Battlebots Battles It Out: TV Show Versus IRC

Ender, Duke_of_URL writes: "Battlebots the TV show, has joined the ranks of Corporate bad-guys buy attempting to force out Battlebots.org, an IRC site that had registered their domain before Battlebots even filed for a trademark. As most of you know, in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins."

Comments

crazy

[matrix0040]

this is downright crazy .. if i start a coorporation by name slashdot tommorow then can i sue to get this site down !

Re:crazy

[Overrated Nazi]

Oh, I tried. Believe me I tried. And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for you kids, and that goddamned dog!

Re:crazy

[matrix0040]

well maybe not me .. but someone might wanna get this thing down .. microsoft had asked slashdot to remove some posts
now if some big coorporation is not happy with some site then they can simply get a trademark on that and sue em !

Re:crazy

[The_Messenger]

Since when does OSDN have any money? :-)

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

if you try harder, you may be able to dig up some news that is even older, and more irrelevant. maybe... if you try real hard

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't crazy, this is RIGHT. If your name is John Smith, you have a right to take on anyone who owns johnsmith.com if that is not their name.

Look at delta. They should sue all the stupid sororotys to change their names and damned SNL for that "Delta delta delta" skit. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO STEAL.

"Life isn't about giving, it's about taking."

Re:crazy

[mosch]

It's good to see somebody with the courage to say what they really believe. The sad part is that since the parent doesn't agree with slashthink, the author felt compelled to post anonymously.

What's wrong with a corporation demanding it's rights? Nobody wants to admit it, but corporations are what make America great.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a little constrained, I wouldn't say I'm free. But would being free be good? Sometimes I feel I need a little protection from the elements. Certainly I'm not republican-style paranoid, but at least I do recognize the safetys that consumerism and democracy provide.

Filtering the opinions of the outside world so we don't really see how much other countries hate us... Other than maybe.. Japan. We're close enough to Rome as we're gonna get, and very few people are willing to accept that, especially in the east. I can't wait to see what happens in the next 2 decades.

-AC from before

P.S. semi-related: I hate MTV, because it's too stupid to look at as art, but I still love consumerism. Long live the dollar.

Re:crazy

[orangesquid]

I post a verbatim copy of a letter I sent to the battlebots.com site and Heather Mayer, their attorney, below, which I believe should clarify what a corporation's "rights" seem to be:

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 08:16:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: root@os.markbach.com
To: info@battlebots.com, press@battlebots.com, jason@battlebots.com,
roski@battlebots.com, young@battlebots.com, heather.mayer@lw.com
Cc: blyon@theshell.com
Subject: Re: battlebots.org

Dear Sirs/Madams:

I would like to start by informing you I am not involved with
battlebots.org or Mr. Lyon in any way, shape, or form. I simply
discovered his website. Therefore, anything I say should not, and must
not, be held against him or his website in any way, including all legal
proceedings. I also do not profess to be a certified expert on
the law, so you may wish to take my legal opinions with a grain of salt.

The examples I provide, however, should clarify my position and
observations.

On his website battlebots.org, Mr. Lyon has posted your
communications with him, to which I am replying.

Following are excerpts from a letter written by a Jason Cooper, in
quotes, followed by my own replies:

"We understand that you have received the cease and desist letter from our
attorney. Since this is a matter of great sensitivity to us, we are forced
to consider legal action to enjoin you from further use of the domain
name. However, we would also like to resolve the situation in the least
contentious manner possible under the circumstances."

[To Battlebots.com company, et al]
It is obvious you don't want to shoulder responsibility for this. You say
that you "understand that you have received ... from our attorney" which
makes it sound as if "your" attorney has nothing to do with you
whatsoever. You also claim "this is a matter of great sensitivity" --- it
is common knowledge that a ".com" site is almost always more well-known,
more respected, and considered more authoritative than a ".org" site.

[To Battlebots.com company and Attorney Heather Mayer]
It seems your obsession with owning battlebots.org is based solely on the
U.S. law requiring a company owning a trademark to enforce its ownership.

On that note, Microsoft should have sued me at least several times by now.
I have said "Shut the windows*, there's a storm coming!" more times than I
can count. (*=In case you were unaware, Windows is a trademark of
Microsoft Corp.)

It seems obvious to me that trademark enforcement only applies to the
specific domain for which whatever is trademarked is applicable. In other
words, "Battlebots" refers to fighting robots --- *IF* battlebots.org was
a site about fighting robots, which it is most definitely *NOT*, you
should enforce your trademark on that term specific to that realm.

However, the site has nothing to do with the type of entertainment you
trademarked. In fact, the site has nothing to do with entertainment.

You may also note that "OpenOffice" has been trademarked, yet
openoffice.org, owned by Sun Microsystems and unaffiliated with the
company that trademarked "OpenOffice", continues to operate. On their
website, they specifically note the trademark issue, and say that there
site has nothing to do with OpenOffice, and officially is a site about
openoffice.org. (Yes, a website *about* a something that has the name of
a website. Confusing, isn't it? So are the U.S. trademark laws, ha!)

You also claim you would like to resolve this matter in "the least
contentious manner possible under the circumstances."

The circumstances are this: you want something that has nothing to do with
your trademark. Trademark is a compound word, consisting of "trade" and
"mark". You'll notice that battlebots.org and battlebots.com do not share
the same trade. This should make the circumstances, or lack thereof, very
easy to understand.

"As you will not be able to use the domain (battlebots.org) in any
fashion, we recommend that you transfer it to us immediately, and
BattleBots Inc. will reimburse you for the expense you incurred in
registering the name."

If my given birth name was Battlebots, and you made me change my name,
would reimbursement for the fees involved help me rebuild my reputation?
No.

If everybody who had ever done business with me knew I was named
Battlebots Williams and suddenly could not locate me, would you reimburse
me for the lost sales? It sure doesn't look that way.

Williams is a very common name. People would most likely know me as
Battlebots Williams, not as simply Mr. Williams.

Likewise, no seasoned user of the Internet would ever think of trying to
find AOL's homepage by simply looking through every single .com in
existence. Battlebots.org is not uniquely identifiable as simply
something "dot-org."

"We're sorry for any inconvenience, but we must protect our US and
international trademarks and intellectual property."

The U.S. trademark system is designed to prevent your competitors from
stealing your business by using your name, provided you enforce your
ownership.

Mr. Lyon was not stealing your business.

Therefore, what enforcement needs to be done?

--theorangesquid
aka matt williams

Re:crazy

[jimsxe]

I hope you are being sarcastic! If you are, very funny! If not you are a complete idiot who needs to read a little history and shut the fuck up.

Re:crazy

[AUSketch]

Delta is a Greek letter. Sororities and fraternaties are Greek organizations and use Greek letters to identify themselves. There is no trademark infrigment going on. Furthermore, trademarks are taken in context. Take Delta for example. There is a Delta Airlines, Delta Electronics, and a Delta that makes faucets, the full name of which I'm not sure. They are all Deltas, and they have all trademarked Delta, but the trademark is only valid in the context of their business. If a company is not an airline, electronics manufacturer, a faucet manufacturer, or in another field with a trademarked Delta, that company is free to use the name Delta.

hrm

[poptix_work]

I watch battlebots all the time, and it's a great show, but i wouldnt have expected them to sink this low, i guess you can't rely on anyone anymore =/

Re:hrm

[core10k]

A)Karma whore B)Everyone has an agenda, even the producers of l33t d00d c00 TV shows. - you'll learn that when you leave kindergarten.

Re:hrm

[n3m6]

What does an IRC network has got to do anything with battlebots. Battlebots is a trademark and i think this decision was firm and accurate. I bet Battlebots.org was just rooting for some money from the original battlebots. This isn't the same when some people's names are used as URL's and have been taken away. That was downright unfair. But this is not. Its not easy to draw lines anywhere, and this isn't about the money. Its about a trademark of an organization with which its represented. Its not easy being famous when everybody wants to steal your name. With all the Bruce Perens with different real ID's its so obvious. is it not ?

Re:hrm

[seann]

He invented the name, battle bots, they're irc bots that battle, they're strong, pierce fire into the hearts of script kiddys. Nobody would hack an eggy with a strong name.

Re:hrm

[sg_oneill]

If you followed the link it would of seen that the battlebots.org site was a site for IRC war scripts(bots) or something to that effect. More to the point, and infact the only point really is that *The guy (battlebot.ORD) registered the name before battlebots.COM ever existed* Timetravel notwithstanding there is no way on earth that battlebots.COM can get away with demanding that name back.

Infact I'd say that battlebots.ord has EVERY right to turn around and say "Actually BITCH, you give me YOUR site and apologise and pay me $$$ and even give me some beer you corporate motherfukin' pig."

If a court forces the .org guy to hand over his domain then that's only because the court has screwed up.

Off topic, but has anyone thought how damn funny it would be if some old computer dude had registered the name MICROSOFT in the '60's and then came out and demanded that MS relinquished it's website & got a new name. *THAT*'d be a damn funny domain dispute.

Re:hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all know how fair the courts are these days...

A moment of silence for battlebots.org, please.

Re:hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you might be missing the point here. Battlebots did not even register their trademark until after this guy had registered his domain. Besides that, this was a .org address. Companies that are supposed to use .com addresses for themselves.

easy solution

[kfckernel]

Just have the battle bot and the IRC server in a steel cage match. THAT'LL TEACH EM!

I don't know if I agree with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Battlebots.org was created with an idea in mind. There's no reason Battlebots would win control.

nope nope

[TheSHAD0W]

Battlebots applied for their first US trademark in late 1999. They didn't receive it till October 2000, though. Check it out at http://www.uspto.gov.

Re:nope nope

[ananke]

This can be an interesting issue. From the internic records, the domain battlebots.org was registered on 2000-08-28. I agree, that battlebots [the show], made a mistake by not registering it at the same time they were applying for the trademark. This could be very interesting in court.

domain: battlebots.org
status: production
origin-c: COCO-695905
registrar: CORE-80
created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC CORE-80
expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC

Re:nope nope

[phraktyl]

This could be very interesting in court.

I'm not so sure about that. This could be interesting in court provided our legal system worked the way it *should*. However, as was noted previously, it's the money that wins.

I have a feeling that this will not only be uninteresting, it will be a shutout.

Re:nope nope

[Anonymous Coward]

all that proves is that they paid for the name at that time, and they own the rights to it for the next two years (supposedly). he could have had it registered since 95-96 as he claims, and it wouldnt show up in there, unless he payed for 4 or 5 years in advance. i know it's late and all, and your probably drunk, as am I, but please at least try to get a fucking clue before you post garbage. I can take people posting garbage on here if they at least have an inkling of an idea of what they are talking about. you however seem to have no such qualms[/asshole]

Re:nope nope

[ananke]

first of all, i'm not drunk.
second of all, internic records do reflect when the domain was registered first. look at ANY other internic record.

yes, they may let it expire and registered it again. however, did you even read their letters?

