Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Serious Fights Yahoo! trademark
fsck writes "Australian actor Yahoo Serious is fighting Internet portal Yahoo! for the trademark to the word Yahoo, registered with the Australian Trade Marks Office in August. Yahoo! was founded in 1994, whereas Yahoo Serious changed his name by deed poll in 1980. It sounds as though Mr Serious is, among other things, tired of receiving any more misdirected Yahoo! snail mail." The levels of comedy to this are astounding.
april fools is still quite a ways off, guys.
sometimes, it seems, the ridiculous is more real than the fantasy.
wow.
great way to start my morning.... with a cup of coffee snarfed out my nose and into my lap. thanks, slashdot.
--endcycle--
where was this smuck back in 1994? why wait until now to say something about it. im sure in the last seven years he has heard of yahoo and should of said something sooner. This is just outright people being stupid. It's like the guy named legally to oxford to keep oxford university from taking his domain.
there are no supid questions only stupid people!
But I say "First come, first served" Sorry, Yahoo!
So now, common words can be registered? I think that "yahoo" was around longer than either of these companies/organizations/people. That's ridiculous. Heck, that's like me registering the number "Nine".
Please, people, this is Serious.
Kiss my bass.
Yakoff Smirnoff sueing everyone that's every said "I love this country" for copyright infringement? Give me a break...
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Maybe he should just copyright the concept of naming and be done with it. :-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
Ya know, I hope this guy wins! As much as US Companies seem to LOVE copyrights, it would be irony if a person took on a big company like this and won. Not that yahoo is a "big bad company" or anything, but its just the whole little guy vs big busines, should be fun to watch it unfold. *grin*
No I didnt spell check this post...
Is Yahoo Serious going to make Yahoo! give up the domain Yahoo.com? This reminds me of the Madonna domain dispute.
Fight Spammers!
What about Jonathan Swift who inveted the word in the first place?
Surely the great great great grand nice (twice removed on her mother's side) could have some contention about this?
GCM d+ s+:+ a- c++ U? P! L E-- W++ NM+ V PS- PE+ Y+ PGP- t 5+ X?+ R+++$ tv+ b+ DI++++ D---- G e
I seem to remember that you could use any name if you didn't compete on same turf.
Yahoo (the portal) will have to find another name for this part of its activity...
+
"Freeman said registration of a celebrity name as a trademark had already been done by names such as Australian cricketing legend Sir Donald Bradman, actress Farrah Fawcett and Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith"
OK for Farrah, but who the hell is this Sir Bradman, who is Dick (sic) Smith ?
And who is this "a case brought by actor and director Yahoo Serious "
He's know to have played in "Young Einstein"...
After such a feat, I would have changed my name to John Smith and gone into reclusion... What a name !
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Seriously (no pun intended), this has been talked about and been on the books for ages... he was never a tall poppy, or we would have carved him up ages ago.
no sig for you
I actually wondered about this one, having seen Serious' magnum-crapus 'Young Einstein' several years ago - early nineties, IIRC. I think the important reason why he's waited this long, is that he's an Australian, and this whole thing started with the August registration in Australia of the Yahoo! brand.
I know that you supposedly can't trademark a proper name, and since Yahoo had changed his proper name -to- Yahoo ages ago, he's got a very good point. This one'll be fun to see the results of.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Yahoo should just register Yahoo! with the exlamation mark... that way mr. serious can lighten up a bit... bah...
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
He can't be serious!
Money for nothing, pix for free
Was he waiting until Yahoo! got so big that he could actually make some money from the lawsuit? He's had plenty of time, I really doubt he just heard of Yahoo last month. Does anyone even know if there's a time limit for making such claims? Or even if a patent held in Australia is a valid claim against an international company.
Besides, everyone know's that the company appends an exclamation mark ('!') at the end of Yahoo, so it's a completely different name!
-Space for rent
If it's involving Yahoo Serious, the comedy levels will be astoundingly low.
AC's cheerfully ignored
All we need now is Jonathan Swift to come back from beyond the grave and instigate a class action on behalf of some little lilliputians...
