua, Mattel vs. Sorehands:), Mattel vs almost anyone really)
it's not a company Linus Torvalds owns the 'linux' trademark in relation to the linux operating system/kernel
hahahahahaha......
Can you imagine the hit count??
I now have a new home page
I Eat (Ctrl+V)
Anonymous Coward by name and by nature!!!
Thats not the way to look at it. There was another post talking about the McDonalds case, same deal.
Fight tooth and nail to keep your domain and even if you do loose, go to the papers and to the media, make a noise and jump up and down. The media coverage may be worth more to you than the domain is.
Having the roll over attitude only makes these corporations think that they can violate john citizen even further.
I Eat (Ctrl+V)
I think somebody should put up the "barbievote.com" web site. It would be one page which posed the following question with counters for each of the answers:
:-).
What do you think the term "Barbie Doll" most likely refers to:
1. An air-headed good looking blonde.
2. A image designed to repress women.
3. A plastic doll.
Needless to say, it shouldn't accept more than one vote from the same IP address....
It would be really interesting to see what Mattel's lawyers would do with such a site (especially if it had been up long enough to collect a lot of votes
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Barbie is a girls name.
Matels clame to the name should be restricted to Matels action figure type doll.
This dilution would effect Matels ability to create a Barbie first person shoter... Something that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
If Matels doll was named "Lora" then the group might be included to call themselfs "The Loras" or they may stuble accrost the name at random.
Or if Matel had named the doll "Sue" there are a number of soungs they could be suing. "A guy named sue" is one song that comes to mind.
The dilution exists becouse the name predates Matels product as the name of a person. Not in incredably commen name however that may be a matter of parents not wanting there children to be confused with a plastic toy.
Again... Matel should own the names rights compared to the product they allready make.
Also Trademark dose not give them ownership of the name like copyrights and patents.
The trademark only grants controll.
I can not use the name "Barbie" to produce my own action figures (in the United States, Mexico or the Moon.. it makes no diffrence.. I can not call it Barbie anyplace that recognises the trademark).
But "TheBarbies" are refering to the doll.. This is allowed... or they are refering to the fact that it's a girls name... also allowed due to pre-existing delusion.
Trade Mark dose not grant the right to control the context the name is used. Only what the name refers to. That is allready weak due to the fact that it is a girls name....
It is true they must fight dilution as they can not turn back the clock and undo the damage once it is done.
However... the damage was done... and turnning back the clock is exactly what they are trying to do.
The use of the name in this way dose not violate the trademark. It may strigthen it..... But the trademark holder would rather build up to a day when they can sue parents for naming there kids Barbie...
I don't actually exist.
1. It was stupid to take out a .com domain name. 2. Mattel are stupid to think this name could dilute the value of their toy. 3. The law is stupid to allow firms to copyright girls' names or everyday words - Barbie Doll would arguably be a reasonable name to protect but not plain Barbie. 4. Firms are stupid to choose brand names that are everyday words or common names. 5. Anyone is stupid who accepts that a firm should take the smooth (having a name that rolls off the tongue) without the rough (having to share the use of that name with its more legitimate use). 6. We're all stupid to have created a society where this kind of situation arises. STOP! - let's do a retake! OK, Barbie is probably not the best example of this kind of stupidity but it does illustrate the way we've been conditioned into accept being dictated to by big business, and I reckon it's our duty to prick and sting greedy big businesses whenever we get the chance, so I'm glad Mattel are annoyed. BTW, were Mattel upset when they found out Barbie was the name of a Nazi murderer - the butcher of Lyon?
Adam:What kept you?.
Adam:What kept you?
God:Rome wasn't built in a day
Hear, Hear. I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Adam:What kept you?.
Adam:What kept you?
God:Rome wasn't built in a day
An e-mail link for mattel would've helped.We /.ing.
could have gave them a good old fashioned
In the past companies have paid some attention
when their mail servers load up like a fat man
full of fiber and thai food.
