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

[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

[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

easy solution

[kfckernel]

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

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

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!

[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:

[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.

/. 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

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.

[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.

[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?

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...

[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.

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..

$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.

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.

Re:"Boycott X"

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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
  

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.

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

[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

[Ben Hutchings]

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

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..

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

[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.

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..

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)

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.

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?)

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: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.)

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.