If you read the link, it finds in favor of Yahoo.com. Pertinent info below:
From the Australian Trade Marks Office:
Yahoo Serious v Yahoo! Inc [2001] ATMO 74 (13 August 2001)
The evidence shows that Mr Serious does not use his name, Yahoo Serious, or his forename, to distinguish goods or services. It is true that he writes, directs and produces motion picture films in which he stars; however, it is not apparent in the evidence that either of the words `Yahoo Serious', or the word `Yahoo' are used as a trade mark in relation to the films. The closest that I can find in the evidence to use of any sign that might be as a trade mark is the repeated use of the words, a `Serious Production' or `Serious Entertainment' on promotional material associated with the motion pictures. However, this use is obviously of no assistance to Mr Serious as the opposed trade mark is the word YAHOO! and I therefore do not have to decide whether this use of the word SERIOUS is as a trade mark.
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
Today's show has been brought to you by.. the letter A, the letter D... shit, someone copyrighted the letter D.. ok ok, the number 3... fuck not again
Sorry, but it won't happen, bacause of tha fact that it is a big corp vs a person. In todays world, especially the Internet world, the odds are given. Sorry Yahoo(person)! BTW I loved his movie Young Frankestein, especially the scene where the prison chef is baking pie with live kittens! You could see them under moving under the dough!.. *lol*...
I think most of you guys are missing the point.
:)
Yahoo is moving to register the trademark now, they applied for it in August. Being an actor, it means that if Yahoo Serious was to release merchandise etc. under the name Yahoo, Yahoo! inc. would probably sue him.
This wasn't a problem before they applied for the trademark.
How would you guys feel if I tried to register the trademark "Linus Torvalds" tomorrow?
I think that Mr. Serious has a serious point.
(pardon the pun
The appeals-court will most surely turn it down, and thats the end of the story.
I'm not a lawyer, but makes this interesting at all is the sheer absurdity of his claims.
If Yahoo! had been named "Yahoo Serious!" then he'd have a case, it happens plenty of actors have strange sounding first names.
I for one, has never heard about the actor Yahoo Serious, and if he is worried that people might mistake Yahoo! for himself, then he is seriously deluded and overrates his own fame.Besides, yahoo is a very old and common outburst, and they are not even in the same business.
Yahoo! is a trademark of an internet portal. Yahoo Serious' "business" has nothing in common with Yahoo!'s, so what does it even have to do with him? I think the schmuk just wants to get in the news because it has eluded him for quite a few years. Either that or he's looking for a quick buck (settlement).
-Shade
He can't understand how a name that he has used, has been identified with him, been exposed worldwide, how someone can come along and simply take that," he said. "We're wanting to preserve his right to use the name Yahoo."
Chrysiliou said his client, who changed his name by deed poll in 1980, was widely known and had been extensively publicised as Yahoo.
What this article isn't mentioning is that, now that Serious has gotten Yahoo! involved in litigation as a publicity stunt, he IS violating their copyright by using Yahoo!'s fame to get his own name in the newspaper.
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
Don't poke the lion, boy.
Goat sex free since 2001
A: So I'm starting this internet company.
C: Oh yeah, well you better have a really good name for it. Something to stick in people heads.
A: Oh I do, I'm really excited about it.
C: What is it?
A: Yahoo!
C: So you're excited, so what's the name.
A: No, that's the name.
C: What's the name?
A: Yahoo!
C: I can't tell it's exciting, what's the name!
A: I just told you the name.
C: Why can't you just tell me the name.
A: Yahoo!
C: You can't be serious.
A: I'm not, that's someone else.
C: That's not what I'm asking!
Keep in mind, this is the same man who has been bringing us fine cinema such as "Young Einstein" for many many years.
On the other hand, Yahoo! provides an outstanding method of locating pr0n.
I guess the courts will just have to decide this one.
On behalf of my fellow Australians I would like to apologize for the crimes committed against comedy by Yahoo Serious.
then maybe I should sue Pause Technologies for infringing on my name. I wonder if TiVo would pay my legal costs? :)
Stefan Pause
It seems, tha Yahoo! registered it's name in australia THIS August. So before this, this guy hadn't to care about Yahoo!