Ack!

[anubis__]

So I wonder when Honda will recieve an e-mail from Microsoft's attorneys to "cease and desist" using the "Passport" name for their SUV.

Actually I think the cease and desist letter to the world from MS attorneys telling them to stop using the "Passport" term will be much more interesting.

Re:Ack!

[WickedClean]

Your post reminds me of that scene in Sneakers when she gets the guy to say "passport". Maybe Microsoft should sue that film studio, too.

Re:Ack!

[srvivn21]

What about Ford and the Explorer? Same vein, but I think that MS has the longer running product here...

There are two paths:

[moogla]

1. Find someone who will fight for them pro-bono (as they have a strong case) or get someone like the EFF involved (for funding)
   
2. Give up but ask for a little more than originally offered if at all possible.
   
3. Not neglecting option 2, also raise a gigantic fuss about it and convince everyone on slashdot not watch that show (which amounts to about everyone who does).
   

Re:There are two paths:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone just should mail them (the address of one of their directors apparently is jason@battlebots.com) so they'll realize how much bad publicity they're getting. They probably are thinking no one will notice.

Re:There are two paths:

[cshotton]

Find someone who will fight for them pro-bono (as they have a strong case) or get someone like the EFF involved (for funding)

Bull. They have no case. BattleBots was a registered trademark 16 months before this guy squatted on the domain. Even the EFF wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. The guy's best hope is to get them to pay for his original domain registration, because the registrar is going to snatch that domain name away from this kid in a heartbeat.

Blaming BattleBots for going after this squatter shows an incredible ignorance of how trademarks work. If you hold a trademark and do not vigorously defend it, you run the risk of having the mark declared generic (e.g., Kleenex, Xerox, Thermos) or reverted to the public domain.

As a corporation, BattleBots has no choice but to defend its mark or lose it. Since it has every right, established through a date of first use that is 16 months earlier than the IRC kid, how can you fault them?

The best thing that could come of your call for a boycott of the show is that you might get some pale, pasty nerd boys off the sofa and out into the sunlight for a change.

Re:There are two paths:

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The best thing that could come of your call for a boycott of the show is that you might get some pale, pasty nerd boys off the sofa and out into the sunlight for a change.

Now THAT is something that will NEVER happen. :/

Re:There are two paths:

[jamoke]

why boycott battlebots anyway?
The up and coming robot battling television shows are throwing "battlebots" into the kill saws anyway.

tell them to suck off

[Anonymous Coward]

We received a similar letter at the office from a large SOMEINDUSTRY related site asking us to stop using a domain (that wasn't even spelled the same) that was for a purpose that had nothing to do with SOMEINDUSTRY.

We sent back a letter basically telling them to suck it and quoted the relevant sections of trademark law from the US Trademark and Patent Office website to back it up.

We never heard anything else about it. Sometimes these companies threaten hoping to get something for free, if you stand up to them, maybe they'll back down.

Re:tell them to suck off

[fintler]

They didn't back down however, read the last letter sent to battlebots.org, it threatens to sue even after the first response.

/. their PR department?

[cosyne]

From battlebots.com:

Comments, Questions, Concerns?
Let us know what's on your mind. Contact us at the following addresses:

PRESS DESK
press@battlebots.com

GENERAL FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS
info@battlebots.com

Re:/. their PR department?

[sparcv9]

Even better: don't email a mailbox that is probably read by a marketing/PR drone. Send an intelligent, well-thought-out email to someone at the top.

Jason Cooper - jason@battlebots.com
Creative Director
BattleBots Inc.

Normally, I wouldn't post something like this, but the audacity (and naïveté) that comes across in Mr. Cooper's letter to Barret realley cheesed me off.

As you will not be able to use the domain (battlebots.org) in any fashion, we recommend that you transfer it to us immediately, and BattleBots Inc. will reimburse you for the expense you incurred in registering the name.

Excuse me? Who says he is not allowed to use it? That's for a judge or an arbiter to decide, not a marketroid.

Re:/. their PR department?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

That's for a judge or an arbiter to decide, not a marketroid.

Well, lately, the Deep Pockets that control the latter seem to control all the former, too. :(

Why do all of these things start with a cease-and-desist -- which often ends up being ignored until the actual legal proceedings -- and not a simple, polite letter? Oops, I forgot: billable hours

Re:/. their PR department?

[sg_oneill]

Have faith dude. Having worked in the legal system (albiet as a lowly techie) Judges can be surprisingly thoughtfull at times. Now I'm speaking from an Aust perspective, but I'd take a bet that the US is not *THAT* different (notwithstanding the whole nonsense of voting for judges)

Microsoft where found to be bad-asses by the court, although the foot to the MS-BUM is yet to be applied as per instructions.

Those guys are much bigger then battlebots.com

This has changed my mind.

[elgee]

I have tended to be on the side of intellectual property, but this case changed my mind. This TV show, which I have never watched, is off the deep end. How can we help this guy who currently owns battlebots.org?

I think that whomever registers a domain first should own it as long as they want to.

Re:This has changed my mind.

[sallen]

I have tended to be on the side of intellectual property, but this case changed my mind. This TV show, which I have never watched, is off the deep end. How can we help this guy who currently owns battlebots.org?

I also generally favor intellectual property and trademark protection when warranted. I still do. But this, and other similar companies going after domains, doesn't pass the smell test in the least. There's no confusion of identity, they aren't engaged in any similar activity, type or scope of business, etc. The term 'bots' has been around long before their trademark. And bots 'battling' is also ancient terminology, in internet years. The trademarks (and there are numerous) are detailed to include the program and about any type of adjunct merchandising from computer games to bottle caps. However, there doesn't seem to be a dilutive impact if 'battlebots.org' isn't in a competing area. Also, it's usually the '.com' one goes after, claiming 'unintentional' hits to another site due to 'confusion' searching for plaintiff's site. Obviously, '.org' is usually NOT where one begins looking. They likely get hits from those actually looking for the '.org', since it's more internet related in this case potentially benefiting the plaintiff. Possibly at the detriment of the defendant, should they get 'interested' in the .com site and not follow up with checks for .org?

I'd go after some publicity, most certainly. The Computer/Internet press? ok. But that seems like where we usually go. Mainstream press? why not. Most important? I'd be sending every piece of material to something like Daily Variety. Even an Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood might pick up a snipet on something nonsensical like this 'David v. Goliath' story (as long as both are produced by their owners). If you want your PR to work, make sure it's on THEIR home turf. For the disclaimer, however, IANAL, and I don't play one on TV; just get to see 30 or 40 pages of billing detail from them every month (sigh).

Oh..and finally.. their (the .com) lawyer goes to great detail with the Lanham act. As usual, they don't quite include all the pertinent data. Including those areas where consideration may be given in regard to 'bad faith' filing for a domain name. to wit:

(B)

(i)
In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--

(I)
the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;

(II)

the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(III)
the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV)
the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

(V)
the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;

(VI)
the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VII)
the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(VIII)
the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and

(IX)
the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43 [subsec. (c)(1) of this section].
(ii)
Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.

Looks like he already conceeded...

[rarose]

His father's letter essential said "give us 5 grand and we'll go away". All they're apparently arguing about is the price.
Maybe if he hadn't of already caved in on the point of principle this would be worthy of discussion on slashdot.
(Believe me... I'm against evil megaliths pushing around the little guys, but once you agree that there *is* a price worth giving up the moral high ground then you're operating on their level)

Re:Looks like he already conceeded...

[Shook]

I can't really fault the domain owner, or his lawyer father. The loss of this domain can't be all that much of a blow to his core business, if it would only cost him $5k. Personally, I would much rather dump a non-vital domain for just compensation, than have to live through a hellish court battle.

Sure, it's not fair, but not everyone has time (even if money is not an issue) to deal with stuff like this.

Re:Looks like he already conceeded...

[neotek(maas)]

At first glance, yes. It looks like they've already given up.

But then I noticed this (check out the dates):

> whois battlebots.net@whois.opensrs.net
[rr-N1-tor.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US

Domain Name: BATTLEBOTS.NET

Administrative Contact:
Comito, Virginia kikiinternet@hotmail.com
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
(408)252-6398


Initially you might think this was them (theshell.com) getting battlebots.net (gee, you would have thought if battlebots.com was so desperate for domains they would have got the .net one?), however the addresses differ:

8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA

What gives?

Re:Looks like he already conceeded...

[Cramer]

And if you go to www.battlebots.net you get a domain placeholder page. So, why the hell aren't they suing the people who are unquestionablly cybersquating?

Re:Looks like he already conceeded...

[dknj]

maybe they already have

battlebots.org was so civil!

[Big Toe]

They were willing to PAY battlebots for every year that they could retain usage of the domain that they rightfully owned! To me this means they knew that there was no way that L&W (the retard lawyers representing comedy central) would tkae their offer.

It's pretty sad that this happens ALL THE TIME, and this one is truly a legit reason for this poor guy owning battlebots.org, and yet they are still going to sue him. I swear I am never voting for any official that promotes anything DMCA or "big business wins with their big lawyers" crap. It is such a JOKE that the united states is becoming a place where a citizen has no rights when compared to the tax revenue machines of big business. Our founding fathers would be puking their guts out for sure.

Not the first time, nor the last.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't their first legal battle. Two years ago (to the day) SFWeekly.com ran an article about 'em...

http://sfweekly.com/issues/1999-09-01/feature.html /page1.html

Chris Lambert - chris is at php period net
WhiteCrown Networks - Web Application Security

The internet's been really fsked up

[Ghoser777]

Okay, so if I follow the logic behing battlebots.org going to the show battlebots, then if a company M, we'll call "Microsoft" advertised as owning a business on 123 Mapple Street in another town, can they take my humble aboad because I have the same address (minus the city name?)

How could I conclude that? Because their argument is about confusion. Customers are going to see Maple Street, look for 123, and expect to see Microsoft. Heck, if I'm some other business, maybe they'll shop from me than from Microsoft (perish the though!).

This sounds ubsurd, but this is exactly what's happening to the internet. Because utl's and doman names are abstract, aka not touch-and-feel types of property, and not a lot of people can really relate to (aka non-geeks), no one really cares if big businesses have there way with property that has been fairly, and from every way I see it, lawfully obtained.

The real problem, atleast as I see it, as that you never really own your domain name. Unlike your house, which besides taxes and general upkeeping (can't be a fire hazard) is yours if you pay in full, domains are sort of licensed by the DNS (I'm a little shady on this part, but I had to pay for my domain name, year after year, so I assumed everyone does).

