Battlebots Battles It Out: TV Show Versus IRC

nope nope by TheSHAD0W · 2001-09-01 17:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

There are two paths: by moogla · 2001-09-01 17:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Find someone who will fight for them pro-bono (as they have a strong case) or get someone like the EFF involved (for funding)
Give up but ask for a little more than originally offered if at all possible.
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).

--
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE

Re:/. their PR department? by sparcv9 · 2001-09-01 18:37 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

This is not a Fugazi .sig

Wrong answer. Slashdot is a � of BSI by yerricde · 2001-09-01 19:40 · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

My email to Battlebots by phulshof · 2001-09-01 19:46 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:This has changed my mind. by sallen · 2001-09-01 20:03 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

This guy *is* squatting by cshotton · 2001-09-01 22:25 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--

Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!

Re:This guy *is* squatting by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-02 05:02 · Score: 2, Informative

this guy watched the TV show and decided it'd be a cute (though thoroughly non-original) name for his IRC service
Its only trademark infringement if he intended to mis-use the trademark to make a profit, and even then its not so clear - remember the windows95.com situation (before CNET absorbed and threw away what was by then winfiles.com), they won, Microsoft lost windows95.com. Its not "misappropriation" just to USE someone elses trademark at all. If it is, then we're all in trouble. How many people who own personal sites actually check first if there is some obscure company with that trademark when they register? I know I sure as hell didn't.
Trademarks don't automatically give rights to domain names, as you seem to imply. Otherwise, I'm sure that half of sites out there are infringing on some or other corporate trademark. His site is "bot"-related.
The other thing this is a .org, commercial entities should be on .com. Lastly, he "got there first". There is a MacDonalds plumbing service where I live .. if they had registered MacDonalds.com before the burger franchise, they would have had rights to keep it.
This guy isn't trying to compete with BattleBots, which is important for trademark issues. His "product" is entirely unrelated to the TV show. Trademarks belong only to particular product groups, which is why its completely legal for someone to sell (for example) Linux detergent. Likewise, it would be illegal for Linus to register the trademark "Linux" under "detergents", because he would have to show he actually intends to 'trade' detergents under that name. Otherwise its trademark-squatting. If someone wants to sell furniture under the name "BattleBots", thats legal. Likewise, if someone trades ISP services (as this guy did) under the term "BattleBots", thats also perfectly legal.
The domain name should be his.
Re:This guy *is* squatting by error0x100 · 2001-09-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.
No, trademark infringement isn't quite that simple. Trademarks are associated with specific goods, in this case BattleBots are trading in "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots." It is only trademark infringement if Barrett also intended to trade "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots" under that name. Clearly he has not, he is trading "internet services" under that name. Under trademark law, this is completely legal. I could legally for example sell fast food under the tradename "Biap", and not only would it NOT be infringing on your "biap", but I would also have a legal right to www.biap.org and www.biap.com, had I got there first. Even if I'm not trading anything I might still have rights to those domains if I was clearly not intending to profit from them and wasn't acting in bad faith. A company called Biap doesn't automatically have rights to biap.org, certainly not under trademark laws at any rate.
If the BattleBots TV show people have a case, its not because of a trademark issue - Barrett is clearly not attempting to hijack their profits, he is not even competing with them. He would have to actually be competing with them for it to be a trademark issue.
Cybersquatting, maybe, but trademark misappropriation, no. I don't think its deliberate cybersqatting though, as anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense. Cybersquatting alone has nothing to do with trademark law anyway, it is just sometimes fought using a trademark issue, since a lot of cybersquatting cases also happen to be trademark cases.
Standardard IANAL disclaimer applies.

Re:Something is indeed strange here by rmgrotkierii · 2001-09-01 23:16 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

--
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.

battlebots.com by MobyDisk · 2001-09-02 02:32 · Score: 4, Informative

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)

The ultimate Irony by Schrader · 2001-09-02 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:For anyone who uses IRC... this is obvious. by Cramer · 2001-09-02 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Slashdot Mirror

Battlebots Battles It Out: TV Show Versus IRC

13 of 206 comments (clear)