Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking?

Posted by michael on from the par-for-the-course dept.

outlier writes: "Sit right back and you'll hear a messed up tale of what can only be called reverse domain name hijacking. Chip Rosenthal is being sued because the domain Unicom.com that he registered in 1990 (before the web even existed.) allegedly infringes on Unicom Systems, Inc.'s trademark -- filed in 1997! Never mind the fact that there are tons of companies using the name Unicom. The whole sordid saga is chronicled at http://save.unicom.com. Again, somebody tell me why the system isn't broken..."

3 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Re:i hate to say this.... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's bullshit. What if USD only did local consulting and was not invloved in interstate commerce. Their trademark would not be valid for registration in the USPTO because they have no juristiction, but their trademark would still override the registered mark in the region it was used in by USD beacuse they were around first. Similarly, if some guy named MCDonald named a single resturaunt after himself before the chain "Mcdonalds" existed he would not be forced to change the name of the existing resturaunt after "mcdonalds" registered their trademark. The rules of domain dispute resolution involving trademarks are to simplistic to deal with the complexities of trademark law in the real world. This is the fault of the people who made the arbitration rules, not of the USPTO ar any similar organization. If USD brings this to state court in his local district he should win.

  2. There is precendent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And it isn't good. A local company had registered gateway.com about three years before they had their copyright. Gateway Comp was using gw2k.com, took them to court, they got gateway.com, since they had more of a interest using it.

  3. Re:i hate to say this.... by daoine · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The major difference here is that USD was around long before USI registered their mark, but how that fact will play out is a very interesting question. I know of cases where that's happened, just cant think of any right now.

    Luckily, his lawyers can come up with plenty...the Motion to Dismiss probably has 25 or so that line up in their favor in one way or another. Reading the sources...generally good.

    Furthermore, this isn't a case of a personal website vs. corporation website -- this is corp. vs. corp. Both companies are using the name for business, made slightly more confusing by the fact that they are in the same general market of computers.

    It's not necessarily cake to USI -- they have to show the proof of infringement, intent to damage, and a laundry list of claims that they make. USI probably isn't helped by the fact that they are only selectively enforcing the unicom name (since multiple companies use it, and they're only going after one), and that they attempted to purchase the domain multiple times (and being told no) before they tried to sue.