F-bacher

Fighting robots bit off more than they can chew

[tulare]

My father is a laywer and here is what his firm sent back:

Oops.

To the notable point that they have "already caved in" my answer would be that, based upon their response, the fighting 'droid company seems intent to deny the softbot company what was rightfully theirs. They got the domain first, and (IANAL disclaimer!) from the docs, I'd have to agree that it doesn't look like cybersquatting. But rather than duke it out, the softbot company is taking the sensible approach:

"Look, you don't have a LEGAL right to our domain. You do have a LOGICAL point about the name thing, however, so let's work out an equitable arrangement to deal with the hassle we will need to go through."

Never confuse what is legal with what is logical.

Actually looks like the mecha guys are taking the bait. Of course, it all depends on how personally and financially important the domain name is to the softbot guy. Since he's only asking five grand, I'd have to say, not much.

Registration.

[h0rus]

Hmm.

battlebots.com:

Registrant:
BattleBots Inc. (BATTLEBOTS-DOM)
701 DeLong Ave
Unit K
Novato, CA 94945
US

Record created on 03-Mar-1999

battlebots.net:

Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US

Record Created on 23-Aug-2000

battlebots.org:

Registrant Hot Networking (template COCO-695905)
email.the.admin.contact@battlebots.org
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA

Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80

Re:Registration.

[jjsjeff]

It said that Battlebots(.com) registered their *trademark* two months after Battlebots(.org) registered their *domain*. Who cares when Battlebots(.com) registered their domain if they didn't get the trademark before the little guy registered his domain.

READ PEOPLE!

-Jeff

Re:Registration.

[chrisvdp74656]

I'm relatively new to Linux. What program do I need to run to get that info?

Re:Registration.

[epsalon]

To view domain registration information use the command whois. For more info, man whois.

Re:Registration.

[Zeinfeld]

It said that Battlebots(.com) registered their *trademark* two months after Battlebots(.org) registered their *domain*.

That does not make it true. The registration was granted after the DNS registration, it was filed much earlier in 1999.

READ PEOPLE!

Not a bad strategy to try yourself sometime.

Re:Registration.

[JohnKFisher]

Ah, but it is not the approval date that matters here. It is the FILING date, which, considering red tape, was likely several months earlier. It's the same as the 'patent pending' deal, I believe.

Re:Registration.

[Beowulfto]

So battlebots.net is some sort of an ISP which is using this domain as a portal. If anyone is guilty of squatting, it would be .net! IMHO, Battlebots decided to go after the .net squatter and their laywers said they should go after .org while they were at it, or by going after both domains, they would strenghten their case. Anyone have any info on this idea?

Re:Registration.

[Cramer]

It's a domain holding page... go look at it and then ask yourself why they aren't being sued?

This doesn't make any sense financially.

[SuuSt]

The holders of battlebots.org are offering to sell the domain name to battlebots inc. for $5962 as compensation for the effort they've put into building the name of battlebots.org, potential loss of customers, etc...

Now battlebots inc. is going to sue them. It probably cost more than $6K just to get the restraining order. It seems as if Battlebots Inc. is trying to somehow defend the right of companies who own trademarks in one industry to enforce those trademarks in other completely unrelated industries. In other words, they're being silly.

Can they honestly believe that it makes sense to sue for a domain name when you could just buy the damn thing for $6000?

Re:This doesn't make any sense financially.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need to adopt the German system which holds the loser responsible for both parties' legal fees. That way, the corporation wouldn't need to waste its resources on domain name speculators.

Battlebots.org will lose

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt about it, they will lose this case. I do not think that they *should* lose, but they will, period. I would suggest that they get what they can for the name, maybe even put up a little bit of a fight if it will make the TV show look as bad as they are acting right now. Look at it this way, they have asked for around 6K for the name, and they have probably already recieved publicity worth much more than that just by making the front page of Slashdot. Milk it for a bit more if they can hang in there, then give up the name and make the TV show look like assholes. Best of luck to battlebots.org.

A couple problems

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I agree, this is a stupid and meaningless waste of time on behalf of "Battlebots". BUT, if you look at the web site (and check the dates carefully), you'll see that the letters are not in proper order... First one was July (original C&D request) second (from the "father" who is a lawyer) was August 17th, and finally (I'm guessing thanks to the psychic friends network) the reply, dated August 9 (rebuttal & counter offer to the Aug. 17 letter). Also, as previously pointed out, the TM was filed for in '99, a little while before the Aug 2k registration. Just thought it was kinda' funny that slashdot's editors jumped on this one without even checking the web site for accuracy...

What this is...

[Picass0]

This may be an example of some junior attorney attempting to justify his or her retainer to Comedy Central. I'm sure CC has a small army of lawyers for defending IP concerns. But as Adobe learned recently, your overzealous laywers sometime can get you in public relation deep shit. Comedy Central may not even be aware of this exchange.

Re:What this is...

[Kidbro]

Very unlikely. One of the letters is sent and signed by a certain Jason Cooper - jason@battlebots.com, claiming to be Creative Director at BattleBots Inc.

Unless this lawfirm has actually counterfeited a letter from this person, or made up his existance (which I definately do not believe) they do know about their lawyers' actions.

Re:What this is...

[Zeinfeld]

This may be an example of some junior attorney attempting to justify his or her retainer to Comedy Central. I'm sure CC has a small army of lawyers for defending IP concerns. But as Adobe learned recently, your overzealous laywers sometime can get you in public relation deep shit. Comedy Central may not even be aware of this exchange.

Unlikely, not just because the creative director is issuing the correspondence. Any trademark/domain name lawyer worth their salt would have grabbed all the domains themselves in the first place.

Re:What this is...

[disc-chord]

Exactly, I shot off an Email to:
Jason Cooper - jason@battlebots.com
Creative Director
BattleBots Inc.
http://www.BattleBots.com

(The only Battlebot.com guy who had the balls to directly contact him.)

Explaining to him that most geeks are fans, and picking on one geek has already gotten them bad press. If they successfully bully him out of the domain I bet their viewership will drop sharply. I for one will stop watching.

Before the trademark?

[Brainless]

I am showing the domain battlebots.org was created on August 28th of last year. And Battlebots.com was created on March 3rd of 1999. Are you sure you registered it before they had the trademark?

Battlebots.org
CORE Registrar: CORE-80

Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80
Record expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC

Battlebots.com
Record last updated on 14-Mar-2001.
Record expires on 03-Mar-2003.
Record created on 03-Mar-1999.

Something's wrong..

[kalgen]

The cease and desist was sent on July 25th.

Battlebot.org's letter is dated August 17th.

The supposed "reply" was sent on August 9th,
but obviously it wasn't a reply at all.

Seems like battlebots.org is cybersquatting to me..

Re:Something's wrong..

[thesolo]

I was just going to mention this too. Between the domain registration dates and those letters' dates, something seems fishy here. Why do I think that they really didn't register this domain when they said they did...

Re:Something's wrong..

[emc]

All he needs to show is an invoice for charge for domain registration, prior to CC getting the BB trademark.

I bet he doesn't have it.

Re:Something's wrong..

[Anonymous Coward]

I just took a look at that. Sorry about the mistake. I'm the owner of battlebots.org and the letter did not actually get to me until the 18th. However, the email was back dated.

We sent a reply to that asking if he has talked to his lawyer yet. And we got no reply. It took them a week to have a lawyer call me back and tell me that none of the options we provided them were any good. They just want the domain.

Re:Something's wrong..

[bruns]

Its possible the date got reset if they changed who they get the domain from (ie moved from nsi to core).

My letter of protest

[Linux Freak]

To: jason@battlebots.com, webmaster@battlebots.com, postmaster@battlebots.com, munson@BATTLEBOTS.COM, comments@battlebots.com, hostmaster@M-L.NET, heather.mayer@lw.com

Battlebots:

I read with considerable DISGUST and ANGER about your legal hassling of the owner of the battlebots.org. This site has been in existence YEARS before your stupid TV show was ever dreamed up and filed as a trademark.

When Mr. Lyon pointed this little factoid out to you, you nonetheless
decided to continue this harrassment against him, and suggested that, "[we] will reimburse you for the expense you incurred in registering the
name". Wow, how gracious and generous you people are! The only equitable solution here is to either tell your legal representatives to back the hell off, or to offer Mr. Lyon a considerable fair price to purchase his domain name from him. Either way, you deserve Mr. Lyon an apology for this harrassment.

You people should be incredibly ashamed of yourselves for acting like
this. You are completely, utterly worthless scum-shells of human beings.

--- end ---
(By the way, this posting triggered the Lameness filter for reason: "Junk character post", and I had to do a lot of editing to get it accepted. Things have gotten a little out of hand with Slash 2.2)

Re:My letter of protest

[Anonymous Coward]

I read with considerable DISGUST and ANGER about your legal hassling of the owner of the battlebots.org. This site has been in existence YEARS before your stupid TV show was ever dreamed up and filed as a trademark.

Ok, Zippy, did they ACTUALLY teach you in SCHOOL that using lots of CAPITAL letters would make your writing more CONVINCING, or did you just figure that out for YOURSELF?

Re:My letter of protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that the site wasn't actually in existance until MONTHS before battlebots got their trademark registered, and in fact the reg was applied for BEFORE the domain.

Hopefully the lameness filter won't catch me on this one :-P

Re:My letter of protest

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to check grammar before sending letters like this to lawyers.

$6000

[Halo-]

Let me see if I got this right... The guy is willing to part with his domain for less than $6000 and BattleBot.com is fighting him? How much does it cost to hire an evil corporate lawyer? Certainly more than that.

Re: $6000

[Tikiman]

Let me see if I got this right... The guy is willing to part with his domain for less than $6000 and BattleBot.com is fighting him? How much does it cost to hire an evil corporate lawyer? Certainly more than that.

It's not the money, its the precedent it sets for the next guy who wants $60,000

Typical...

[taustin]

As most of you know, in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins.

Yeah, we all remember how eToys stomped the shit out of those artists types, and took away their domain.

Re:Typical...

[Cramer]

And let's not forget Mr. Clegg's little problem with Gateway(tm) over gateway.com. "gateway.com" was Alan's actual revenue generating (read: rent paying) business.

I've refused to do business with Gateway(tm) since then. And I've stopped doing business with NECX Direct now that they are owned by Gateway(tm). (All other online stores pale in comparison, but I refuse to give Gateway(tm) any of my money.)

My letter to BattleBots

[alexburke]

To: info@battlebots.com
CC: blyon@theshell.com

In regards to your request for the rightful owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG to hand over his domain name, you are gathering large amounts of negative press for your cause.