It is good for the internet community to
police the net,'cause despite what ANY legislator
ANYWHERE thinks;we are the REAL law of the internet.Possibly the only repercussions transgressors can get sometimes is a load of shit
in their e-mail.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Imagine if slaves had that same atitude during the slavery times?
Don't fight for your rights. Just give up and die?
The problem is not trademarking a common word, as some have postulated. Instead, it's the word coming into common use after getting trademarked.
Elevator and escalator I think fall into this category as well. Wasn't "elevator" once an Otis trademark?
This present case is one here I think Mattel has a legitimate complaint in that their trademarked product and the video game share the same target audience, and Mattel already market video games for girls with a Barbie motif.
The problem stems, for example, stems from the confusion between Mattel's toy Barbie (tm) and the use of the name "Barbie" -- a legitimate girl's name - by anyone else, including someone named Barbie. Had the designers of the web required that a web site devoted to a product
Mattel.prd.toy.Barbie.com.us
Sexhunger.prd.pron.Barbie.com.us
wouldn't exist.
For example, the New York Times and the London Times and the thousands of other newspapers named "Times" have yet to sue each other, nor is Time magazine involved.
It's not too late for some foresight on this. It's still early in the web, and this is one problem well worth fixing. MT
If money doesn't buy happiness, you're not spending it right.
Another is how Fry's (the electronics store) went after "frys.com". IIRC, frys.com was owned by a company involved in making some kind of food product; the company had been in existence for a number of years before the lawsuit was brought against them, but I guess since Fry's Electronics sells Fritos in their abysmally long checkout lines they must have felt stiff competition and a need to protect their trademark.
Has anyone heard what became of this fight? (The page at frys.com describing the legal battle has since been removed).
At first glance I'd have to say, making a web site named "TheBarbies.com" is a blatent and obvious infringement. It is arguable whether TheBarbies.com is in a different market and thus not applicable to trademark infringement. However, I can see TheBarbies.com leading to confusion and dilution with Mattel's Barbie computer games, and if it ever wanted to put up Barbie sites.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
For example, Kleenex is commonly used as a generic term for facial tissue. As a child, Frigidaire usually meant the refrigerator, regardless of the actual brand name. And for a while, Edsel was an editorial comment about an auto that someone was none too fond of, again regardless of the brand. If it's a flying-disk, it's a Frisbee.
The way I see it, 'Barbie' has been one of these icons for decades, sometimes in a good light, sometimes not. I wonder if Mattell pursues the matter with such fervor when a "pro-Barbie" website is involved.
Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?
hum...was an attempt made to sell the domain for 350k? ( even if in jest, would that give Mattel ammo to prove cyber-squatting?
Take a fist full of twenties out of your wallet, and hire a lawer to sit down and consult with you on the issue. Find out exactly what your rights are, how much the dispute is likely to cost, and whether you want to bother going to bat over something as trivial as a clan name.
Then at least you will know about the situation, and Knowing Is Half The Battle (tm).
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think it has more to do with the "little guy" fighting the "big guy." In case you hadn't noticed, Money makes Right in the US. Slashdot has always been a champion for the underdog and I hope it stays that way..nothing to do with "groupthink."
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
ESPN sent us "The Letter" a couple months ago because they copyrighted 'SportsTicker' we own MySportsTicker.com and they are threatening a lawsuit.
-----------
Resume
Football Sports Contest - Win $500 for having an e
No, I don't have anything to do with Mattel, although I seriously doubt you'll believe that. I'm just one of hundreds of /. readers who are fucking sick of seeing your shrill posts all over the damn place. Up until recently I was sympathetic to your story. Now I just don't give a damn, cos I've had to read it time and time again. (And it's impossible to not read top-level comments in a story, the text is automatically displayed!)
We *know* about your case. We don't have to hear it *all the time*. The more hysterical and repetitive you get, the less likely anyone else is to listen to you. You're hurting your cause, and bugging the shit out of the rest of us.
Slashdot has always been a champion for the underdog and I hope it stays that way..nothing to do with "groupthink."
Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but when you refer to Slashdot are you referring to the body of comment posters who, as a whole, always lean toward the underdog in any conflict? If so, isn't your declaration of detachment from "groupthink" in the next line sort of a contradiction?