But now it seems, he thinks to have found a Source of money, so he sues Yahoo!...
It seems to me that a trademark on a name doesn't tradmark everything remotely similar. Yahoo! has punctuation, Yahoo Serious is a weird Australian violin-playing genius. I don't expect to see too much confusion...
I'm in favour of this lawsuit. Even if it loses, it will be interesting enough to offer insight into the way the courts favour corporate muscle over the little guy. Indeed, this lawsuit is a parable for the growing corporate domination of the USA (if it loses).
If Yahoo Serious wins, it will prove that, despite all that has happened to take our rights away, and all that has been done to make copyright law the tool of corporate evil, the underdog can still use copyright law to defend himself from evil corporations. It may, in fact, prove that copyright law is the tool of the common man (if it wins), despite corruption by corporate interests.
If it loses, this case will provide further evidence that copyright laws are unjust, and should be ignored at will. If it wins, this case will prove that copyright laws are just, and can still be used by ordinary people to defend themselves against corporate titans.
The fact that this case is even being fought is proof that copyright laws are able to be turned to the hands of the fading middle classes who are the heart and soul of the American Dream. The fact that it has come to the point that a man must defend his name against corporate intrusions is proof that corporations have twisted copyright law to their own ends, so that it no longer serves the purpose of good.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
I think I'll just register every letter of the alphabet and charge you all a per letter fee for writing anything! This is rediculous. Why would you change your name to something like Yahoo anyway? You might as well call yourself "Bufoon" or "Over Zealous Idiot".
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
If only I had been there before the Waltons. Then it would be Good Night, John-Boy forever!
...you wouldn't want to tarnish his career.
Weren't yahoos petty government officials in Gulliver's Travels? I think Swift was paradying British officialdom at the time.
When this guy loses his case, is there any chance that the Judge can force him to change his name to Iyama Twat? It seems so much more appropriate.
- - Sha la la la . . .
Something mentioned in passing in this article gave me quite a turn. It said that several other act(ors/resses) had trademarked their names. What exactly does that imply? Granted, Farrah Fawcett isn't so common a name, but Dick Smith? Does this mean that had some other Australian actor named Dick Smith wanted to get into show business, he would have had to have changed his name or risked a law suit? What are the actual benefits of having one's name trademarked like that?
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
jeez, I hope nobody goes out and copyright's "Eggplant". The ECA would be screwed!
Eggplants!
Ace905
[President] The Eggplant Coders Association
Ace
Apple Computer and Apple Vacations. They both use the same identifier, there's a potential trademark violation. Except there isn't, because one is "Computer" and is associated with hardware and software, while the other is "Vacations" and is associated with the travel industry. Easy to tell them apart. This is how trademark disputes using common words are dealt with.
Yahoo! (with the exclamation mark, which they have always used even if their users don't) is associated with a Web portal, and has been for years, while Yahoo Serious (with the last name) has always been associated with comedy (well, loosely). "Yahoo" is a common word, but they're used differently in each case, so there's no confusion.
If you ask me, this is just a cheap publicity ploy by Yahoo Serious to get his name back in the public eye, since his acting ability is incapable of doing so. The dispute is a non-issue, and will be treated as such by the courts.
My name is Scott. Does that mean I can sue the owner of scott.com? Nope.
Did Yahoo Serios pull his current name out of thin air, i.e. was is completely originaly and never been said before? Nope, that word has been around a lot longer than he's been using it.
He's been in more recent movies than Young Einstein but when was the last time you heard his name mentioned? During promos for Young Einstein.
Does he have a chance in hell of winning? Nope.
This sort of thing really annoys me. This idiot (and echoing a previous poster, I have to apologise on behalf of Australia for the crimes against comedy) was a short term flavour of the month in the early nineties.
He just released a movie last year that AFAIK went nowhere, his career is fucked, so, hmmmm I know, I will sue a big company and make some cash.
The is opportunism, pure and simple...
Learn to Improvise
I don't see a problem, Yahoo Serious does not have
an exclamation point anywhere in his name.
DOS is dead, and no one cares...