A large segment of your target demographic are technically-inclined persons in the 18-30 age range, and this is also descriptive of the membership of website slashdot.org, which has covered your C&D request to BATTLEBOTS.ORG at:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/02/0143 23 4&mode=nested

Reader comments are also listed there, and this should give you some insight as to what your target demographic thinks of your heavy-handed approach.

BATTLEBOTS.ORG was registered to its current owner in August 2000 -- two full months before your trademark was registered. Not only that, but trademarks only provide protection within the same market. For example, I could form a company called "Maytag Umbrellas", and sell umbrellas with the word "Maytag" on them, and the appliance manufacturer (and trademark holder) of the same name could do absolutely nothing about it. I could also successfully register a trademark "Maytag" for umbrellas, since umbrellas are not appliances.

Likewise, your BATTLEBOTS is a TV show about battling robots, and his BATTLEBOTS are "bots", or programs, which are part of a worldwide text-based chat network.

In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight.

-- Alexander Burke
Former BattleBots viewer
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Coward Anonymous]

You will be the only former BattleBots viewer on /.
Most slashdotters love their TV shows too much to part with them for longer than a week.

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[alexburke]

Unfortunately, you have a point. Indeed, Malda himself seems to flip-flop uncontrollably between hating DVDs and going on anime DVD buying sprees. I'm sure a lot of us /.ers are like that in one way or another...

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit buying DVDs. I had about 10 DVDs before the lawsuits began. I didn't make some big holier than thou decision to boycott them or something. I just don't want to buy them any more after that. I didn't buy a ton of DVDs, but one things for sure i won't buy any DVDs now. DVDs represent massive corporate greed to me, i have no desire to buy them.

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Anonymous Coward]

>In regards to your request for the rightful
>owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG to hand over his domain
>name, you are gathering large amounts of
>negative press for your cause.

Oh, yea, the newswires are abuzz. Headline News is leading the half-hour with this story.

Get a grip, shithead. Middle America doesn't care about what some stupid (and yes, sorry /., it is stupid) show is doing to a web site that no one has ever heard of.

>A large segment of your target demographic are
>technically-inclined persons in the 18-30 age
>range, and this is also descriptive of the
>membership of website slashdot.org, which has
>covered your C&D request to BATTLEBOTS.ORG at:
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?>sid=01/09/0 2/014323 4&mode=nested

BFD. /. is upset. Do you have any idea how many televisions there are our there? /. users amount to nothing - that's nada, zero, zip - when it comes to selling advertising dollars.

In short, no one gives a shit whether you watch or not, and you're a self-important fuck for even thinking that your piss-poor attention span is anything that a television producer cares about.

>BATTLEBOTS.ORG was registered to its current
>owner in August 2000 -- two full months before
>your trademark was registered. Not only that,
>but trademarks only provide protection within
>the same market. For example, I could form a
>company called "Maytag Umbrellas", and sell
>umbrellas with the word "Maytag" on them, and
>the appliance manufacturer (and trademark
>holder) of the same name could do absolutely
>nothing about it.

Wrong, shithead.

>I could also successfully register a
>trademark "Maytag" for umbrellas, since
>umbrellas are not appliances.

Again, wrong, and again, shithead.

Trademarks are all about the sphere of influence. If Maytag were a local company, selling dishwashers out of a shop on some street in some town in the middle of nowhere then sure, you could get away with the scenerio you describe above. But Maytag is an international company, known and recognized the world over as an appliance manufacturer. If you register Maytag umbrellas, they're going to crawl up your ass and sit there like a bad burrito.

Don't believe me? A trademark is only a few hundred dollars to register - register it and find out. Let us know how the reaming goes.

>In my opinion,

No one cares what you think. You're insignificant and further, you're an idiot.

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people do you really think can afford satellite or cable TV but not WWW access, or are geeky enough to watch robots fight but don't read /.? We are their core audience! Hell, this is where I heard of the show.

Trademark is all about classes and consumer confusion. If I make umbrellas, and you make washers but not umbrellas or anything like them, our trademarks are formally in different classes and you have no grounds for claiming infringement. Which isn't to say a trademark holder with enough money can't bribe the legal system into doing illegal things....

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Anonymous Coward]

you are right.

Most /.ers are hypocritical in their views.

Re:My letter to BattleBots

[Cramer]

5lb Ziggo vs. 500lb BioHazard?

While ziggo would certainly provide some impressive sparks, he's just too lite.

How about Son of Wiashi in a free-for-all? Basically, everyone against Wiashi.

I'll not watch anymore.

[nicholasperez]

I barely watch TV anymore anyway, and Battlebots was one of those shows I did watch. Upon hearing this and exploring into the matter, I for one will not watch that show anymore. I disdain "Money grubbing media corporate executives" (a direct quote from my email to their feedback email address) and refuse to participate anymore as a viewer. Instead I suggest that /.'ers watch junkyard wars (or any other engineering-like show) and NOT watch Battlebots. We as the consumer have the power. Let's excersize it!

.org vs .com

[Eso]

Umm, shouldn't the BattleBots TV show be using a .com address rather than .org?

I was starting to believe..

[abischof]

I was starting to believe in Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central and, thus, Battlebots. Though I had my doubts, at first, Viacom actually seemed to be doing non-evil things with Comedy Central.

But, maybe I should have seen this coming. After all, Viacom owns such atrocities as MTV. Even worse, in my mind, is that they also own Blockbuster, which is driving out mom-n-pop video stores through unfair practices with the movie studios (Blockbuster gets the physical videos for wicked-cheap in exchange for profit sharinng with the studios). So, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

Here's some battlebots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want battlebots? Click on the link!

Here's some battlebots!

email jason@battlebots.com too

[Starbuck]

dont forget Jason@BattleBots.com either. He is their creative director and directly emailed Mr. Lyon about the problem.

I sent the same message to him too. Don't flame him, that just puts the ./ community in a bad light. Lets help this guy out.

Re:"Boycott X"

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

Hey! I resent that remark. I'm going to boycott Battlebots. Oh wait, I don't even watch the show...

Aren't we being...

[Arjuna Theban]

...a bit too pessimistic? I mean yea we all saw what happened with the www.companynamesucks.com lawsuits and all, but with something blatantly obvious like this (ie: the IRC server existing before the trademark) it's hard even for big $$$ lawyers to make the judge say what they want.

---

why pay?

[nmarshall]

why give them a dollar a year?
also haven't we seen this FOO.com vs FOO.org?
why does everyone think that they must own all domain in relation to FOO?

me, i would let them sue. Battlebots.org, was there before Battlebots.com . That is really all that matters.

I watched battle bots once...

[Greyfox]

It was quite possibly the most boring thing I'd ever seen. Now if the bots were fully autonomous and possibly armed with, well, weapons (Flamethrowers, chainguns, napalm, etc) THAT would be interesting.

For some reason, I can actually get in to junkyard wars, though. Wierd.

Re:I watched battle bots once...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be because "Battlebots" is awful. Robot Wars is *much much* better. You can catch the originals (hosted by Craig Charles from "Red Dwarf") on PBS, usually, or the new American ones hosted by Mick Foley on I think TNN.

let them know

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them know this *sucks*!

Press Desk:
press@battlebots.com

General Feedback and Questions:
info@battlebots.com

Questions regarding Battlebots Rules and Guidelines:
rules@battlebots.com

Questions or Problems with our online Store
store@battlebots.com

That TV show will be off of the air soon anyway.

[thx1138_az]

This is totally lame. What is the life span of a television show anyway... especially one as lame as BattleButs. I'm already bored with it... I'm ready for next years TV line up now. If you BattleBut.com'ers are reading this then my advice is how important is it that you get all of the .net .com .org .cc .tv .misc .infinity sites out there when your going to be gone soon anyway. Get a grip and start planning for your next hit TV show (and quit boring me with you hype)

Something is indeed strange here

[Anonymous Coward]

On battlebots.org he claims that he use the domain name for his ISP, and in the letters it is claimed he will loose money if he loose the domain name!

But then why isn't the page containing any business information?

How can he loose money by having this page display the same contents as battlebots.com instead of these letters?

Sometimes it's the small guy trying to take advantage of the big company - I think I smell it here. He tries to make a couple of thousands hoping Battlebots will choose the easy and cheap way out.

And why is he useing an .org domain for his personal business - wouldn't you try to find an name where the .com domain is available?

I'm not 100% sure he is a syber-squatter - but from the information presented, it's the most likely as far as I can see.

Re:Something is indeed strange here

[phulshof]

Because the services he offers are not webrelated, but he still needs a domainname for his machine. It will cost him to register a new domainname, and notify all his users of the new location. More effort will go into finding all sites with references to e.g. his IRC channels, and have them change their references. _That's_ where his costs will be coming from, and I think he's put down a pretty small amount for all that effort.

Re:Something is indeed strange here

[rmgrotkierii]

My friend owns the domain name, damnhippie.net, and it only only has a temp webpage, like battlebots.org, because it's on the same machine as the httpd is on, and it's not web-related. damnhippie.net is a IRC network, yea it's small, but we still own the domain (I'm hosting the domain while he pays for the domain name). So not everything is WEB-RELATED.

Re:Something is indeed strange here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypothetical Scenario:

Upon being served with a cease and desist order they removed the site and replaced it with the corespondence.

Re:Something is indeed strange here

[Cramer]

If his services are not web releated, then what does he care about the "www"? Just direct it to "www.battlebots.com" and be done with it.

i don't see a trademark issue here -- irc bots vs. titanium clad robots fighting in a lexan box. However, I'm certain we don't have the complete and true picture of events. Why did he choose battlebots.org?

That'll teach em'

[dankjones]

Battlebots.org should countersue battlebots.com and take the domain name. If they won that might actually cut back on these types of lawsuits.
Or not... whatever.

Another small piece...

[Xenopax]

Every time a site like this is crushed by corporaet power, we see a small part of what was great about the internet disappear. Sure the IRC is filled with childish actions, and bots just add to the childishness. But those children are geeks using tools written by geeks on a network developed by geeks, and now... what was my point... oh yeah, and now some money grubbing corporation has stolen a small part of our childish geek actions in the name of "trademark". Some day we will look at the internet, remember what it was, and wonder why the only thing left is the Web with all of its redundant pop-up adds for cameras that open new adds for cameras when you close them. Yes, someday corporate stupidity and greed will leave us with nothing but constant advertisement on the internet and we will try to fight, but we will have no place to put our bots to talk to non-existant IRC servers to constantly publish "M1cR050f7 5uX" every 1.5 seconds on our favorite channel there by crippling our ability to do anything.

Re:Another small piece...

[Anonymous Coward]

If IRC goes away they'll be nothing good to DoS!

WHOIS says Aug-2000

[kimihia]

According to the wHOIS info, battlebots.org was registered in August 2000:

Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80

The .com flavour was registered much before that:

Record created on 03-Mar-1999.