Somepeople before to take the name, dont think about the fucking problems that can be possible if your register like "hotwiredo" wired can have a non friendly reaction if you do that... i think... when i register a name... i will check availabilty first, second check if any company are owning the same name that i want, or a seriuos confusion or likes... i mean (my english sucks but) i mean that every people must be more inspirational and cool... i think,... domains like download.com and news.com or checkyourpennislarge.com are soo stupid cause they dont have imagination to create a new term...
i think that domains like slashdot are originally in a 60%... but what about if i register a domain like... n3ws.com or www.maicroseft.com, i am sure that someone that will have 3 millons dolars will kick my ass and more things...
think different... just do something cool with a non fucking obiusly name... and please... stop to ripp apple... thats all
---- EoF
To the owner of thebarbies.com.,
Since this thing is in the works, I'd be interested to hear how things go. I know that it might take a week, a month or a year, but please follow up with us sometime!
-rvr
To put it briefly, Signal 11 symbolizes to me everything that is wrong with slashdot and the world. He spouts his mouth off, with total confidence in the correctness of his position, even though he knows nothing about the issue under discussion. And then he gets moderated up. If this happened once or twice, I wouldn't care. But Signal 11 won't stop.
If Mattel is reasonably smart on this one, they'll get the name for between $750 and $1000 plus their legal fees. An actual court might pay attention to the "non-commercial" aspects of dilution, but...that's why we have the UDRP. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure, here's an example of how it could very well go....
Mattel brings an "abusive registration" complaint against our domain name holder. WIPO or NAF or eResolutions takes the money and says "yep, yep - it's abusive registration" and assigns it to a "panel" for a "fair and impartial" MANDATORY review. (note that the complainant pays the panel, and in some cases chooses the panel.)
First off, our panelist decides that simply offering the name for sale to ANYONE means that our respondent was REALLY offering it for sale to Mattel. Bad Faith! Strike 1. (that's ok - if it hadn't been offered for sale, the panel might have decided it was a "silent extortion attempt" to nonverbally compel a trademark holder to bid for it. I am NOT making this up.)
Then there is that 350k...it clearly demonstrates a intention to profit from the trademark. And it must not be a "legitimate" website, because precendent says that a real website makes money. Whoops! Strikes 2 and 3!
Then it's an easy step to decide that "the barbies" is "confusingly similar" to "barbie". Ouch - strike 4!
Bang! goes the gavel and Mattel gets the site. They also get it cheaply, since they don't need to actually take a case to trial. Of course, the lawyers will still get their retainer, and they didn't need to work too hard at all.
Trademark law at least has some protections in it - the UDRP expands the "rights" of mark holders far beyond what US law gives them...and it's so much cheaper for the holder. As the holder of the domain name, you would of course have to sue in actual court to try and get it back...gee, sorry it isn't cheaper for you....
Oh PLEASE. My moderator points. Dear god my moderator points...
The Mattel story needs to be told seven TIMES seven million times, as a lesson that big corporations can be beaten by the little guys.
And his story is relevant to this thread, because it is about Mattel and their sue happy tactics. They're a bunch of legal terrorists.
I for one throw my lot in with this www.sorehands.com guy. Give 'em hell, dude!
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I'm talking about the people who post the stories (Hemos, Taco, etc). I have seen a general sympathy towards the little guy from them. I don't speak for all comment posters, since they can be diverse and off-the-wall at times. So no, there is no contradiction concerning groupthink.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
tldlobby.com is trying to organize itself, among other resources for individual domain owners.
SIDNA (Society of Internet Domain Name Appraisers, Brokers, and Professionals) is in the beginning stages of organizing the aftermarket industry as a n industry, with definite interest in IP issues and reverse domain name hijacking issues.
The Unofficial ICANN At Large Site is working to provide a community for people who want to work through ICANN itself.
Greg
>an absolutely colossal mountain of personal integrity
Well shit! That's about the best thing anyone has ever said about me (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic).
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.