If there's a Bourne Shell, I'll see you there
I can't see why he bother's with this, he just can't win. He just can loose. It's like McDonalds, I bet there was alot of guys named McDonalds even before that company was started. Maybe he should think about changing his name to Slash Dot instead
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
So, the telephone tones, and this. What's the beef? I saw the Australia incident episode of the Simpsons last night. Is there a theme? I guess it's just the outta control everyone sue everyone . . . as on South Park. What next? You named your child the same name as mine?!?!?
If you don't like this . . . MOD someone else up.
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
There was a resturaunt in Vancouver called De Niro's. Robert De Niro took them to court saying they were infringing on his copyright by calling the resturaunt by that name. He won and as a result the resturaunt changed it's name to "Section 11" or something, the section of the copyright act he sued them under..... So there are precedents of similar things happening.
A google search would do the trick, or you could just read this Wikipedia article I contributed to which should give you some idea.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"Apple Computer and Apple Vacations. They both use the same identifier, there's a potential trademark violation. Except there isn't, because one is "Computer" and is associated with hardware and software, while the other is "Vacations" and is associated with the travel industry. Easy to tell them apart. This is how trademark disputes using common words are dealt with. "
Right idea except Apple did have a trademark dispute with Apple Records (The Beatles record label...you know that popular 60's group)which is a similar situation to the one you're describing
Now IANAL but Apple Computers and Apple Records are easy to tell apart but Jobs lost in the trademark dispute, so you're analogy whilst logical has a historical precedent against it.
their stock price and business model, Yahoo! should probably change their name to OhShit!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
After "Young Einstein", he should feel lucky if anyone mentioned the word "Yahoo" ever again.
free online diet tracking.
...but Dick Smith? Does this mean that had some other Australian actor named Dick Smith wanted to get into show business, he would have had to have changed his name or risked a law suit?
Nope, you've misread (or misunderstood) the article, which says, "Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith."
This Dick Smith has a large chain of electronic shops, called "Dick Smith Electronics" in Australia & New Zealand and also has many other products including foodstuffs and 'dickheads' matches (which subject to another bizarre lawsuit). His picture is on every electronics shop and he looks like some kind of uber-geek - like Bill Gates, but even more so.
HH
Here in Sweden, we had a similar case when H&M, the international clothing company, launched it's label LOGG a couple of years ago.
The Logg family sued, and won. H&M had to change the name of the label to "L.O.G.G. (Label Of Graded Goods)".
So really, this is no joke - it's serious (no pun intended).
:wq!
Thank for informing me.
Please note I am French :
Cricket is a game played by Englishmen (BBC broadcasts it sometime)
As for Australia, for us, it just as far as we may go from home. With New Zealand. Bloody too far.
Thanks again for the data
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I've often wondered if it would be possible to copyright the (C) copyright symbol, or register the (R) registered trademark symbol and then telling people that they can no longer use those symbols. Anybody every tried?
How about getting a patent for the business process of using the patent process to protect a minor or obvious invention for the purpose of stifling legitimate competition? You could then send cease and desist letters to all of the companies who use bogus patents to step on open source developers or kick around small companies with cool software or other products.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
instead of a glorified circus clown, I'd take this a bit more seriously. Truth is, Yahoo! is an acronym.
Another question that might clarify this, what would prevent me from changing my name to Yahoo notSerious? People can't register their first names as trademarks, can they?
Republicans are idiots.
On several levels.
1)Neither one is in competition. One is an Internet search engine, the other a "comedian."
2)The names are spelled differently. One with the "!" and one without.
3)One is a successful multi-million dollar company, the other a down and out loser looking to jump-start his sagging and failing career.
Personally I found his brand of humor to be insulting. I'd rather have my eyes taped open and be forced to watch Roseanne for a week straight than watch Young Einstein.
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
fsck, actually, according to the webpage, the LAWSUIT between Yahoo Serious and Yahoo! was filed in August, not the trademark by Yahoo! which was originally filed in 1996. Yahoo Serious may lose since he is supposed to (under trademark law) oppose any filing well before the 4 year period. At least, that's the way it works in the U.S... im sure australia has a similar case.
Does that mean that SERIOUS Sam might be in breach of Yahoo Serious trademark.