Still, CC may have bought the domain off a previous owner.

I thought the whole purpose of having .org and .com was so that different things with the same name could be accomodated. For example, some company has my initials, but I didn't sue their pants off because they have the commercial flavour, and I got the organisation flavour domain name.

Re:WHOIS says Aug-2000

[SuperLiquidSex]

actully, com is for commercial enterprises, and global ones at that. Org is for non profit organizations, edu is for educational institutes. now why is battlebots the tv registering for a org domain,cause the whole name scheme got fucked up when Icann decided to make a buck. I say we sue battlebots the tv show for intention of improper use of a domain name.

"Pro bono"? Try anti-Bono.

[yerricde]

Find someone who will fight for them pro-bono (as they have a strong case)

There has to be a better term than "pro bono," as the term "pro bono" brings to mind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which set a precedent to put everything first published in the U.S. on or after January 1, 1923, under perpetual copyright because Di$neyCo can just lobby for another across-the-board term extension act every 20 years.

Re:"Pro bono"? Try anti-Bono.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Since lawyers are provably less evolved, maybe "pro bonobo" would be a better term.

Who cares

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

Battlebots is, frankly, a crappy show and nobody watches it. This sham of a corporation will be out of business by next week anyways.

Re:Who cares

[INicheI]

hehe, that show does suck.

Wrong answer. Slashdot is a � of BSI

[yerricde]

if I start a corporation by the name Slashdot tomorrow, then can I sue to get this site down?

No. SLASHDOT is a registered trademark of Blockstackers (CmdrTaco's former company and parent of Everything Development Company), licensed to OSDN.

Re:Wrong answer. Slashdot is a � of BSI

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you fucking believe that Slashdot (at least temporarily) made Taco a (multi-?)millionaire?

"I know! I'll steal news from other sources and let people comment on it! It will be *much* more respectable than ZDNet."

This is utter crap. Check the dates.

[CJayC]

The owners of BattleBots (the event/Comedy Central show) have been in existence long before the battlebots.org domain. BattleBots was on the air on Comedy Central before the .org domain was regged, folks, so I don't think there's any doubt that this is a case of cybersquatting, and a case of patently false information in the story that should be corrected by /..

From the USPTO Database:

Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
Filing Date April 12, 1999


From NSI:

Domain Name: battlebots.org
Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41

My email to Battlebots

[phulshof]

Subject: Battlebots Trademark Issue battlebots.org)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 09:43:14 +0200
From: Pieter Hulshoff
To: info@battlebots.com, press@battlebots.com
CC: blyon@theshell.com

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a frequent viewer of your "BattleBots" program, I am highly disappointed to have read about your dispute with Mr. Lyon over his ownership of the www.battlebots.org website. With this you have already gathered quite a bit of bad PR, as you can view at
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/09/02/0143234.shtml.

Since it will cost Mr. Lyon a considerable amount of time, effort and money to start a new site, and move all the services he offers to the public to this new site (making all his users aware of the new location) I sincerely hope that you will consider the two options Mr. Lyon has offered you in his email. They seem more than reasonable to me. A third option was provided by Mr. Burke in an email to you (quoted from Slashdot):
"In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight. "

I must agree with Mr. Burke that handling this matter in a friendly and acceptable manner will save you a lot of bad press. I for one will boycott this program for as long as this matter is not amicably solved.

Regards,

Ir. Pieter Hulshoff
Almere, the Netherlands

My letter to BattleBots

[emc]

To: info@battlebots.com
CC: blyon@theshell.com

In regards to the message sent by some "Slashbot".

Please let it be known that every person I know of, that watches BattleBots will continue to do so, without regard for this BB.com vs bb.org drama.

I want BioHazard to come back next season, and wipe the floor with all other bots.

Oh, and what about a dream match...
BioHazard vs. Ziggo

please?

Re:This is utter crap. Check the dates.

[Lacutis]

"Entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots."

That sounds to me like there would be no confusing the services provided by battlebots.org and that description.

Bad move!

[TheMidget]

The holders of battlebots.org are offering to sell the domain name to battlebots inc. for $5962 as compensation for the effort they've put into building the name of battlebots.org, potential loss of customers, etc...

They're playing with fire here. battlebots.com could convince the judge that battlebots.org were in it for the money all along, i.e. cybersquatting.

Cheers, good man!

[mosch]

Bravo! I find it sad that you don't feel able to express yourself publicly in this forum. Surely any reasonable person will agree that without our government the nation would be awash with drug addicts, poverty and crime.

We'll always need that government too, what with the criminals and the junkies always flauting the laws by finding new drugs to get all goofed up on, and thinking of new ways to steal from us. It's a shame that there aren't more people who want to help fight the drug war.

The next 2 decades will show the rest of the world what a force America has become. We'll be invulnerable to their ICBMs, our military research providing us with missile defense in a few years, and with incredible new weapons so we won't even have to risk the lives of our nations sons to fight their great evil.

Long live the dollar.

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

I own battlebots.org. I put some more updated info on the page. Thank you for all the feed back and help. Keep the emails rolling! PS: I'm heading to bed so I can't reply to everything right now.

"... it's the money that wins."

[JupiterX]

While my pessimistic overgeneralizing side (e.g. the irritating side) would like to agree with the statement that, "in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins," my rational and much more pleasant side forces to mention a counterexample: The recent court victory of the World Wildlife Fund (a nonprofit), over the World Wrestling Federation (extremely profitable) in a domain name suit concerning the letters "WWF." While I'm much too lazy to provide any relevant URLs, I'm sure you can all find them yourselves.

Ug Invents Fire

[Anonymous Coward]

if you try harder, you may be able to dig up some news that is even older, and more irrelevant

A.P. Smoke Signal—Today in Ukulumai Village, Ug invent fire.

"Fire good," Ug say, "fire burn!"

This great advance for mankind, but some dispute Ug claim.

"Me invent fire first," say Oog, Open Source Caveman, "No patent, so Ug steal."

"You lie," Ug respond, "You try steal fire from me! You fire pirate! "

"You try make fire monopoly," Oog retorted, "You make whole village get fire from you! Not let people make own fire! Fire want be free!"

Other villager side with Ug. "Me build Secure Fire Path into Window BC," say Urg Gates, "make so nobody steal fire."

Oog skeptical, "How you so sure we no break Secure Fire Path?"

"You no can break," Urg say, "You try, chief smask you head with Analog Jurassic Copyright Rock."

"What?!" Oog say, "That suck! Me moving to Kanudu."

Trademark invalid?

[chris.bitmead]

Can they even get a valid trademark when there
has been prior use by someone else?

Re:Trademark invalid?

[epsalon]

To have a valid trademark, you need not prove it's never been used.
The requirements are that it's not an English word, that it's not the actual name of the product, and that it's not a well-known name of something else.
If they prove that the average person associates the name with the company they can get a trademark.

It's a .org. They're a company.

[plumby]

Why should they be interested in the .org site, when these are usually used by non-profit making organisations? I think most people trying to find a corporate website for a TV show would automatically go to the .com. Wasn't the point of having different tlds to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial sites?

More details

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd really like more details on this before complaining, or the other side of the story. From what's there, it looks like comedy central is a gang of assholes. However, the dates in the letters are inconsistent, and the story looks a bit sketchy. How 'bout someone contact the BattleBots guys and see what their take on this is. If they acted like the page says, I'll certainly join a boycott...

For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious.

[Electrawn]

I checked out the company theshell.com. It seems they offer vhosts for IRC.

Basically this "business" is an eggdrop site/ shell whore site for script kiddies. Also it's been noted in previous posts that the domain was registered AFTER battlebots.com was.
This is no case of a corporation going after a little guy, this is a case of a script kiddie/wannabe admin/etc whining because his leet domain is trademarked.
IRC has broken down into lame vhosts, theshell.com seems no exception.

Before you go sending off those letters to battlebots.com...just look at this:(I'm assuming with 99% certainty he owns the entire ip block)

[N] Resolved 63.236.138.57 to www.battlebots.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.58 to clubslut.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.59 to oddlyshaped.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.60 to fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.61 to keg.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.62 to beer.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.63 to met.your.momma.at.the.clubslut.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.64 to heavy.alcohol.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.65 to killall-9.battlebots.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.66 to screwdriver.drinker.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.67 to irc.erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.68 to big.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.69 to two-a-day.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.70 to you.aint.leet.enough.to.crack.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.71 to my.passwd.is.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.72 to i.once.hacked.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.73 to hacked.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.74 to elite.512bit.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.75 to erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.76 to ircd.erisfreenetwork.net
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.77 to erdmanphoto.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.78 to some-day.i.will.fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.79 to help.me.fuckthenet.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.80 to fuckyourmom.fuckyoursister.fuckyourdog.fuckthenet. org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.56 to thenarrator.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.55 to vhosts.theshell.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.54 to pennstsucks.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.53 to emeraldbp.com
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.52 to licked.and.fondled.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.51 to has.a.d0pe.nutsack.org
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.50 to instinct.love.le.gs
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.49 to DONT.touch.my.le.gs
[N] Resolved 63.236.138.48 to lezbos.like.to.lick.Britney.Spears.le.gs

Save your battles for someone who really needs help.

Re:For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious.

[Cramer]

Ack! The horror of wasted address space!

• [whois.arin.net]
  Qwest Communications (NETBLK-NET-QWEST-BLKS2) NET-QWEST-BLKS2
  
  • 63.236.0.0 - 63.239.255.255
  Hot Networking (NETBLK-QWEST-63-236-138-0) QWEST-63-236-138-0
  
  • 63.236.138.0 - 63.236.138.255
  
  To single out one record, look it up with "!xxx", where xxx is the
  handle, shown in parenthesis following the name, which comes first.
  
  The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
  Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
  Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
  Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information.

ARIN, please, stop giving Qwest address space for them to waste in this manner. I'd like to see the justification for that.