I don't want to play as 'Slightly Serious Sam' or 'Mostly Harmless Sam'
Dammit I wanna be Serious Sam and I want some serious fragging now.....
.. these stupid april fool's day articles. Nobody believes them, why do they keep getting posted? Get a life people!
Obligatory Simpsons Reference (taken from www.snpp.com):
---
[a slide shows "Yahoo Serious Festival"]
Lisa: I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.
---
IMHO Yahoo (the man) does have some claim to the word Yahoo as related to entertainment in Australia.
I notice that www.yippee.com is still available.
We apologize for any inconvenience cause by a miss-print in the first name of the individual above. The correct spelling is Ahyoo, not Yahoo.
Sincerely,
Ahyoo Serious?
The tagline for this movie would certainly be a trademark conflict with the "YAHOO!" mark.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Has nothing to do with this case, but....
in the future, will we have to check in to the trademark office before we name our kids?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I don't understand the hub-bub... So the guy was a cricket, big deal. I eat crickets for breakfast.
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
Too easy. Way too easy.
"Hey Leo! She likes me for me!"
I'm not as much of a fan of pop-rock as I used to be, but I seem to recall that excuse-for-an-actor DiCaprio(TM) Trademarked his name after this song hit the charts a few years back. Of course, I may be wrong.
Kinda off-topic, but it's not the first time somebody did this.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
(I just know I'm going to get flamed for this statement) Just from reading the posts so far, I think a lot of people are missing the point.
Yahoo!'s trademark gives them the necessary leverage needed to keep others from associating their name with products/services/activities/etc that have nothing to do with Yahoo!. As a result, Yahoo Serious (who apparently still has a career in Australia) runs the risk of legal troubles if he uses his legal first name to promote his movies. Imagine him making a movie that has a corresponding movie poster with wording like "Yahoo Presents...[movie title]" or a title like (in class Earnest fashion) "Yahoo Goes To The Outback." Yahoo! could, if they so desired, sue Yahoo Serious (or, more likely, whatever production company made the film) for trademark violations, since their trademarked name was used in the promotion of a product they had nothing to do with.
To put a spin on an anology someone else used on this subject, having the name Scott does not, indeed, give you the right to own scott.com. But if Scott Tissue got a trademark on the name "Scott", they could possibly sue you for making a homepage titled "Scott's Web Site", simply on the implication that Scott Tissue might be associated with the site due to the use of a trademarked name.
I still think Yahoo Serious will lose this legal battle, but it still kind of stinks that companies can trademark such phrases (instead of something a bit more obvious, like a logo).
My sigs always suck.
That's an upgrade from the prior stance of the Australian government. They had previously gone only so far as to express 'deep regret' over the incidents. This will hopefully lead to a better relationship between our nations. Now - can we talk about Paul Hogan...?
yahoo serious should pay US for loss of time and intelligence for watching that film. And what kind of actor has only three films to his name? This six year old has a more impressive film career: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Hartwell,+Taea Better to be a baby in the Frighteners than a lead role in a Yahoo Serious movie.
That is the most billiant marketing idea in the world. I gotta get me some dickheads!
Look out!
Bradman isn't just an Australian Legend - you've hit the nail on the head - he was without doubt the most brutally effective batsman who ever played first class cricket, by a country mile.
Played 80 innings in test matches, not out in 10, highest score 334, total runs 6996, average only 99.94 because he went for nothing in his last ever test - 4 runs would have been enough to make it a hundred average. In 338 first class matches we're looking at 211 centuries, including 41 doubles, 8 triples and an HS of 452 not out. The nearest competitors for average are Graeme Pollock (60.97 from 41 innings) and George Headley (60.83 from 40 innings). Of current players, Tendulkar averages 57.18, Steve Waugh 51.87 and Lara 47.68.
Search on 'Bodyline' and you'll see how there was an Imperial crisis and several changes to the laws of cricket just because Bradman was so insanely great. Not that that stopped him...
TomV
My name is Scott. Does that mean I can sue the owner of scott.com? Nope.
/services he offers.
No, you can't steal scott.com. But they can't TRADEMARK "scott" either. Yahoo! applied for a trademark in the ENTERTAINMENT FIELD in Australia in August. That trademark would prohibit Mr. Serious (who changed his name in 1980) from being able to market himself or his production company, his films or any other products
Mr. Serious is NOT attempting to hijack yahoo.com, and he could probably care less about domains, so long as he is able to continue to use his own domain yahooserious.com, and whatever the australian one is.
I wouldn't be surprised if Yahoo! seized royalties from this guy's sales of previous and future work.
You mean that crap made money?
Is this guy Serious?
Execute? [Y/N] _
Jonathan Swift's use of the word "yahoo" should probably be mentioned. In Gulliver's Travels, he visits the land of the Houyhnhnms, noble, moral, horse-like creatures. He hears about the miserable, uncivilized, hateful Yahoos, and is, of course, mortified to discover that Yahoo is the Houyhnhnm name for humans.
I don't know if Swift originated the word, and, yes, I understand that trademark law is complicated, but it strikes me as annoying and unseemly for Yahoo to be claiming this word as their intellectual property. I wishYahoo Serious the best of luck.
Me, I'd rather be called a Houyhnhnm.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I predicted this back in January of 99!
http://www.worldofcheese.org/news/article.asp?id=2 1
On another note, I liked his movie about Einstein.
Click here or here.
This isn't a copyright, this is a trademark, and the two are VERY DIFFERENT things. A copyright involves the creation of intellectual property, and this obviously is nothing of the sort.
A fundamental aspect of trademark law (I believe) is trademark maintenance. As came up on the lego article here, lego couldn't allow all kinds of free software with "lego" in it because then they couldn't defend their trademark. Has he done anything to protect his trademark??
Ah, slashdot. Where people are idiots. Most of the people seem to say, "I have heard of this so-called actor. Screw him. Plus the one movie of his I did watch I didn't like. So double screw him." Or, failing that, they simply mess up the difference between copyright and trademark and fail to read the story. And don't forget the horrible analogies: Duh, my name is Bob so I can sue M$ for copyright violations then.
Ok, people, here's the real scoop. This is a trademark issue. Someone pointed out the Apple computers vs Apple tours case. But failed to follow it through by paying attention to the article. Apple v Apple said that because they were disimilar services, there was no problem. In other words, I can make a shoe called the Apple, a freezer called the Apple, but not a computer called the Apple. Yahoo! wants to trademark Yahoo! in the entertainment field. Yahoo wants to keep his name in the entertainment field. If all Yahoo! wanted to do was be a computer portal, then Yahoo wouldn't have an issue.
I believe, although I could be wrong, that all actors that join the SAG must have a unique name. Which is why some actors change there name or use a middle name.
I believe that lawsuit was a result of an agreement made between the two that said that Apple Records was to be used for anything "that makes sounds." Adding sound capability to their line of computers (something they probably never thought of when they made the agreement) got Apple into trouble.
It is at these fringe overlaps that people get into trouble. As others pointed out, Yahoo! Movies is a good example.
No, no one is going to confuse a bad actor and a web portal, but people can confuse Yahoo! Movies with Yahoo Serious Movies.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Young Einstein was, as anyone who recalls when it made the brief tour of U.S. theaters, a major non-event, the proverbial lead balloon. Plugged as a huge success in Australia and the next really mindboggling thing to make your eyes spin and brain explode, it was advertised strongly. The reviews were humbling and the attentance moreso. I did see it and though it was, "OK".
Interesting to see he's still up to his odd perspective and doing things, but expect little enthusiasm for his work in the U.S.
As for copyright infringement, IMHO & IANAL, he's waited a pretty darn long time. Usually to be victorious in such cases, one must react quickly.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
skribe
Blog
What about the chocolate drink?
"Bodyline"?
For those that don't know, the British fearing the inevitable, thus came up with a strategy to take Bradman out of the game.
Basically we tried to kill him by hitting him with the cricket ball, which is heavier and carries far more momentum than a baseball. By various combinations of swerve, bounce and just simply chucking it out him, Bradman still maintained his cool.
In fact he was the Australian Fonz.