Here's the complete /24:

• Searching 63.236.138...
  1: qwest-edge-02.theshell.com
  2: carbon.theshell.com
  3: radium.theshell.com
  ...
  5: arsenic.theshell.com
  6: lead.theshell.com
  7: xenon.theshell.com
  8: oxygen.theshell.com
  9: galaga.alphalinux.org
  10: alphalinux.org
  ...
  12: developer.alphalinux.org
  13: voodoo.alphalinux.org
  14: from.ms
  15: whiskey-n-port.drinker.net
  16: salt.and.peppers.net
  17: red.hot.chili.peppers.net
  18: buff.le.gs
  19: shes.got.le.gs
  20: le.gs
  21: nutsack.org
  22: shroo.ms
  23: origin.md5.org
  24: my.hash.is.md5.org
  25: i.hacked.md5.org
  26: tabasco.peppers.net
  27: hafeez.baloch.is.not.from.drinker.net
  28: come.nibble.on.my.hairy.nutsack.org
  29: eat.sum.hot.peppers.net
  30: md5.org
  31: stopdos.org
  32: passwd.md5.org
  33: suck.my.damn.nutsack.org
  34: i.hate.guys.from.ms
  35: spends.too.much.time.at.theshell.com
  36: gimme.some.of.those.shroo.ms
  37: cyprusirc.512bit.com
  38: csa-tahoe.com
  39: unf.le.gs
  40: midgets.have.small.le.gs
  41: lost.his.dick.between.your.moms.le.gs
  42: kiss.my.le.gs
  43: just.got.in.your.sisters.le.gs
  44: got.20ft.of.pure.meat.stuck.between.your.le.gs
  45: got.le.gs
  46: dachshunds.have.short.le.gs
  47: alwayz.touch.her.le.gs
  48: lezbos.like.to.lick.Britney.Spears.le.gs
  49: DONT.touch.my.le.gs
  50: instinct.love.le.gs
  51: has.a.d0pe.nutsack.org
  52: licked.and.fondled.nutsack.org
  53: emeraldbp.com
  54: pennstsucks.com
  55: vhosts.theshell.com
  56: thenarrator.com
  57: battlebots.org
  58: clubslut.org
  59: oddlyshaped.nutsack.org
  60: fuckthenet.org
  61: keg.drinker.net
  62: beer.drinker.net
  63: met.your.momma.at.the.clubslut.org
  64: heavy.alcohol.drinker.net
  65: killall-9.battlebots.org
  66: screwdriver.drinker.net
  67: irc.erisfreenetwork.net
  68: big.nutsack.org
  69: two-a-day.com
  70: you.aint.leet.enough.to.crack.512bit.com
  71: my.passwd.is.512bit.com
  72: i.once.hacked.512bit.com
  73: hacked.512bit.com
  74: elite.512bit.com
  75: erisfreenetwork.net
  76: ircd.erisfreenetwork.net
  77: erdmanphoto.com
  78: some-day.i.will.fuckthenet.org
  79: help.me.fuckthenet.org
  80: fuckyourmom.fuckyoursister.fuckyourdog.fuckthenet. org
  81: fuckthesystem.fucktheman.fuckthenet.org
  82: dot.efnetwarez.org
  83: sonya.likes.to.give.blowjobs.at.clubslut.org
  ...
  85: bondanzaproductions.com
  86: sunder.theshell.com
  87: telekinesis.theshell.com
  88: drinker.net
  89: 512bit.com
  90: smoke.weed.eat.shroo.ms
  91: is.tripping.on.these.shroo.ms
  92: caps.and.stems.its.all.good.with.blue.shroo.ms
  93: seven-of-nine.and.me.like.hot.sex.on.shroo.ms
  ...
  124: pepsi.drinker.net
  125: cum.drinker.net
  126: blood.drinker.net
  127: coke.drinker.net
  128: absolut.drinker.net
  129: coffee.drinker.net
  130: is.a.smoker.and.a.drinker.net
  131: chronic.drinker.net
  132: terminal.drinker.net
  133: urine.drinker.net
  134: snapple.drinker.net
  135: vodka.and.redbull.drinker.net
  136: stoned.drinker.net
  137: sierra.nevada.drinker.net
  138: powertech.drinker.net
  139: margarita.drinker.net
  140: is.not.a.drinker.net
  141: is.a.two-fisted.drinker.net
  142: fuck.the.bitches.and.drink.vodka.at.drinker.net
  143: bud.drinker.net
  ...
  177: fud.from.ms
  178: i.dont.use.software.from.ms
  179: i.hate.fud.from.ms
  ...
  181: has.blessed.theshell.com
  ...
  185: has.a.big.nutsack.org
  ...
  187: marijuana.crack.crank.speed.lsd.cocaine.crystal-me th.shroo.ms
  188: loves.his.account.at.theshell.com
  ...
  190: get.your.shells.at.theshell.com
  191: lick.my.theshell.com
  192: always.gets.his.shells.from.theshell.com
  ...
  195: really.likes.shroo.ms
  196: i.like.shroo.ms
  197: does.everything.possible.between.your.girlfriends. le.gs
  198: shaved.nutsack.org
  199: envy.the.size.of.my.nutsack.org
  200: bill.gates.has.a.small.nutsack.org
  201: playin.wif.muh.nutsack.org
  202: lick.my.nutsack.org
  203: bill.gates.dont.like.girlies.net
  204: bill.gates.has.no.girlies.net
  205: lemme.rub.your.le.gs
  206: quit.staring.at.my.sexy.le.gs
  207: your.mom.needs.to.shave.her.le.gs
  ...
  211: crack-this.rsa.512bit.com
  ...
  222: synergy.theshell.com
  ...
  224: nobody.had.best.take.away.my.dr.peppers.net
  225: hot.peppers.net
  ...
  227: peppers.net
  228: killed.employees.from.ms
  229: is.from.ms
  230: is.a.reject.from.ms
  231: hates.people.from.ms
  232: hates.employees.from.ms
  233: everything.is.overpriced.from.ms
  234: doesnt.trust.anything.from.ms
  235: rls-GW-100MB.theshell.com
  ...
  237: tcm.erisfreenetwork.net
  238: lag.and.down.servers.on.erisfreenetwork.net
  239: user1.on.erisfreenetwork.net
  240: politics.suck.on.erisfreenetwork.net
  241: encrypted.md5.org
  242: I.fuckthenet.org
  243: 3.le.gs
  244: girl.liquor.beer.drinker.net
  245: IRCop.erisfreenetwork.net
  246: IPv8.512bit.com
  247: my.girlfriend.loves.my.nutsack.org
  ...
  249: stole.cc.from.ms
  250: coder.md5.org
  251: bigfig.net
  252: tequila.theshell.com
  253: inspiron.theshell.com
  

Re:For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious.

[Delphis]

(I'm assuming with 99% certainty he owns the entire ip block)

A quick glance at ARIN reveals you are correct:

Hot Networking (NETBLK-QWEST-63-236-138-0)
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826
US

Netname: QWEST-63-236-138-0
Netblock: 63.236.138.0 - 63.236.138.255

Coordinator:
Lyon, Barrett (BL321-ARIN) blyon@theshell.com
(916)387-8649

Record last updated on 28-Dec-1999.
Database last updated on 3-Sep-2001 23:06:38 EDT.

warez linux?

[epsalon]

How the hell did you manage to do that?

Re:warez linux?

[krogoth]

Caldera?

blah blah blah six seconds since you hit reply blah blah blah less then 2 minutes blah blah blah i hate this stupid limit blah blah blah

Re:Passport

[epsalon]

Wait a minute! They should sue all the governments in the world for issuing so-called passports and thus infringing thier trademark rights to the word.
It turns out that most governments use the term 'passport' for some kind of document used for identification outside of county boudries. This use infringes on Microsoft's total ownership of the word passport and shall be discontinued at once...

Another analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the millions were overcome by a small group of powerful people. The small group of people were following the rules, but so were the small group of people out to get them. The critical point is who was making the rules. After that, all that was needed was humanities natural tendencies to look at things under the context of "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

We do share some things with nazi Germany. The rules are being modified by a small group of well connected and wealthy people. The small group is using the rules they created to redefine right and wrong via the legal system, and is hammering the populace into line with much vigor. Despite this, much of the population clings to the conceot of "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Of course, we don't have the extremes of nazi Germany. The drive of the small groupo isn't to eliminate a race of people, but for the aquisition of power from the litle people. To move about without fear of the law, by currupting that law. But just people aren't being killed doesn't mean it's an acceptable environment. It's an indignity, a slap in the face. Why should we tolerate such indignity?

Stepping back and looking over recent events, i kind of see how the Jews didn't see what was coming. No one expected the Spanish Inquisition either. What are we to expect in the coming years? The illusion that we have a say in the shaping of government is already fading, and the real law making machinery is starting to bgecome visible underneath the worn veneer of "Democratic processes". That's definitly a milestone.

It's all okay though, until they kick down /your/ door.

Re:Another analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you started talking about the wealthy I agreed completely. I don't care if they're wealthy. That may be. They're probably white heterosexuals too. Neither of which matter. The point is that they're doing the wrong thing irregardless of their wealth. I am not wealthy, but saying so in such a way is littering "white" "male" ... I find that offensive.

Keep your point clean of inconsequential details and it can only make your argument stronger.

Re:Another analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

check this out: irregardless [dictionary.com]

This guy *is* squatting

[cshotton]

As TheSHADOW points out, the event, show, and initial trademark filing for "BattleBots" predates the "battlebots.org" DNS registration by over a year. Here are the actual details from the USPTO site:

Word Mark BATTLEBOTS
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots.
FIRST USE: 19990630.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990630
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75681165
Filing Date April 12, 1999
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition August 1, 2000

People need to understand that priority in the DNS registration system in no way provides priority over a US Trademark filing unless you can clearly demonstrate a legitimate use and that there will be no confusion in the marketplace. IMO, this guy watched the TV show and decided it'd be a cute (though thoroughly non-original) name for his IRC service. That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.

The domain name shouldn't be his.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[Zeinfeld]

People need to understand that priority in the DNS registration system in no way provides priority over a US Trademark filing unless you can clearly demonstrate a legitimate use and that there will be no confusion in the marketplace

Not completely accurate. If the guy had been using the name 'in trade' prior to the use by the trademark holder then the trademark holder cannot prevent the prior use.

But the priority is based on the filling date, not the issue date. So the fact that the trademark was filled before the domain name was registered means that the corporation wins.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[Tikiman]

Not completely accurate. If the guy had been using the name 'in trade' prior to the use by the trademark holder then the trademark holder cannot prevent the prior use

Is this guy going to look some judge squarely in the eye and say that he never heard of the word "BattleBot" used in trade, even though he registered battlebots.org at the end of the exact same month Comedy Central began running adds for "BattleBots" every five minutes? If this isn't cybersquatting I don't know what is

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[Anonymous Coward]

this guy watched the TV show and decided it'd be a cute (though thoroughly non-original) name for his IRC service

Its only trademark infringement if he intended to mis-use the trademark to make a profit, and even then its not so clear - remember the windows95.com situation (before CNET absorbed and threw away what was by then winfiles.com), they won, Microsoft lost windows95.com. Its not "misappropriation" just to USE someone elses trademark at all. If it is, then we're all in trouble. How many people who own personal sites actually check first if there is some obscure company with that trademark when they register? I know I sure as hell didn't.