Po
As an upstate NY'er, I can confirm that Bully Hill winery is still going strong, although Walter S. T***** passed away recently. The wines have actually steadily improved, and they have a nice restaurant now. The final salvo in the name controversy was that Walter named the road that the winery is on "Greyton H. Taylor road," and he *is* allowed to put the address of his winery on the label. I imagine that at this point Taylor wine is sufficiently sick of the whole thing to not bother trying to sue anyway....
Another in the "name wars" saga is Herrell's ice cream in Boston. Steve Herrell started "Steve's" but then left the business. When he decided to return to the business as a competing ice cream store, he had to name it "Herrell's" for obvious reasons. The question is: is the man on the Steve's logo Steve Herrell? I imagine it used to be when he ran the place, but it would be funny if it still was him!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= John Reinert Nash -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
First, the story is that Yahoo Serious is appealing the August decision.
Secondly, Yahoo! the company has registered a trademark in Australia for use in, amongst other things, "Entertainment services including television programmes". On the face of it, he may have a case that using "Yahoo!" as a trademark in the entertainment industry would be "confusingly similar" to his name, even though he has not trademarked his name.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
On a movie theatre facade: "Yahoo Serious is Young Einstein"
Lisa Simpson: "I know those words, but that sentance makes no sense to me!"
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
So...the next time I act Serious am I going to be sued?
Kiss my bass.
No, I'm Serious. There's no one better equiped to ruin my day than Yahoo Serious.
Kiss my bass.
Oh... he can't be Serioius
...but he is. *lol*
This man has never done anything funny until now.
I think I'll copyright "First Post" or change my name to William Spork or something equally stupid and try to copyright it. Granted he was Yahoo Serious before Yahoo! - the portal came into existence... but there's no grounds for infringement here.
Yahoo! - the portal = entertainment
Yahoo - the comedian = not entertaining.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
And his existence on the Net/Web certainly predates that of Yahoo! in all reasonable perceptions. Back when I was an author publishing in Australia and New Zealand, I remember his strong establishment of his trademark, long before the .com explosion was a glimmer in any of our eyes. Under international law, and considering his global reach even then, his true right is obviously much stronger than the current usurper, regardless of how much money and how many lawyers they may have.
...
One might hope he uses his rights under the DCMA to subvert their web engines and redirect them to various other places.
It's only fitting
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Thus marking the only time anything involvign Yahoo Serious was every considered funny.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
According to IMDB, his birth name is Greg Pead ... must have been a rough childhood.
Buckeyeguy then decided, in a flash of inspiration, to change his name to Google Bullpuckey.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
I just went to the Internet Movie DataBase, imdb.com, to see what movies Yahoo Serious has been in. As it turns out, he has a long history of film-making, spanning decades. Here is a synopsis:
.... Roger Crumpkin
.... Ned Kelly
.... Albert Einstein
His starring roles:
Mr. Accident (2000)
Reckless Kelly (1993)
Young Einstein (1988)
His producing roles:
Mr. Accident (2000) (producer)
Reckless Kelly (1993) (producer)
Young Einstein (1988) (producer)
His directing roles:
Mr. Accident (2000)
Reckless Kelly (1993)
Young Einstein (1988)
His writing roles:
Mr. Accident (2000)
Reckless Kelly (1993)
Young Einstein (1988)
His misc. roles:
Reckless Kelly (1993) (music designer) (supervising film editor)
Young Einstein (1988) (supervising film editor)
Young Einstein (1988) (stunts)
Yes, an actor of this great volume of diverse works is surely worthy of having his self-selected name reserved for all history for his enjoyment alone.
Perhaps he should sue U.S. Comedian "Carrot Top" for stealing his hairstyle.
In "Gulliver's Travels", yahoos were wild, hairy humans. I say his descendants sue the pants of both parties.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I wonder if the estate of Jonathan Swift can sue both their asses, as Gulliver's Travels came out more than a century before the filming of Reckless Kelly.
Incidentally, great film.
Kelly: "Dog, go get dan. GO GET DAN!"
Dog: "Cornflakes."
Kelly: "Stupid Dog!"
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The level of comedy vis-a-vis anything done by Yahoo Serious could never by described as astounding.