Trademarks don't automatically give rights to domain names, as you seem to imply. Otherwise, I'm sure that half of sites out there are infringing on some or other corporate trademark. His site is "bot"-related.

The other thing this is a .org, commercial entities should be on .com. Lastly, he "got there first". There is a MacDonalds plumbing service where I live .. if they had registered MacDonalds.com before the burger franchise, they would have had rights to keep it.

This guy isn't trying to compete with BattleBots, which is important for trademark issues. His "product" is entirely unrelated to the TV show. Trademarks belong only to particular product groups, which is why its completely legal for someone to sell (for example) Linux detergent. Likewise, it would be illegal for Linus to register the trademark "Linux" under "detergents", because he would have to show he actually intends to 'trade' detergents under that name. Otherwise its trademark-squatting. If someone wants to sell furniture under the name "BattleBots", thats legal. Likewise, if someone trades ISP services (as this guy did) under the term "BattleBots", thats also perfectly legal.

The domain name should be his.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[error0x100]

That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.

No, trademark infringement isn't quite that simple. Trademarks are associated with specific goods, in this case BattleBots are trading in "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots." It is only trademark infringement if Barrett also intended to trade "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots" under that name. Clearly he has not, he is trading "internet services" under that name. Under trademark law, this is completely legal. I could legally for example sell fast food under the tradename "Biap", and not only would it NOT be infringing on your "biap", but I would also have a legal right to www.biap.org and www.biap.com, had I got there first. Even if I'm not trading anything I might still have rights to those domains if I was clearly not intending to profit from them and wasn't acting in bad faith. A company called Biap doesn't automatically have rights to biap.org, certainly not under trademark laws at any rate.

If the BattleBots TV show people have a case, its not because of a trademark issue - Barrett is clearly not attempting to hijack their profits, he is not even competing with them. He would have to actually be competing with them for it to be a trademark issue.

Cybersquatting, maybe, but trademark misappropriation, no. I don't think its deliberate cybersqatting though, as anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense. Cybersquatting alone has nothing to do with trademark law anyway, it is just sometimes fought using a trademark issue, since a lot of cybersquatting cases also happen to be trademark cases.

Standardard IANAL disclaimer applies.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[error0x100]

anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense

OK .. I see the .com had already been registered long before Barrett registerd the .org. So this might be deliberate cybersquatting. That does not make it a trademark infringement however, all the other criteria still appy.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a MacDonalds plumbing service where I live .. if they had registered MacDonalds.com before the burger franchise, they would have had rights to keep it.

As it turns out, the burger franchise has not registered MacDonalds.com. Nor would they, as they know how to spell their own name.

Re:This guy *is* squatting

[Ben Hutchings]

I'm surprised. Surely some of their customers will mis-spell the name sometimes.

Success

[zexxxx]

How can you sleep comfortably at night when you deliberately stamp to death the ant that minds its own business? Reminds me of an old game I once tried, "In pursuit of Greed". It sucks to see such nonsense everyday. People are so full of it. So much for co-existance. Why does Stephen Hawking need to give a damn about co-existing with AI when two brains core dump when run simultaneously on the same processor!

Uhhh... keep at it people.

Advice.

[matek]

Hello citizens of United States Of America.

This kind of thing could never be justified here in Europe (or at least in Denmark where I live). We even had a case once, where some young people bought Jolt.DK, and Jolt Cola claimed the domain name. You know what ? Jolt Cola (r) lost BIG time.

Apparently what you need is an organization that would protect single small business/consumer from the big corporations. It really pisses me off everytime I see some poor individual being screwed by a big company - and that's when I realize - I'm SO happy to be living where I am now..

Re:Advice.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about in France, where somebody sued an
art magazine nearly 100 years old for
coming up earlier in search engines than
they did? I believe "Leonardo" was the
name in question. Sorry, everywhere has
their own weird stuff.

Simple, pain free solution

[Ikari Gendou]

Just add a little line saying "We are NOT affiliated with Comedy Central's Battlebots. The Battlebots official website can be found here."
Battlebots.com will get their hits from people mistakenly typing in battlebots.org, and everyone can get along! If people would just take a moment and do that simple thing if they have a domain that might get accidental hits, we might not have these problems.

Yes, I know. Wishful thinking..

Re:Simple, pain free solution

[pjrc]

Just add a little line saying "We are NOT affiliated with Comedy Central's Battlebots. The Battlebots official website can be found here." Battlebots.com will get their hits from people mistakenly typing in battlebots.org, and everyone can get along!

As I understand, this was one of the two things he proposed in his response. The other was giving them the name for just under $6000 (losses expected from not having the name)... which may be a lot of money to you and me, but really that's pocket change for a TV studio.

Perhaps he really is offering a "bona fide Internet bots service". You wouldn't know it from the web page, of which every single word seems to be about the domain name dispute.

Don't boycott Battlesbots...

[rant-mode-on]

Don't boycott Battlebots - watch it, and boycott those companies that advertise on it. And tell those companies that you're doing so too.

Re:dont hate

[uucp]

BattleBots was a registered trademark 16 months before this guy squatted on the domain.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but this is quoted from the first reply to bb(tm):

The trademark for Battlebots was not obtained by your client until October 24,
2000. Barrett registered the domain name "battlebots.org" in August, 2000

Also, this is what the TESS has to say about when the trademark was registered:

Registration Number
2397203
Registration Date
October 24, 2000

NSI records show that the bb.org domain record was created on "2000-08-28 06:52:41", as a previous user has already mentioned. It would seem that Barrett registered the domain about two months before bb(tm) had their (tm).

battlebots.???

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why the TLD system doesn't work. I wonder why commercial can screw organization. I wonder why people trust a legal system where you have to have money to win. I wonder why nobody cares.

I wonder how much longer this will go on until it leads to the first case of violence.

I wonder how many of those male lawyers in lw.com and battlebots.com like to wear silk panties and womens clothing? They get a rise out of how it feels to have their cocks wrapped up in panties with a cock ring while they are in court ruining somebodys life.

But who would want to do the surveilance? YuCK! Think of the nasty stuff you'd see.

I'll see you all next coming fall,
. . on the big rock candy mountain .

Re:dont hate

[cshotton]

Go do a TESS search for "battlebots" and look at the very earliest filing, 2397203. This was a filing by the event organizer that ran the first BattleBots contest. That organization is the predecessor of the one claiming the mark and responded to by the squatter's daddy.

There is no way the subsequent applications would have been allowed by the USPTO unless the original filer had either assigned that mark to BattleBots, Inc. or the latter's filing clearly indicated that they were the same organization.

So, it is quite safe to infer that the earliest filing will be the one that any judge looks at, and I'd bet it's also the one that BattleBots, Inc.'s lawyers are referencing.

Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

The show already existed in August 2000 (when battlebots.org was registered). Even if Comedy Central didn't have a trademark, I believe battlebots.org really makes us remember the TV show and a lot of people will be lured into the site thinking it does. Let them have the domain.

Pfffff..

[tcc]

This is really nuts!, I think he should avoid confrontation since he has no money, give them the domain, and when everything is transfered, we post a new slashdot story and tell them how we feel about it, while giving them a nice slashdot effect.

This is democratic, mature, LEGAL and will surely piss them off, especially if everyone takes the time to write their concerns about their actions.

I can't beleive they went after a .ORG... ORG!!!! with lawyers like that... how low can you go..

Re:Pfffff..

[iamblades]

Just because the address has a .org after it definately does not mean that the owners have noble intentions, or maybe even legal intentions.

I'll leave it to a judge to decide who is right, but the TV show has the right to protect their interests, even if they don't win the suit...

Battlebots, naturally

[zoomshorts]

If this guy gave us his address, I would personally send hin 5 bucks to help his cause. The corporate weenies need to be sent a message.
I am writing the BattleBots people to put in my two cents worth, and I am close to 50 years old. I will tell them that I will cease and desist watching their show. No big loss. In a more important vein, participants in the Battlebots show should boycott the show for two years. This would bring the Battlebots assholes to their knees and allow time for more complete development of better bots to battle with. I say hit them in their pocketbooks!

Re:Battlebots, naturally

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, why should the competitors boycot? Some guy registers a domain after a trademark is applied for, after battlebots.com is registered, and over 2 years after battlebots was formed. Then he demands $5K to give up the domain?

Sound like extortion to me.

Take a look at the history of BattleBots and RobotWars. You'll find that Smile Records which then became Profile records ties up the events in courtrooms. (even suing *anybody* whom holds *any* RC combat event) The founders of BattleBots did a lot to bring the sport back. They fought countless court battles and brought about fair contracts (although shity toilets at the last event) for the competitors. Now somebody tries to extort $5K form them and everybody is up in arms trying to defend a cybersquator. I hate US trademark and patent law. But do a little research first. This guy *is* a cyber squater....

http://www.robotcombat.com/history.html has a good background on the sport. (also read about Marc Thorpe whom *really* got screwed)

Re:Battlebots, naturally

[Anonymous Coward]

BattleBots is now a trademark, but it hadn't been granted when battlebots.org was registered. Besides, any properly-run system of registrars would never assign battlebots.org to a for-profit business, much less the same organization that already has battlebots.com!

>sigh< I Lied...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found out more info:

From www.uspto.gov Battlebots, Inc. filed for the trademark on April 12, 1999 and claims first use on June 30, 1999, well before the battlebots.org
domain was created on 2000-08-28

Too bad /. don't have an edittable queue....

I did resubmit the information, but I guess I'm not cool enough.

And damn them to hell for killing the hidden sids, I woulda posted it there as well, but no go. Where is the meta-discussion going on nowadays?

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org?

[Red Moose]

I wonder why this can be a problem - I thought originally the domains where set to diffrentiate between them all. I'm sure I read many years ago something like:

.com: companies/commercial stuff
.org: general non-profit organisations, like WWF.org vs. WWF.com (World Wild-life Fund or World Wrestling Federation)

What's next? StarTrek.mil? Discovery.edu?

Commerical VS low profit

[colk99]

Why does BattleBots inc. want a .org domain they are a big corporation so they should be using .biz or .com, .org domains are for low profit or none profit organzations not some coporation who wants to control anything to do with their name. So they don't get battlebots.org, they could have just asked the guy to put up a website saying this domain is not related anyway with battlebots inc. What if the same thing happend but said person was in a country that dosen't recieve battlebots, they probly would lose the domain anyway as ICANN will immediatly usually give up the domain if you so much as claim copyright on it.

Re:That TV show will be off of the air soon anyway

[hebertrich]

You're making a lot more sense with this comment
than any arguing about dates.
Battlebots chat was there before and will be there after.IRC is not a passing thing.
IRC's been there since the beginning of the net
and will be there way longer than that to say
the least boring tv show.
Their chances are better than a tv show.
Which i never watch cause it's BORING.

cheers

Free speech

[Eric E. Coe]

It doesn't matter. Keeping a domain you have registered is important to maintaining your free speech rights. Trademarks (and other IP) are hostile to free speech, and therefore corporate interests have become hostile to free speech. It doesm't matter how lame a "script kiddie/wannabe admin" this person is, or how annoying his attitude is. What matters is the free hand corporations and scum-sucking lawers have been given to shut him up for random reasons.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, the owner of the .org is running a business from this and many other sites. He doesn't need donations - despite his pleading.

IP rights

[dollargonzo]

Although i can understand how battlebots.com might want to have battlebots.org just because of the domain name resemblance, doesnt mean they should have it. If there are two people with the same name, say John Smith, and they both want johnsmith.com, who should have it? for example www.billgates.com was available...(until microsoft bought it)...but they bought it, didnt advocate for having it! hmmm, story: battlebots sinks lower than microsoft! there are no laws regarding domain name preferences, especially .orgs.

Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org?

[trash eighty]

unfortunately in the commerical world such things no longer seem to matter. money talks.

battlebots.com

[MobyDisk]

They already have www.battlebots.com!!! This makes sense, because they are not a dot org! This is only happening because there are some lawyers who have way too much time on their hands.

I am a battlebots fan, and I am going to compose an email to comedy central alerting them that the "geek" fan base they count on is the same group that will abandon them if they pull this stuff. I suggest you all do the same.


www.battlebots.com contact page
Comedy Central Battlebots page (they have a message board)

very wrong

[archen]

This whole situation strikes me as very bad, and I am very disappointed in comedy central. Truthfully, I don't really care if this guy has "battlebots.org" or not, what pisses me off is that comedy central ALREADY has "battlebots.com". What gives them the write to take every domain name? .com is supposed to be reserved for commercial use, and if this guy had battlebots.com I could almost see the point. But not only does this guy have the .org extention, but commedy central already has the commercial one and therefore in my opinion have no right! I mean this is seriously wrong when regular people with .net and .org have to get trademarks to protect their domains from companies that already have the .com extention.

So now basically if any business wants to take my domain name, they just use my domain name for a product of some sort and take it away from me... It is certainly sad when some corperations are above the law, and can simply step on people as they please because they have a lot of money.

Battlebots.org not on Google

[bozo42]

I did a search on Google for Battlebot and it's derivatives and looked at the results returned hoping to find a cached copy or something pointing to battlebot.org. I found no pages pointing to or mentioning battlebots.org in the first 20 pages of results I looked thru. I vote he's cyber-squatting. But, I still think lawyer$ and big corporation$ sometimes do the wrong thing just because they can.

Re:Battlebots.org not on Google

[bozo42]

It's me again. Did more searches on Google for Battlebots and IRC. The only things I could find mentioning the two together are msgs on IRC talking about the TV show battlebots. If this guy had something going on the net this long I think Google would have found at least something of it by now. Cyber-squating fer sure.

why do the need .org, he left them .com it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Just my thoughts. The guy owns the .org and didn't squat on the .com domain. Most peopl(average joe) automaticly think .com when looking for things online. I don't se how anyone has been hurt by this guy owning the .org, not that i can visit his site even -_-!

I didn't know this

[Anonymous Coward]

I can squat a domain after the trademark was applied for by someone else. Then offer to 'settle' for $6000, and when the copyright owner threatens me I can sic the slashdot zealot brigade on them! I bet they violated the GPL too!

Does slashdot get a cut of the settlment, if I win?

.org non profit organisation

[gnugnugnu]

for chrissakes its a dot org!

so long as he does not try and ask for money from them (ie more than his costs) and they already own the dot com i dont see why they should have it.

Why should a company be allowed to force out or own .net and .org ?
What does "confusingly similar mean"? Is a fansite confusingly similar?

The whole damn system is wrong!
check this out:
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/

Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org?

[grue23]

From RFC 1591:

COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
concern about the administrative load and system performance if
the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is
being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
commercial registrations in the subdomains.

ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
government organizations may fit here.

I recall some earlier RFC saying that ORG was for nonprofits and individuals, but I can't quite recall which one that was.

This is DUMB

[Catskul]

Isnt it intresting that if you go to www.battlebots.org that there is no content there except his stupid plea for help? Obvoiusly this has nothing to do with his business and if he was woried about losing customers from the loss of his domain, he wouldnt take up the space with that garbage. He also spelled "battlebots.org" as "battoelbots.org" showing how little care he has put into this.

Thats just my two cents

The ultimate Irony

[Schrader]

The bigest irony of it all is the fact that BattleBots is NOT a big corperation. BattleBots inc was started by two competitors of the (non-telavised) Robot Wars (In San Francisco). The Orginal Robot Wars (not to be confused with the UK, which was a spin-off) was shut down by the greed of one of it's partners, Profile Records. Battlebots has done an amazing job of keeping the competition Builder Centric and not giving into the glitz of Robot Wars. Ask any competitor who has been there and they will tell you: Battlebots is for Builders, Robot Wars is for TV.

A great history of the "death" of Robot Wars can be found here: http://www.robotcombat.com/history.html by Jim Smentowski, builder of "Nightmare". He was first at Robot Wars '97, the last Robot Wars event. There was no Robot Wars '98 because of the legal hassels. The first BattleBots event, pre-Comedy Central, was in '99 in Long Beach. I have been to every event since '97 (except one) and I have met Trey Roski and Greg Munson, founders of BattleBots. They are great guys who really care for the sport.

I am betting that this turns out to just be another overzellous lawyer getting the the way. Remember that in order to keep a trademark, you have to defend it.

Let's look at the WHOIS

[Scoria]

[root@initialized /]# whois battlebots.org@whois.corenic.net
[whois.corenic.net]
Registrant Hot Networking (template COCO-695905)
email.the.admin.contact@battlebots.org
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA

Domain Name: battlebots.org
Status: production

Admin Contact:
Barrett Lyon (COCO-565137) blyon@theshell.com
9163878649
Technical Contact:
Hot Networking Hostmaster (COCO-565138) support@theshell.com
9163878649

CORE Registrar: CORE-80

Record created: 2000-08-28 06:52:41 UTC by CORE-80
Record expires: 2002-08-28 01:59:40 UTC

Domain servers in listed order:

ns1.theshell.com
ns2.theshell.com
ns1.qwest.net

Database last updated on 2001-09-02 18:26:39 UTC
[root@initialized /]#

--

The record was created August 28, 2000. Battlebots came on the air before then. They very well could be cybersquatting. Then again, battlebots.org may have transferred registrars.

They could prove they aren't cybersquatting by showing a valid proof of purchase of the domain dated before Battlebots went into production. Just an idea...

Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org?

[Cramer]

Yes, and in a perfect world, it would be very funny to watch Internic (or whomever) tell BattleBots(tm) to to f*** off: "You are not a non-profit ORGanization. You are a COMercial entity."

I recall a nasty-gram from Internic requiring Interpath to register and use ".com" for all our customers as ".net is for network service providers". You have no idea the hell that created for all the shell users ("mercury.interpath.net" had to become "mercury.interpath.com")... That was many, many years ago.

Now, everyone snarfs up .com, .net, .org, .cc, .to, .info, .biz, .foo, etc. for their desired name as well as every conceivable misspelling and typo they can think of. And then hire lawyers to harass anyone with anything even remotely similar. (we all remember the QVC idiocy?)

my left nut needs sucking battlebots.com

[Anonymous Coward]

yea they are really trying to stop people using their name if its not them.. oh my whats this.. a battlebot domain name.. lets see its hosted by some g1mp on a free redirecting site.. pointing at:http://www.comedycentralsbattlebots.homestead.c om/battlebots.html

what else.. oh :©2001 BattleBots Net. All Rights Reserved.

battlebots.net points to a hosting site
come on take them down.. go on.. you know you want to gaybattlebotswithfrillybits.com

take on speed.com and take on my left nut!

Why do we even have root names anyway?!?!

[eddiert]

If a single trademark entitles you to all of the .com, .org, .tv, .ad nausiums. Why do they even exist. The reason that they are there is so that different people can register them. Companies should register .coms and be happy.

This seems odd.

[Buzzwang]

Before you comment, I've read through all the info presented at battlebots.org:

I can understand The TV show wanting the domain name, and I can understand this guy not wanting to give it up, and I can see why he shouldn't have to. But, why did he register his site as battlebots.org when the word 'battle' seems to have nothing to do with the services he provides? I could easily see ircbots.org or something akin to that, but why battlebots.org? None of the info presented on the site (battlebots.org) seems to tell me why it has this name. Further, if the guy already runs a shell service on another domain anme, why not just take the $70, transfer services to the other name and live with it?

I like to fight the good fight, and this will be a good fight, but I also only take up fights that I think I have a chance of winning. If this were me, I'd transfer the name and pray daily that they don't try to sue me anyway.

I run my own site and services on a little network at home, and I must say that before I registered for a domain name I did so serious research (about 4 months worth) on all of the names I was considering. I ended up picking one that I did like, though it is kinda long, because there is nothing else on or off the net that resembles it in name or form anywhere. The TV show in question here has existed for 3 or 4 years now. So yes, this guy did register his domain before the name was trademarked, but the name existed before he ever registered the name. Paradox? That would be for a judge to decide.

money doesn't always win

[NaturePhotog]

As most of you know, in any dispute over domains it's the money that wins.

Er...not always:

• Sting lost his bid to take over the gamer site, sting.com (WIPO ruling)
• The World Wrestling Federation recently lost a battle with the World Wildlife Fund over wwf.org (British court ruling)

Of course, Sting seems to have gotten his way eventually, as sting.com is now his site.

If You Hate .doc files...

[mr_don't]

I reposted the attack letter in (crummy) HTML here.

Re:If You Hate .doc files...

[mr_don't]

Oops, I mean the posting is here.

BattleBots != Comedy Central

[Anonymous Coward]

BattleBots Inc is not owned by Comedy Central or Viacom. BattleBots runs independent robotic combat events which Comedy Central (and rumored soon/eventually Fox) videotapes and airs. BattleBots INC sued somebody whom registered battlebots.org after BattleBots was started airing, after the registered BattleBots.com, and after they applied for a TradeMark.

So some guy registers a domain after he sees a TV show, after BattleBots INC applies for a trademark, after BattleBots INC registers battlebots.com, and he wants $5K to give up the domain? Sounds like cyber-squating to me.

Still stupid BattleBots for not registering battlebots.org when they registered battlebots.com

Test

[TeachingMachines]

Just starting out, and I want to check my prefs.

Re: But isn't .com for commercial stuff? not .org?

[fedos]

we all remember the QVC idiocy?

No, we don't. Remind us.