Children's Television Workshop is currently squatting on all domains of "TheLetterA" through "TheLetterZ" .com, and have been since 1998!
Obligatory Simpsons refernces.
Marquee: "Yahoo Serious Film Festival"
Lisa: I know those words, but that sign makes no sense
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I am serious...and don't call me Yahoo!
/insert other Airplane! reference here
My sig of choice is Marlboro
"Boss, there's a guy in here. He's Serious."
Petru
I have spent many nights wondering how Yahoo Serius, that 80's icon that stood for the brief interest America had for Australia in the decade of Men at Work and Paul Hogan, is thinking now that Yahoo! has clearly infringed on his reputation for huge financial gain.
Beware Baskin Robbins, I hear there is a certain squirrel that has a brown moose friend that has some questions on an ice cream you vend that clearly is based on his name.
BEWARE!
Yup, similar thing happened in Scotland a few years ago.
MacDonalds (the global burger people) tried to stop a local butcher in Scotland from selling beefburgers on the grounds that people might get confused between their shops and product with this wee man selling 'MacDonald's burgers' from his shop in the local village. Err... MacDonald is a pretty common name in Scotland.
MacDonald's (the global concern not your wee man round the corner) took a lot stick for that in Scotland. Telling a local he couldn't trade under his family name. The judges threw it out of court. Makes you wonder really, had the lawyers for MacDonald's (global burger company) ever taken a breathe and paused for a moment to wonder where the name of their founder had come from?
"Yahoo!" should change their name to "Oh well..."
Maybe it would help if Mr. Serious changed his last name to Dot-Com.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Still he doesn't seem to mind being listed on www.yahoo.com. (I assume)r esses/Serious__Yahoo/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Actors_and_Act
In other words, "I need money". Just because he was outdated when long before the internet got cool.
Yahoo! will win against Yahoo Serious for the Yahoo trademark in court. Yahoo! has much larger visibility, and I'd bet they have *far* more money.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.
Which is enough. Dunno about the USA, but here in Oz you can use your own name (all or a subset) as if it were the name of a company or a registered business name. This makes your name IP, kind of, no trademark required. If your name were also Yahoo, say, Mr Yahoo Eight One Two Three Ninc, you would also have a claim if Yahoo tried to register a name in any of your fields of endeavour. However, neither you nor Mr Serious could claim against each other. This prevents a million Johns from suing each other.
This raises an interesting legal question: could a Yahoo representative change his name by deed poll (to, say, Mr Yahoo Representative) and peppercorn-employ Yahoo!-the-company to present a website in his own name? Offhand (and BTW, IANAL), I can't think of an argument against it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
is seriously a fuckin' idiot.
he's movies sucked, too.
.kb
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right-- But They Make Me Feel A Whole Lot Better
Agree, but ``OhNo!'' or ``Oops!'' or ``Aaaaaaargh!'' would probably fit through more filters. OTOH, Microsoft might then sue ``the new Yahoo!'' for that on behalf of their users, who frequently employ all of the proposed replacement names in earnest...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...is that the article calls Yahoo Serious an actor. Bwahahah.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Just so we're straight:
The Global Burger company = "McDonalds"
Your friendly neighborhood butcher = "MacDonalds" (note the first "a")
If what you say is true and not an urban legend of some sort, I'm not sure why McDonalds Corp. would even try to force the butcher to change its name or how the UK legal system could possibly rule that there was potential confusion. UNLESS the butcher was intentionally trying to take advantage of the name buy using a similar logo, etc.
load "windows7"
Reminds me of a politician here in New Hampshire named Dick Swett. Didn't help his campaign though -- he lost.
I find it amazing that someone would encourage others to call him by a name that is, well... somewhat distasteful -- I mean, he could have stuck with "Richard".
load "windows7"
Mostly Harmless is from The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, By Douglas Adams..... he's dead now :(
;))
As in
Planet Earth:
Mostly Harmless
Or words to that effect, sorry, been a while...
Don't Panic (in large friendly letters
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Commonly referred to as "Dick Smith's"
The Electronic Dick
Dicky's
Etc...
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr