Slashdot Mirror
Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2
phillymjs writes "We're probably all familiar with Uzi Nissan and his fight to keep his nissan.com domain name from the clutches of Nissan Motors. Well, more same-name idiocy came to light today-- the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that their staff music writer, Bill Wyman, has received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers representing former Rolling Stone Bill Wyman, for "a seriously misleading and, arguably, an intentional, unauthorized exploitation of our client's name, goodwill and publicity value."
It should be interesting to see how this one plays out, because Bill Wyman the musician was born William George Perks and changed his name to Bill Wyman in 1964. Journalist Bill Wyman was given that name at his birth in 1961."
...a good start...
Why must we be so sue-happy that respectful citizens cant even enjoy their own names without some over-paid copyright lawyer hearing the crinkling of his clients not-so-hard earned money.
It's obvious Bill Wyman is going to win this case.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I'm not sure if this is funny or just sad...
I lucked out. Imagine my last name was McDonald? I wouldn't be able to refer to anything in the possessive!
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
though many people seem to ignore this simple fact. This guy did the right thing, which was to tell the wannabe-Wyman to shove it up his ass.
sulli
RTFJ.
My Native American birth name was "Komhand Duer Tawk-Hoe" but I had to change it in shame in 1999. Everyone kept joshing me about whether I 'remembered the last time that was posted' and whether I could 'spell my own name'.
Very funny.
Considering the name change and the dates involved, this one just *BEGS* for the "real" owner of the name to countersue and demand the other change his name back (or to something else).
;-)
Damn, though, *this* one takes balls. I have to admit, paranoid as I can seem, I didn't see it getting to the point where using one's one name in normal daily activities would count as infringment.
Ah well, too bad I don't read Rolling Stone, I can't cancel my subscription in protest.
Oh this is just terrible news.. you see, I recently had my name legally changed to "Ford Sucks" so that I could sue Ford for squatting on fordsucks.com.
f ordsucks.com&SearchType=do
http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=
-gerbik
Bill Wyman the writer should sue Bill Wyman the Stone for infringing on his name for the past 38 years, and should seek damages of about $50 million, claiming that William George Perks made a ton of money off of the Bill Wyman name that he stole.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well...if Mr. Nissan as a comercial presense, then I can understand the nissan.com. Otherwise, isn't the what .name was created for?
I read about a truck driver in Germany named "Adolph Hittler" who actually lost his job because of his name.
Btw, here is a direct linke to the article: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/living/1102/14wym an.html which is in the original post, but it is sort of obfustucated.
One upon a time (1995ish), when I looked up my name, Tom Buskey, I was the 1st thing on google and altavista. Now, the baseball player for the Indians, Tom Buskey shows up as basball data starts getting to the web.
:-)
I hope he doesn't start using the web himself. I like being able to use buskey everywhere I want. I feel sorry for people with more common last names.
I wonder if I should start registering domains
Keith Richard sends out Cease and Desist notices to cadavars because folks confuse them for him.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
I dont understand why just because you are famous it gives you the right to trademark your name in cyberspace. Are they going to goes as far as making the man change his name. And the fact that it isnt his birthname should shed some serious light on to the subject. I gues this just anoys me how being famous gives you the right to trample on someones elses right. Sorry about the rant but when i hear things like this it just annoys me to no end!
Because the average human is a loathsome, greedy, insensitive fool. As a result of this story, along with hundreds of others reported over the past decade or so (about how long I've really been following things), I am now convinced that our species will not survive past the next century.
Personally, I'd like to see this problem go away. I propose unique URLs based on DNA code, but clones might object.
Osama bin Laden and changed my name to Jon Katz
so I could look for the infamous Commodore-64
in Afghanistan.
Didn't the "elected" President
George W. Bush promise that he would find me dead or alive?
Tom Daschle never challenged W on finding Jon.
Cheers,
Woot
I work in a law firm, and I knew to be afraid when I was helping an attorney scan in some pictures of a nuclear plant specifically to scare a jury... But seriously, a Park Avenue firm costs a pretty penny per hour. If you were famous, would you waste your money on suing someone who (a) had that name before you, and (b) actually returned any checks he accidentally received? Talk about abusing someone...
Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily this is not difficult. -Whitton
No one wants my name for a domain except for Bob Guchioni (sp?).
My father was spanish, my mother was chinese.
Later,
Juan Hung Lo
WTF? Over?
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that
Jeez. Here, "Atlanta-Journal-Constitution is" links to the (relatively useless) frontpage of the newspaper site, while "reporting" is the single word that links to the article. There's not even any space between the links!
Hello people! We know how to backtrack URLs to get to the main site....assuming it's not an obvious domain from the journal name, and even then it's highly likely that the actual article page will have a nice fat old link to the main site. Jeez.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Using Your Own Name May Be Infringement, Part 2
Just WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG with the justice system of USA????! I have ALWAYS thought USA is the land of dream and hope, but these kinda stories are ruining my dream..
So they are saying that if there is someone cooler than me with the same name, I am intentionally misleading people by merely being myself? Isn't the other guy just as misleading if people are looking for me? I didn't know that names could be protected under copyright law.
...but Mr. Nissan has been running Nissan Computers from before Datsun Motors changed its name to Nissan Motors.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Ok, for some reason, this just doesn't sit right with me. Just because Bill Wyman(the musician) WAS part of the Rolling Stones, does he think that he can be the only one using that name? I think that guy spent too much time around Keith Richards and all the drugs that he's used over the years. I could understand it if the writer had changed his name to Bill Wyman, but it was the other f-ing way around, and 3 years after the writer was born! If nothing else, Bill Wyman(the writer) could sue Bill Wyman(the musician) for using HIS name.
I don't know many people that will go around suing someone because they have the same name. All of the John Smiths in the world are gonna be f-ing screwed if this starts happening more. I can see it now..
John Smith #1: You've stolen my name! Speak to my lawyer!
John Smith #2: No, you've got my name! speak to my lawyer!
I respect Bill Wyman, the former Rolling Stone a lot (hey I am a bass player, too...) but I do hope that the journalist Bill Wyman wins this one. He had the name first, didn't change it ever and registered the domain name first. And, being a journalist, he does not infringe on any trademark Bill Wyman, the former Stone may own, because there is precious little overlap between their respective trades, however much they may depend on each other.
Bass player Bill Wyman can always register billwyman.com if he hasn't done so already.
Please, RTFA before you post...
This has NOTHING to do with cyberspace. Bill Wyman was simply WRITING ARTICLES using his own name. He didn't try to register the name on the internet -- at least not according to the article.
I admit that the slashdot preview doesn't make this clear, but thats why you should RTFA.
a) it's your legal (from birth) name
b) your not trying to profit off of the name
c) you registered the name first
I think it's Nissan's (the company) fault for not registering the name first. Now they are left out in the cold. Too bad, so sad. Better luck next time.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
That we should skip this first-name, last-name monkey business and cut straight to the social security numbers.
Oh wait, we have.
The stones didn't release thier first single until 1963 though. They didn't really take off until probably after he changed his name right?
I wasn't born yet so I can't confirm this.
Wow, that could get messy really quickly...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
Is that an accurate description?
> I have to disagree. Bill Wyman is going to win.
> The other guy doesn't have a chance.
No. Marklar is going to marklar. The other marklar doesn't have a marklar.
I can understand the case of Nissan vs Uzi Nissan, because to 99.9999999999999% of the world's population, "Nissan" is a car maker. There's no confusion here.
However, for name or family names, it should be 1st arrived first served. Like it was the case here. There can be confusion because you can't poll the earth's population and ask "if I tell you "such name" can you tell me WHO I'm refering to?)
Ex: "Wayne Gretzky" doesn't mean shit to people who don't know hockey (ok perhaps a bit in Canada and the USA, but who knows if there's not a famous "Wayne Gretzky" in any other stuff like mathematics, or novels, or whatnot).
As for domain squashing, it's up to the companies to grab similar domain names (try "fordsucks" or "fordcrap" or any you can think of. I couldn't get any of the ones I thought of)
So, if I follow Bill Wymans of the Stones logic, then any time you get to together with a female, and have a low level interface that results in a few child function (in laymans terms, havin' kids), you have to do a copyright search to check the prospective name the parents have chosen to see if it is copyrighted, or risk being sued? Leave it to a lawyer to come up with something that stupid.
http://www.howardsiegel.com
I am John Smith. One of the 7 at the school. The John Smith who wrote the letter to the Editor last week was JS4@.edu. I am JS@.edu and think dislike all the names I have been called for a letter written by another John Smith.
It's not like names are universally unique identifiers, but people seem to forget. My wife, formerly Sarah Johnson, had the same complaint.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
unique URLs based on DNA code
Identical Twins might object.
And let's be blunt, a 650 meg URL consisting of four characters in endless patterns is not an easy thing to rememeber.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
This article isn't even about cybersquatting! It is about some guy who happens to work for this newspaper and who happens to sometimes write about the Rolling Stones. The musical Wyman wants the columnist wyman to put a discalimer on everything he writes that he is in fact NOT the musical Wyman! How ridiculous!
...unlike a patent action, an action relating to misappropriation of goodwill does not depend on the notion of 'prior art'. In this sort of situation, the key question is whether Bill Wyman the author is 'free riding' on Bill Wyman the musician's commercial goodwill in order to further the commercial interests of Bill Wyman the author. It really doesn't matter who had the name first -- All that matters is who made it a commercially valuable name first.
Thats what the new TLDs were meant for:
Nissan Motors should register nissan.biz, nissanmorots.com or nissan.co.jp (they are Japanese after all).
Wyman (the Rolling Stone member) should register wyman.info, wyman.name or billwyman.com...
Nobody needs seriously more than *one* domain-name. Registering serveral variations of the same name under several TLDs helps only fill the pockets of Verisign and some lawyers.
Markus
So who the heck has heard of Bill Wyman?
And why would anyone care about the former Rolling Stone?
His use of the domain name for individual promotion isn't any more critical to his career than the present owner. It certainly wasn't important enough for him to register it when it was available.
Perhaps he could learn a lesson from his former band mates? The Rolling Stones are well known, but nonetheless they've certainly have a reasonable understanding with the magazine of the same name.
Why couldn't the *former* member compromise about this as well (especially since the owner was born wtih that name)? billwyman.org or williamwyman.com or any of a dozen variants are readily available.
because billwyman.com is the official Bill Wyman fansite, so where is the other Bill Wyman's site that is causing so much fuss?
Rake Free + Mac Poker: CardCrusade
Absolutely. Do the Slashdot editors not read this site or something? How can they not notice that?
For those not familiar with the Nissan issue - Uzi Nissan has a real company named Nissan Computers, which he started several years before the Internet "took off", IIRC in 1991. Technically, he even registered his domain before the internet "took off", IIRC in 1994. "Nissan" is, and has been, his family name for many generations (whereas the other Nissan changed it's name from Datsun a couple decades ago).
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then you started the Disney corporation?
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/living/1102/14wym an.html
Odds are, the writer Bill Wyman's real first name is William. He should just go by William Wyman, or W. Wyman, or Willy Wyman, or something.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Of course, there are tons of "repeat" names. There are just so many people born each year, and only so many names, so these conflicts will happen. The question is, who gets the rights to a name shared with others? This article writeup seems to be angling for seniority (the Bill Wyman from 1961 should get it rather than the one from 1964). But it makes more sense to give it to the one who is more famis. After all, who knows about the journalist Bill Wymann? Probably just his immediate family and some coworkers. But thousands of people know about Bill Wyman the rock and roll star. If you want to cause inconvenience to the fewest number of people, you should force the lesser star to change his name.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
There's no guarantee that Bill Wyman (the Stones bassist) even knows this is happening. It sounds like a lawyer trying to drum up business and bill his client for something (I could be wrong, it's just a hunch).
Disclaimer: I'm not defending the bassist because I'm a fan of the Stones or him personally, I personally don't like their music at all.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
hseigel@pryorcashman.com
(212) 326-0100
Fortunately it is an image of the letter. If it had been text, spambots might have grabbed the info. Lucky for him, it wasn't.
I'm all for mocking the Yanks, even when their government is tramping around threatening to level everyone they don't like, but it should be noted that Bill Wyman is, in fact, English.
The Stones are British fucks, you dumb shit.
AFAICT, Bill Wyman the journalist has no website to call his own. I have no idea why this was posted under the Internet category, because I submitted it under News.
Anyway, the lawyers are objecting to Bill Wyman the journalist using his given name on the byline of the articles he writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (and, I suppose, any other publication for which he writes). Not because he owns any domain name relating to the name Bill Wyman.
This action strikes me as even more outlandish and insidious than anything the big corporations have done over real or alleged domain squatting. That's why I submitted the article.
~Philly
Its stupid, besides, the sir name system is flawed, and after n generations we will all be using the same sirname.
For example, my sir name is Rogers, and that is a popular one. A load of companies use Rogers in their name, from big corporations (like rogers cable) to small businesses (like rogers pet shop).
I don't want to be Mr RogersTM, and neither do you.
but:
"Only In America"
Years ago there was a singer at radio station WJR in Detroit who had problems because his natural voice sounded like Bing Crosby.
This has NOTHING to do with the internet.
It is only about the use of his name when he publishes articles.
that the lawyers are also named Bill Wyman?
Sigs are bad for your health.
I don't see any reference to the lawsuits anymore. Did Nissan Motors finally back off?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The law firm is in NYC. The Stones' Bill Wyman may not even know about the lawsuit. Lawyers are like that. Remember the fuss over "killustrator" in Germany?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
y'know, I accept that most of the people posting on /. on any given day haven't read the article they're posting about. But maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea for the damn EDITORS to read the articles!
That's what I want to know
what about the Uzi? This guy is flagrantly infringing on IMI's trademarks!
... and you changed it to John Hitler ;)
It's true. We live in a country(I'm actually canadian, but the argument is the same in either nation) where ignorance of the law is not a valid defence and yet the countries COMPLETE legislation could not be read by a single person in their entire lifetime. BTW, my given first name is Duff so(although the product in my case is fictional) I have a lot of experience with the name/trademark crossover. I don't own duff.com(warning... porno), but if I did, you can bet I would raise all hell if FOX tried to take it from me.
lysergically yours
It's well and good to feel sorry for the poor journalist in Atlanta who's being preyed upon by the lawyers, but it's really the member of the Rolling Stones who's getting screwed. The lawyers are billing him by the hour to "defend his name". They probably have some generic agreement which allows them to take action like this and bill it back to the man. They don't really care if it makes sense or in the best interests of society, they just want to run up the hours. Feel sorry for the poor guy from the Rolling Stones who's paying the bills.
Hmm... I wonder if "prior art" would apply here? Like, my name is Jessica-- I already have 'jessica.org' (per an agreement with the former user of that domain name-- a pr0n site, of course... which is why jessica.org is banned by a lot of firewalls to this day, and I have to point people to "jb.twu.net"), but let's say I wanted jlb.com or something.. and some company, say Jamie's Lemon Bars, Inc., was fighting with me for that name.
Could I make an argument in court that since I have born the initials JLB since the '70s, but Jamie's confectionary business is only, say, 10 years old, I should get it?
In this case, my existence would be the prior art. It'd be kind of hard to prove I don't exist. But proving that merely existing constitutes "prior art" in a dispute over a name-- ah, that might be harder...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
My friend marries a girl named Barbie, and registers a domain name that includes her name. Mattel (makers of the legendary "Barbie" doll) legal comes bearing down hard on him, cease-and-desist, the whole shebang. He's not a lawyer, nor is he particularly well funded, so he did what any self-respecting geek would do: he wrote lots of letters, explaining to his hosting company, as well as to Mattel's legal eagles, that he has no intention to make a profit from the name "Barbie", that it's his wife's legal name, it's just a site hosted in his living room for personal reasons (family photos, whatnot). Good grief. What a pack of bloodthirsty hounds! They eventually backed off, after he followed their orders (notarized documents or some such, swearing in perpetuity not to seek profit from the name "Barbie"). I'm not sure I would have been as persistent as he in defending a DNS entry.
The Atlanta Journal-Courier's Bill Wyman, who has regularly covered Rolling Stones news, wrote an article in the AJC about some of the ban's old albums. The band's lawyer decided (not unreasonably, I guess) that readers would think bassist Bill Wyman had written the piece, and demanded that a) if a journalist was calling himself Bill Wyman to cover Rolling Stones topics, he stop and b) if someone genuinely had that name, he should make that clear. The story hints that the lableing demand would extend to all work by the writer, but it's not clear that that's so.
Whatever the legal merits of this case, it has nothing to do with a domain name.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
For those of you not reading the article and getting it wrong. This is not about a domain name. Bill Whyman the musician owns billwhyman.com (or at least has it dedicated to him). The CAD is about a story the journalist Bill Whyman wrote:
Mr. Siegel represents Bill Wyman, who left the band in 1993. The attorney had happened to see a short story I'd written about some old Rolling Stones albums as part of the Journal-Constitution's coverage of the band's recent appearance in town. He wasted no time in firing off a letter. "I must ask that you immediately cease and desist from authorizing or permitting any such use of our client's name," he wrote.
-Puk
p.s. Capped, not whoring.
Really? My mother was a crack addict and she named my twin brother and me, respectively, Lemonjello and Orangejello (pronounced luh-mahn-juh-low and o-ron-juh-lo). My sister is named Shithead (pronounced shuh-theed).
I find it most disturbing that even to court don't seem to agree on this issue. Some have forced the address to change hands and others have not, even when the circumstances are similar.
Anonymous Cowards suck.
As has been pointed out, this is NOT a cyber-squatting issue. Just check out the former Rolling Stone's website. The domain is already owned by the former Rolling Stone. The article (which is difficult to access--click on "is reporting" and not "Atlanta Journal Constitution") is about the reporter's byline (the name that goes with his stories).
It is also NOT a lawsuit. Yet. It's a legal letter that can lead to a lawsuit. I think the idea is that since the journalist writes about pop music, there could be confusion.
The really stupid thing is that the laws which allow for suits in cases like this are designed to protect people's livelihood. But neither of them is really preventing the other's livelihood.
How the hell did this get modded up? He obviously didn't even read the post he's responding to.
Dumbass.
... to hear the verdict:
All your bass are belong to us!!
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
But Bill Wyman runs a fansite about the Rolling Stone musician! Come on. I expected to go to his site and find a site about a journalist named Bill Wyman and see his work.
Wait... The C&D Letter from former Rolling Stone member Bill Wyman's Lawyers doesn't mention a web site... The ACJ article doesn't mention a web site... The Slashdot article doesn't either... billwyman.com is owned by a media group in London, not somebody in Atlanta. What are you talking about??
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
This has nothing to do with a domain name. I'm not sure what Web site you found, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
Last name?
/runs and turns off Slashdot modding powers.
Nielsen.
Mental note. Rate nothing. Ever.
While there is (justifiably) considerable debate with regards to this in the arena of domain names, as far as the world at large as concerned, it's been pretty much established that even if your given name is Microsoft Apple and you were born in 1911, you are not entitled to use those names in conjunction with a computing business.
Happily, this appears to be simply an error on the part of Bill Wyman's attorney (the former Rolling Stone).
It looks like his attorney totally failed to do any research into Bill Wyman (the Writer) - a very big shame, especially given that many attorneys charge significant amounts of money to do research into such matters.
I wonder what the bill rate was for this letter. Maybe $6? Or maybe $1000? Perhaps $5000?
From imdb.com:
ha ha I am teh funnyman!
The writer doesn't run that website. If you read the article and letter from the ex-Stones lawyer you would know that they're asking him to cease and desist in using his name as a byline in the articles he writes.
You mean both John Smiths would get involved????
This is madness!
According to udpates at the bottom of this page, things aren't going so well for Uzi Nissan.
The latest:
September 2002
The previous court rulings did not end this case. Nissan Motors filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment trying (and has been successful) to get the Court to deprive me of the right to a jury trial on October 15, 2002. The Court, much to my surprise, changed its attitude on this issue and:
1. Changed the relevant date for "fame" from 1991 to 1994.
2. Found that no reasonable jury could find that Nissan was not famous by 1994.
3. Found that Nissan Computer and The Internet Center diluted Nissan Motor's trademark.
4. Found that the publication of information about this lawsuit, the comments made by many people -- on this www.ncchelp.org and my media campaign to bring this issue to the public, actually -- tarnished Nissan Motor's trademark.
Many legal experts view our case, not as a "law-breaking" case, but as a "law-making" case. The Court indicated during the hearing on this motion that certain aspects of this case may be creating new law as well.
The trial date has thus been taken off calendar and Nissan Motor is now asking the Court to take away my domain name from me entirely. We expect a ruling on this motion some time in November this year. Our legal team is evaluating our options, which evaluation can not be completed until we know the final ruling by the Court. We believe that the potential loss of our domain name in this fashion may set the wrong precedent for future cases and will open the door for any deep-pocket corporation to do the same. This may become "the law of the land" and may affect many others in a similar situation, it could affect you or someone you know.
This case received the attention of CBS Evening News, and has been looked at by other news agencies that have not yet published stories about it. Public attention to this type of corporate behavior is most important to get the issues properly debated. Your emails were very successful in CBS Evening News' decision to run a short story on this case. We are asking for your continued and crucial support by sending an email to the media and stating the importance of bringing these facts to the public. Remember that it was Public Opinion and Awareness that ended the Soviet Union, not missiles. Together we can make a difference.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The issues are clear. He had the name first, it's his real name given to him at birth or shortly thereafter, and the other chap had it changed to the desputed name AFTER the other guy had it for a few years.
Combine that with the fact that there should be no way in hell that one company/person should be able to sue another over the use over a name. It's not like he's using a trademark name like the "rolling stones" here.
Granted he's in the music industry on the edges of it as a columnist, but does it really matter. What if a local TV station gets an anchorman for the 5:00 news who's given name is Daniel Rather? Will HE get sued?
If that's the case I hope that no one using my name becomes famous
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
I don't have to carry identification EVER!
..and put them on EVERY spam list, every porn list, every mailing list that's out there...He and they need to get THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of spam letters every day...so many that HE has to change his name...hopefully to one of ours so we can sue HIM! I once had a program called 'Divine Intervention' that did this for you....I wonder what floppy it's on....
Wait, let me rephrase: When Bill Wyman was 47, he started dating/doing a 13 year old girl.
Oh, That's the reputation that his lawyer is trying to protect.
Amusing sidenote: Bill's 31 year old son Steven started dating Mandy's 46 year old mother Patsy and at one point planned to marry her. (This is after Bill/Mandy's divorce). Still, it would have made Steven his own divorced step-grandfather.
It's one thing when Nissan sues you, yeah, I could deal with that. What are they going to do, run me over with a Nissan?
;)
But when the Uzi people finally get wind of this fellow, you can bet he'll change his tune.
It's just not wise to argue with Israelis armed with machine guns with a beef over territory or ownership rights.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This article is not about domains. This has nothing to do with domains. All it has to do with is a journalist who has the same name as a member of the band he sometimes writes about. That's it. He is being asked to explicitly say in these articles something like this, "My name is Bill Wyman, but I'm not the same Bill Wyman that is in the band." The request is to prevent confusion of the readers. I don't see why this is such a big deal. In fact, I bet Bill Wyman the journalist IS more successful because of the name, for I bet his articles about the Stones may get more reads if some people think it is written by one of the members. I don't see the request as being so out of line. Of course, it's more of a lawsuit instead of request, which is probably the problem to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Wyman (the Stones) personally called up and made the request, then perhaps Bill Wyman (the journalist) would be honored, and happy to comply. But sending a nasty threatening letter probably didn't make him want to throw up his arms and apologize- as if he never noticed he had the same name before.
You better watch what you say, or I might sue you for slander. I am not insensitive....my toe hurts today.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
You stupid fuck.
TM
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
You must have a bunch of lawyers then!
From Wired article:
... How American indeed!
"Take the case of Uzi Nissan. This North Carolina-based software developer -- born with the brand names of those two wholly American lifestyle products"
An Israeli SMG and a Japanese car brand
He'll sue you for sure.
Actually, it's probably the firm of Ben Dover and Phil McCavity (say it fast)
And then Marklar will marklar the marklar, and in the end the marklar will all go to marklar in a marklar!!
These damn marklar's.....
No I didnt spell check this post...
Hundreds over the last decade? Hundreds of thousands you mean? This stuff happens every day. A lot more frequently that /. posts.
AFAICS from the story the lawyer decided to be a scumbag all by his lonesome.
I heard it was Phil McCrackin
I think you'll find it interesting.
I just searched for my own name (in quotes) on google, and found:
- A wildlife foundation under my name
- A gallery under my name
- A cricket player with my name
- A professor with my name
- A folk singer with my name
- Artists with my name
- About 14,000 other links with my name not related to me personally.
I already knew many companies operated under my last name, but didn't know so many used my full name!
So, how many of you are in danger of losing your names like this?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Your message
;p=PCSF;l=EXCHANGE0211142024WP0PF8VX
To: hseigel@pryorcashman.com
Subject:
Sent: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:25:38 -0500
did not reach the following recipient(s):
hseigel@pryorcashman.com on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:24:29 -0500
The recipient name is not recognized
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a=
MSEXCH:IMS:PCSF:PCSFNY:EXCHANGE 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient
------
Interesting... Looks like he may have elicited alot of responses...
Brielle
hsiegel@pryorcashman.com? Phone number (212) 326-0100? The letter from the lawyers has this info right at the top of the page.
Thanks to Bill Wyman (the rolling stone) all of us on Slashdot who are too young to know (or just simply don't care to know) who any of the rolling stones are, we will now associate the name Bill Wyman with the now popular author.
Chris Beckenbach
if you take 'bart' out of bsharitt, you get 'shit'
dude, someone shuffled you up with a pile of shit!
Freakin' fascist mods.....
Can someone please explain how a poster who obviously didn't read a damn word of the article has been modded up +1 insightful four times?
Anyone who so much as glanced at the article would know that this has nothing to do with the Bill Wyman fan site. Why are we rewarding this, moderators?
I wonder if since I am called "Way" if Gateway will try and sue me over there new add which plays on my name!
FUD? Oh, great, now Warner Brothers will get in the act. This could be a vewwy nasty case.
Sigs are bad for your health.
As long as you are not trying to mislead people into thinking you are the other company, you should have very right to compete with them within the confines of copyright and trademark law. By the logic of option "b" above, someone named "Disney" could never go into TV, Movies or any kind of animation if they wanted to use their own name.
Personally, I think a courtesy, "We're not XYZ, they're at this URL"is a good idea, if the request is made politely, but lawsuits over a man doing business with his own name is out of control.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I knew a guy who ran a BBS called the Newtonian (his last name was Newton). When the internet was first getting k00l he reserved newton.com (I think it was even before you had to pay for domain names). Later, Apple threatened to sue him because they had a trademark on "Newton".
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
...for subjecting the rest of us with you!
And yet EulerX07 gets moderated "Insightful" for confusing us, and any metamod who is not following this will call that "fair."
Welcome to life on Slashdot, I guess.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
You didn't read the article, did you?
The Bill Wyman being sued does not run a fan web site; he is a newspaper journalist who uses his name in his byline.
how much will howard siegel bill wyman for this?
...yeah sorry
Many years ago when I chose pat.net for my domain I had the option of grabbing pat.com. But I decided that I wasn't a business - I am a person. So .net seemed suitable for my own network connectivity.
Just a thought,
Pat
Just the kind of thinking I need in an attorney!
"We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free," Schindler said. "But he has no interest in being Nissan Computer -- his real name -- because he wants to exploit the substantial confusion.... As for other users, none of them are using the name Nissan without anything more. If Uzi Nissan was using nissancomputer.com, there would not be a lawsuit."
So why doesn't Mr. Nissan register nissanmotor.com and offer it to Nissan Motors for free? I'm sure they would appreciate that as much as Mr. Nissan appreciates nissancomputer.com
0xfeedface
I was recently told by hotmail that my last name was not allowed. wtf?
It really doesn't matter who had the name first
Excuse me? So you're telling me that if someone happens to become famous, making the name 'commercially valuable', and that the person happens to have the same name that your parents gave you when you were born, you're the one who has to change your name? Would you really be willing to do that?
All I can think of is: "Why don't you just change your name?" "Because it's MY name, I had it first" - Michael Bolton, Office Space
If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
From the lawyer's letter:
"If in fact your employee's given legal name is Bill Wyman (a fact we would insist be reasonably demonstrated to us), we then request that a prominent disclaimer accompany every reference to your writer's name, clearly indicating that your columnist is not the same Bill Wyman who was a member of the Rolling Stones."
It seems to me, given that William George Perks changed his name to "Bill Wyman" in 1963 (legally, in 1964) this paragraph would be more powerful if we make a few changes and send it back:
"If in fact your client's given legal name is Bill Wyman (a fact we would insist be reasonably demonstrated to us), we then request that a prominent disclaimer accompany every reference to your client's name, clearly indicating that your client is not the same Bill Wyman who is a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution."
The answer is simple.
1.Name all children with a unique ID
like RTDSG4232342
and don't allow their children to have kids named
RTDSG4232342 Jr.
2.Reassign all adults new names as well.
3. ???
4. Profit
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
or John Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzsimmons and Simon Fitzgerald and ...
My name is Linus (no, not that one). Is there anything I should do just in case?
RTFMKTHX.
Well, you could cancel any other magazine that you do subscribe to, considering that they would be as relevant to this topic as Rolling Stone.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Your argument is invalid.
I'm free riding on Bill Wyman the musician's commercial goodwill in order to further the commercial interests of bill_wyman the Slashdot user and get more mod points.
Afterwards, they two eavesdroppers announce that he's just the kind of lawyer they're looking for.
...is the only living member of the Rolling Stones to leave the band. And with this bonehead manuver, I have to say that he is a First Class Pile of [self=censored].
Shut up, or your birthday goes, too.
I'm sorry, but I really just don't believe you.
I can see it now: the latest Budweiser beer commercial:
Why ask Wy'?
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Put yourself in his place. You register your name.com and put your business on it and, later on, a certain Japanese car company starts using their own name (which they hadn't been doing, in the US, rather using a pseudonym) and suddenly you start getting massive hits from people looking for cars, and you run a computer business?
I'd probably put up some links to car-sellers too, and if I could get paid for it all the better.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
When I tried to sign up for a hotmail account several years ago, the company would not accept my last name (Phelps), because it says the word is restricted or explicit, and violated the terms of the EULA.
Read jack phelps dot net
It could deal with cyber-space and real life at the same time. The obvious solution to this problem, now and forever, is to adopt an Asheron's Call/EQ naming system for real life. Never again will any 2 people have the same name, and each person will have their own set of aliases to go by when online. Your parents are resposible for making up your original name, and over your lifetime, you can make up your own aliases (up to 4), all you have to do is register your alias at the local Alias Registration Center, and pay a small fee for the process... Now, make it extremely illegal to go online under a false alias, and so many problems would be fixed: No more moronic lawsuits, you can really track down that F'ing TKer, and you'll never have to say to yourself "Oh man, he couldn't have been a newbie... I know his record 0-1, but he played too well... I, I... Guess I'll have to kill myself to retain my honor..." again...
;)
I didn't get much sleep last night... Sorry
This is very true
I friend of mine runs a small web store selling rubber stamps. It just so happens that he were retailing a stamp (ie. manufactured by another firm) with a "Volkswagen of America" icon. They were contacted by a legal firm, Continental Enterprises, (i wish had they website) that protects Volkswagen trademark and were ordered to pay $2500 of face court action. They stocked a total of 6 of these stamps and sold one. They had no idea that their product was not properly licensed by the manufacture.
Continental Enterprises is engaging in intimidation, knowing a small store will buckle as they cannot afford legal council.
(nt) means no text
/. is no longer a news site, it is a troll haven, where they come to practice their skills /. were about news, it would post new articles, about things that have happened recently, not repost stories that were months or even years old even when they first showed up here.
it really really does
welcome to the bridge
If
Registration would be required for posting and repeat trolling/flamebait moderations would lead to some sort of action taken. (warnings, then suspensions, then ip bans) Anonymous posting has absolutely no real benefit other than allowing people to throw away any semblance of decency, as we are seeing more and more of as the years go by.
Moderators: Fire Away
should change his last name to "Datsun" to make them happy.
Next thing we'll see is people winning 20+ billion dollar lawsuits for domain name infringement. 19.999+ billion would go to the lawyers...
My surname is registered to Microsoft - and I honestly don't know why they'd want it.
where's all that Karma?
Check this out.
...
:)
"Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, premier clan chief of Clan Donald, has appointed Ronald W McDonald to be Sergeant-Major at Arms of the Guardians of Clan Donald: the linear descendant of the chief's bodyguard.
One specific aim is to offer moral support to Mary Blair, proprietor of McMunchies, a small sandwich bar in Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire, who is being threatened with legal action by McDonald's Restaurants, the fast food chain, for daring to use the prefix "Mc" in the name of her shop.
When interviewed in BBC2's "The Money Programme" a top trademark lawyer made it clear that McDonald's have not a legal leg to stand on. Instead they rely on their unlimited financial resources to bully small businesses who cannot afford to fight back."
Really.. read the entire press release, it just gets better and better. This is coming from a long extended thing that happened around 1996, when McDonalds decided they were going to start trying to crack down on anyone doing anything vaguely resembling their trademarks. I'm not sure if they ever got McMunchie's to change their name, but whatever happened they did manage to piss off, in the process, Scotland. The best bit about the whole thing was that, according to an absolutely fantastic 60 Minutes report on this and the McLibel case, Lord MacDonald of MacDonald was so enraged by the whole thing that he decided to open a restaurant in the traditional family estate of the MacDonald clan, and name it "MacDonald's". The restaurant serves things like duck, and whatever else is the U.K. equivilent of "gourmet" food. Thus far McDonald's Inc. of America has yet to challenge him over the name.
As my more-or-less universal online handle is an abbreviation of my last name, McClure (it's a degradation of MacLeod), i have to say this case holds a small bit of interest for me.. it is a discomforting thought to know that a corporation may possibly want to claim ownership to the first two letters of my slashdot logon
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The best possible result (from a comedy perspective) would be if the ROlling Stones' Bill Wyman got an injunction levelled against him using his assumed name, and had to pay the writer Bill Wyman for 38 years of infringing use, including back shares on all his Rolling Stones profits.
God I hate those ugly-ass geezers. This would really make my day.
Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe seems more likely to have taken up this case...
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Oh come now. You can't say that any first world Capitalist country doesn't have many of the same problems. I've been a lot of places in this world, and while I'll be the first to admit that the US is far from perfect, I'll also be the second or third to point out that the rest of the world isn't a city on a hill, either.
You'd get more chicks that way, I swear!
In the case of the two people with the same names: first one to the net wins. If the musician was slow to getting a web site up, and someone else with the same name gets there first, he loses.
.com, then let them do it. If they are not willing to pay, see above.
In the case of the individual with the nissan.com domain, if Nissan Motors is willing to pay for moving Mr. Nissan to a TLD that is not
Both of these cases are similar to the incident in Scotland in which a 100+ year old restaurant was sued my McDonald's because they had the same name. The courts in Scotland found for the defendant because they used the name generations before the founder of McDonald's was born.
As in the Subject: line, just my $0.02 worth.
I am going to change my name to Slash Dot and sue the hell out of someone. heh.
1. Change Name
2. Sue Someone (How we missed this one for so long is beyond me.)
3. Profit!
g
i actually had a student in one of my classes in high school named Shi-Thead, and on our Student ID cards they couldnt put hyphens, so it did come out Shithead on all her school paperwork.
AFAIC, domain names are first come, first served, period. It should be independent of trademarks, etc. Why? Two big reasons:
1) Trademarks don't apply outside of the US
2) You claim your "trademark" domain name when you register it.
Disclaimer: this more applies to the Nissan aspect of this original post
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler
Almost like this case, certainly very comparable to it, and in a way, even more absurd...
I once read a short story about an ordinary Joe who bore too much resemblance to a famous actor. The actor didn't want any 'unauthorized copies' out there, so he sued the guy and forced him to have plastic surgery to change his appearance.
If Bill Wyman (from birth) loses this one, how long until the science fiction story becomes true? Given the absurdity running rampant through the US legal system, I wouldn't bet against it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Pryor Cashman Sherman and Flynn LLP are being sued by Richard Pryor, Pat Cashman, William Tecumseh Sherman, and Laura Flynn-Boyle for sullying their fine names with such actions.
And my name is Michael Bolton, and I refuse to change it. I had that name before he ever became famous.
(paraphrased, sorry, I don't remember the exact quote)
-Space for rent
that's thinking outside the box!
You may have heard of this case going before the Supreme Court (Google News listing). The upshot is that a guy named 'Victor' has a store that sells "adult" themed merchandise. He calls his store "Victor's Little Secret." Victoria's Secret is suing claiming that his use of such a store name will harm (via dilution) their famous name and lessen profits, etc. etc. Victor claims that he has a right to use his own name. I can see such a case affecting legal battles regarding similar claims to cyberspace naming.
This reminds me of a shoe company that named several of its designs after western states. They had no trouble until they named one "Montana," and Joe Montana sued.
How ya like dat?
For a full treatment of Nissan history, click on this link.
To summarize, the first companies that would eventually become Nissan started in 1911. After a series of mergers, changed company names, and revisted models, they started selling cars with the Datsun name in 1932. However, the company was never known as Datsun Motors. Datsun was just the brand name of their cards, from "son of DAT." The company has been called Nissan Motors ever since the merger between DAT Automobile Manufacturing Company and Nihon Sangyo, another pre-existing automobile manufacturer.
Some other juicy bits that the enthusiast site I've linked to doesn't go well into is the fact that Nissan was the largest of the "new zaibatsu" and profitted quite considerably from the rape of Manchuria by the Japanese in the 1930s. The older zaibatsu, like Mitsui, Sumitomo, and Mitsubishi were all tightly controlled by greedy single families who weren't well liked by the wartime government. Companies like Nissan who were owned by multiple owners were treated more favorably and got the sweeter deals in exploiting the newly conquered Japanese territories.
Also, the website glosses over the labor struggles of the 1950s in Japan. Nissan was a "innovator" in breaking their unions and was one of the first companies to create a company-created union that would provide the model for all modern Japanese labor unions. Modern Japanese labor unions are all company (not trade) specific and are essentially a secondary tier of management over the workers used to keep them in line and in harmony with company desires, and striking is no longer allowed. Though as far as I know, Nissan's 100-day strike was very bloodless compared to many of the other labor struggles during the period, it was the pioneer in establishing the crippled system that exists today in Japan.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You've raised some points that for various reasons have been on my mind over the last few months. In particular I've been thinking about the inability of the average American to afford (either by training or by purchase of service) access to our legal system. In what sense of the phrase is everyone "equal under the law" if some people/groups have access to better legal services than others. The obvious solution is this: nationalize the lawyers.
Now I'll admit I haven't spent a lot of time thinking this through but the idea has some obvious charms. Everyone from the poorest homeless person to the wealthiest corporation gets the same level of service and access. This could push the legal system to become more abritrative than adversarial - hopefully resulting in a renewed focus on the pursuit of justice rather than victory for its own sake. (I read about an interesting example of this a few years ago: A law firm started handling IRS audits on a flat fee basis. They had amazing settlement rates because the IRS knew they couldn't drag the proceedings out until the clients ran out of money to pay for their defense).
There was "another internet" and it used a similar naming scheme (blahblah.com).. and then I went out advertising *MY* domain names, on this entirely separate internet.....?
Oh no ! I could be sued by the guy that sells those
"Big Johnson" tee shrits !!!
Another person here mentions the McMunchies case -- even closer to home was an Illinois story in the Chgo Trib about a downstate family restaurant named, yes, McDonald's or something quite close to that. McDonalds decided to open a franchise in the same town and threatened, cajoled, pleaded with the man to change the name (his name) of the restaurant; he declined. Eventually the McDonalds franchise went out of business.
:) (After they retired beef tallow from their frying oils, they added beef extract to the fries to recover some of the flavor. But they didn't tell anyone, got sued by irate Hindus, and so on. It turns out teh partially hydrogenated vegetable oil they now use for frying may be as bad for you as animal fat, oh well.)
McDonalds is intensely litigious, like Disney and other megacorps with valuable trademarks. McDonalds will sue over just about anything "Mc" in fact. I suppose it is a business calculation -- it is safer to keep their trademark pristine, even if it means crossing the line into thuggish intimidation.
Trivia: Did you know there's beef in McDonalds french fries? True story.
Or trademark trivia: In the movie The Secret of NIMH, based on the superb story Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, the protagonist is subtly renamed "Brisby" -- turns out they were contacted by...
The corporate domination thing has been on my mind.
Bill Wyman the rock critic has been using his name for almost 10 years. I recall he was a rock critic in Chicago for years before he moved to Atlanta. Even then he was careful to tell anyone that he wasn't the Stones Bill Wyman.
At no time does he pretend to be the former Stone, and he still sounds like an American teenager, not a decrepit burnout British rocker.
Bill Wyman the rocker should just relax. I mean he's set up for life. He's retired from the band. Perhaps this lawsuit is based more on his perception of irrelevancy than any sort of financial loss. Perhaps since he wasn't invited on the Simpsons, he thinks he's gotta show someone who's the boss.
My father is a blogger.
We just need to assign everyone a guid.
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson
Tell the former rolling stone to shut up and get back to gathering moss!
looks like www.InsensitiveClod.com isnt taken. anyone think /. will sue me if i try to register that?
The worst was a case where this lawyer sued a mom and pop shop that makes wheelchairs. Both owners use wheelchairs and it's assumed that all of their customers use them, so they never thought of putting up a handicap parking sign. They would have been happy to comply if asked (about $50 for the placard) but instead this sleazeball lawyer extorted $1600 out of them! Fucking slimeballs are nothing but legal terrorists. Go bomb them along with Osama!
Quick Altavista people finder... and there are over 1000 of me just in the US. I wonder how many of me I could take to court for violating my right to me? Does this make me a number???
Uzi Nissan, if I were him, I'd sell the domain and get something else to avoid all the people who type "www.nissan.com" into their browser to see cars. If there are as many people doing this as the article on Uzi says, his costs for bandwidth must be crazy.
...the last few paragraphs of the posted article?
Wyman says he first used the name onstage in 1963. "In 1964 I adapted his name, and changed mine by deed poll," he writes in a footnote.
Me, I was born Jan. 11, 1961.
What I need now is a lawyer to ask Mr. Siegel that his client stop using a name I have claim to by several years.
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
Slashdot - you mean this isn't Entertainment Weekly?
Sigs are bad for your health.
[dis: Posting Anonymously because the companies I reference have already sent me C&D letters because of posts I made on Slashdot]
The lawyers are being paid by someone to do what they do. I remember when I worked at InterAct Accessories, Inc. Some guy had registered InterAct.com way before InterAct was formed as a company. He didn't even use the domain name for a webpage, just mail. I remember my boss' conversation with the company lawyers. It went along the lines of, "Do whatever it takes, I want InterAct.com." After multiple failures to legally obtain the domain name, they had to settle for interact-acc.com. My boss didn't stop, he insisted that I somehow 'hack' the domain name so we could 'steal' it. I pointed out how this was illegal.
The lawyers aren't to blame. It's people like my boss. The people that grew up getting everything they wanted, and when that trait continues into adulthood, you get people like this. They don't care if someone has a legitimate claim to something, they want it, and they'll do anything to get it.
Heh... Oops. I only know the names of Mick and Keith, and somehow I got the impression they meant an editor at RS magazine. My bad.
:-)
Time to go flagellate as pennance. Nah, even worse, I'll listen to a few hours of the last couple of Rolling Stones albums (I like their old stuff, but rock greats should OD young to save themselves the inevitable "resurgence" or "reunion" tour).
I regret I can't moderat this as "+1 Dude, I'm sorry."
Just kidding, I saw that this was the Stone's Bill Wyman, but wanted to point out that these kinds of freaky "Springeresque" moments arent reserved for our friends in the South.
Maybe he, Roman Polansky and Jerry Lee Lewis could start a media company like SKG and only release PG 13 movies...
-dameron
But not as old as the Nissan Forgery in Dresden, Germany, Koenigsstrasse. Founded in 1876, as you can see if you walk by. It's still on the gate. Nissan happens to be a common family name wit the sorb people, that live in the eastern part of Saxony.
So all this "my name is older than yours" reminds me of the old aristocratic people, all maintaining huge lists of ancestors to prove that they deserve rights and priviledges. It reminds me of an old joke, where God creates Adam and Eve and then asks them if they wish for anything else. "Yes", replied Adam, "I would like to have the family name of Hardtenstern." God gets angry: "Adam, you are just the second day on earth, and you are already longing for one of the oldest prussian aristocratic names!"
The aristocratic families of old lost their priviledges during a series of revolutions in Europe... shall we wait for the next series to end all the priviledges bound to the names?
Funny thing is, he's Israeli. His name isn't Japanese, it's Hebrew. Read his site for the full story. Apparently, it's just a name over there. I guess an "Uzi" is just like a "Tommy Gun" in terms of origin.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ha!
Where are my mod points? This is A-material.
phillymjs writes
"We're probably all familiar with Uzi Nissan and his fight to keep his nissan.com domain name from the clutches of Nissan Motors. Well, more same-name idiocy came to light today..."
I'm normally 100% on the side of the small guy but Uzi Nissan initially bought it for his own, private family business but -- and this is the important part -- he "modified its website to include a 'Nissan Computer' logo that was allegedly confusingly similar to plaintiff's logo and also included numerous banner advertisements linking to various automobile-related websites."
So let's not have a knee-jerk reaction which stipulates that "small guy good, big guy bad" (four legs good, two legs better?) every time push comes to shove. When we do, we start looking like reactionaries and that is the most effective way to discredit us as a group.
My
Limekiller
I was named Slim Shady at birth by my aunt who adopted me. Is there any leagle recourse for me? I feel like the coolness of my name was taken from me and everyone I meet from this point forward thinks that I am a looser copycat idiot. - Or can I sue my Aunt for nameing me so stupidly, and without regard for me? - ok I not slim shady. - I know a Jack Daniel Day, a Peter Woody, a Dick Frank, Patty Wacker and many other names that could qualify for leagal action of some sort. Wyman, Nissan, Smith... they're all the same.
From Law.com
barratry
n. creating legal business by stirring up disputes and quarrels, generally for the benefit of the lawyer who sees fees in the matter. Barratry is illegal in all states and subject to criminal punishment and/or discipline by the state bar, but there must be a showing that the resulting lawsuit was totally groundless. There is a lot of border-line barratry in which attorneys, in the name of being tough or protecting the client, fail to seek avenues for settlement of disputes or will not tell the client he/she has no legitimate claim.
I bet you have all of his records!
- Bob
"Bill Wyman is hereby ordered to pay $50,000 in damages."
.. wha?
Plantif and defandant in unison: YES!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
But not as old as the Nissan Forgery in Dresden, Germany, Koenigsstrasse.
I'm not surprised. Apparently it's a common combination of syllables for names. Heck, Uzi Nissan is Israeli, and his name means the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, while the Nissan Motor company comes from an abbreviation of a company name which basically means Japan Industries.
I think it's pure injustice if Nissan (Motors) gets away stealing the Nissan (Computers) website. Irregardless of that, I was correcting the factual error that got modded so high up by the parent poster.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://www.bendover.com
Think about it, if Linus Torvalds writes an article about Linux it will get a certain response.
If that Linus isn't "The Linux Linus", it might be misleading not to mention that in some way.
I kid you not.
:-)
Here I am going through life, thinking it's all fine and dandy and stuff.
I believe that the occasional guy starring intently at me is part of normal life. I figure that it happens to every guy that a girl will walk up to them insisting she'd show him her boobs.
I conclude that I must have a worse memory for people recognition than the average person because the phrase "don't I know you" is mostly used by others about me and not the other way around.
Then finally one day a friend walks over after a conversation with someone (during which they had been looking at me intently, but as I said, what's new?) and says,- that guy I was talking to thought he saw you in a movie last night at his hotel. *grin*
"Uhm, ok, I don't think so, whazup with the silly grin?"
"Well, twas a pr0n movie!"
And then it slowly starts to daunt on me, there is this guy that is in practically all American made pr0n movies that does look a lot like me. (oops, did I just confess?)
So now when someone asks me "don't I know you?", I just grin. And I'm always sure to inspect those boobs.
The issue here is not about cybersquatting, nor in the name used for a business, or who is profitting of whose name. The Stones Dick wants the Atlanta Dude to stop using his name in any way associated with publicity! There is no business listed under either name, and the BW website is also a non-issue, sheesh, I haven't seen this much evidence of this many people not reading articles in a long damn time!
(Yeah, I know this is redundant, oh well)
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
Sure, Uzi Nissan probably has the right to nissan.com. But lets be realistic about things. 99.9999% of people who type in nissan.com are looking for the car company. The only people expecting to see a 2-person computing shop probable saw nissan.com on a business card, and just as easily could have typed in "nissan-computing.com". I doubt anyone has ever thought "I need a computer company, lets try nissan.com". Mr Nissan is going quite far out of his way to confuse a lot of people. Just because hes within his legal rights (maybe), I still think its cruddy thing to do to both the company and potential consumers. It would also be nice for him to provide a hyptertext link to nissandriven.com, which he currently is not doing.
That is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Mad props!
-klerck
A very similar thing happened to me. Back in '97, I was sent an email requesting that I remove my name from my webpage. This was because the company, using a similar name to mine, was annoyed my webpage was listed first in search results.
.
You can read the correspondance between them and me here
They are not around anymore, though I was very interested in what they could have done. Apparantly, a lot.
according to the website (you have to dig a bit more than you did), he didn't do that.
Check the site now. He's got some golf gear he sells, but no car stuff.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
He should put the disclaimer "Note: this is the literate Wyman, not the musical one".
The lawyer was full of... stuff..., of course. But the REAL Bill Wyman handled this exactly as it should have been handled -- publicized it with precisely the right mixture of annoyance and amusement. The lawyer now looks like an idiot, and no harm has been done.
Even better, the lawyer might well receive, in due course, a Cease and Desist letter from his own client, the Other Bill Wyman, who probably found out about this today and is not happy to have his lawyer make him look like an idiot.
Would all foolish threats of legal action would provide such entertainment value and end so harmlessly....
Catherine
Fine. Co-founder, co-song writer, co-lead on a number of songs (Hungry Wolf, We're Desperate, The New World, True Love, I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts).
I am Emmitt Smith.
how big does the company/entity have to be to assert "some are more equal than others" claims? Maybe we should just codify this kind of thing. You know, something like "If you have 5 million in the bank more than the defendant and you have the trademark for at least 5 years, you get the domain." It's no more fair, but at least there are no false claims to the contrary.
This one *has* to be an accent-related one. I can't work out what it's meant to be.
... but the others elude me.
I can get "cheat em"
Could you please post it again, spelt phonetically?
Funny,
I thought it was Dewey Cheatum and Howe.
It's Roman Polanski.
People are going to have to start attaching sig lines to anything they write:
"Any resemblance to fictional persons living or dead, is purely coincidental"
They're probably from Everything2
Do we cheat 'em and how!
Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
The lawyers have an e-mail address:
firm@pryorcashman.com and a website at http://www.pryorcashman.com
Do like I did. Send them a nice letter, tell them you disagree, and try to make them acknowledge that you have the right for your name.
...you fucking cretin. You can be Bill Wyman all you want, you just can't try to make a career out of it that rides on the bassists coattails. For instance, if your name were Calvin Klein, how fair would it be for you to open a retail clothing store with your name in big letters over the top? Are you starting to get the point, or do I need to explain HOW THINGS ACTUALLY ARE IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR FUCKING PATHETIC FANTASY. Fucking dipshit.
to have the same last name of an accounting firm that has been convicted of a felony?
Can I sue? That name has been in my family for a lot longer than that company has been in existence.
Just think about the troubles that George Foreman has coming...
Not phonetically, but the end result is:
Do we cheat 'em? And how!
Perhaps you could look up the definition of offtopic? That will go a long way towards answering your question.
Of course, you could always explain why you ARE on topic... or could you?
Bill Wyman wrote for the Chicago Reader back in the 90s. He was not loved. See Three Pandering Sluts And Their Music Industry Stooge, featuring the always-entertaining Steve Albini.
I mostly agree, but not completely.
Let's say, for instance, there is a city named Nissan. Does this mean that the company Nissan is automagic entitled to take a chunk of the city for a factory/wharehouse/etc? Nope. They have to buy the property, and obtain permits, just like any other company. Now (other than the virtual part), what's the difference b/n "real" realestate, and virtual realestate?
The only laws that should apply here should be: It's illegal to profit off of someone else's property (intellectual or otherwise) without permission. So, if back when the web first came out, (let's say) Ford didn't have the foresight to register its domain name, but a Ford enthusiast did, and post pics of Fords he liked (not for profit), why would Ford the company have the right to take the domain? (In this type of case, Ford should offer to buy the domain, and give a chunk of webspace on their site for the enthusiast to post his site, that's good marketing.)
While I am opposed to "squatting", what makes this illegal? If a company is looking to expand in the future, but doesn't think ahead and purchase all the land around it as it becomes available, what stops you from buying property around the plant, so you can profit off of it when they realize they need to start buying? Just because something is possibly morally wrong, doesn't make it illegal, far from it in most cases.
Unfortunately the sharks will just leave the lawyer alone. It's professional courtesy.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
My name is Paul G. Allen, PGA, the same as the co-founder of Microsoft. I don't know what the other Paul Allen's middle name is, but I do know that it starts with a G, just like mine.
I suppose that just because we are both in the computer industry, and I can't stand using Microsoft products or services and am known for stating this fact, I'll be the next to be sued for using my own name online or elsewhere?
Well, to Nissan Motors, Bill Wyman (the fake one), and anyone else who thinks they should have exclusive ownership to someone's name, dictionary word, or common everyday phrase. I say:
Go to hell.
Make us change our birth certificate and re-write the english language! Oh, and BTW, I'm claiming copyright on the words "the", "The", "a", "A", and "I" (and all variations of "I"), and the name "Allen" because they've been used by my family for hundreds of years (and I can prove it too!), so no one had better use them or I'll sue!
PGA
If the musician Wyman wins the litigation, it will be the final proof the world is totally fucked up on all abstraction layers.
As a student in Computer science, we had to take a class in Intellectual Property.
After buying my own domain (lastname.org), I asked this specific question: "Do I have to worry about someone coming to take away my domain name from me?"
The answer was no. As long as I use it for my own use and do not infringe on today's copyright (if someone registers my lastname as a trademark later, I was first !)
An important question when discussing IP is "who used it first ?" If someone else comes along later saying "this is my name", too bad for them.
There is no one else in the world with my full name - and probably only one person (a first cousin) with the same first-last combo. It's really not that hard to give all children unique names, and will help the government track us unambiguously. Name duplication is a needless infringement on the uniqueness of the individual. Let's outlaw it. No more "George Bush"es!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I don't mean this to be a bash aginst America but as I read this I thought that this sort of thing could only happen in the litigation happy US. Don't you Americans get seriously and violently angry with the power afforded to lawyers in your country?
Sue me too!!!
Sean Gray
me@seangray.com
[unclesam@usa
This morning, I heard a prank phone call from a local radio station to a guy named Harry Potter. They were pretending to be lawyers trying to cather up as many Harry Potters as they could for a class action suit against Warner Brothers.
Of course it was all a joke, and the person named Harry Potter seemed to be okay with the fact that his name was now something of a household word. His wife even found great amusement in telling everyone her husband was indeed Harry Potter.
It was mentioned that Harry Potter is quite a common name, and a web-search for people named Harry Potter would turn up quite a few people.
Just something to think about.
For the longest time I thought the name was "Hairy Potter" and it was about a hippy.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I think it would have been nice if the Journalist BW had put a disclaimer on his Rolling Stones articles *as a courtesy* to prevent confusion, but no way in the world should he be forced to do so through threat of legal sanction. He has a greater claim to the name, in some ways.
Conversely, it would be equally nice that should Musician BW decide to write anything, he specify he is not the Journalist BW.
People overlook these things so often, by just leaping straight to legal threats and litigation. Had Musician BW (or his agent) just written a friendly letter to Journalist BW, asking him to consider qualifying his Rolling Stones articles as a courtesy, I'm sure it would have been readily agreed to. But no, people with lawyers always have to leap to the 'cease and desist'.
By way of example, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once received a polite letter from an American writer of the same name, asking very nicely if PM Churchill could qualify his byline (PM Churchill was also a published author of some note) to make clear the difference between the two. PM Churchill instantly agreed (in a quite amusing reply letter) to always include his middle intial when publishing texts in the U.S. Both sides were satisfied, quickly and without lawyers, by using a bit of civility and commonsense.
Doesn't seem to be as much of that about thesedays.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
Bill Wyman the journalist has nothing to do with the billwyman.com domain. It is not a fan site. It is an official site, registered in the UK, presumably to associates of Bill Wyman the musician (Bill Wyman the journalist is in the US). The domain was not mentioned in the Slashdot article or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. Repeat after me: It's not about the domain. It's not about the domain. It's not about the domain...
I Don't Know's on third!
I told those fudgepackers I like Michael Bolton's music.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
Does this mean I have to remove the "Dirty Deeds and They're Done Dirt Cheap" from my business card?
I thought it had to do with trademarks? If the Rolling Stones Wyman is trademarked, there could be a real issue. But we are not talking about domain names here, because the Stones Wyman already has that site. In the case of Katie.com (the book about the first 13yr old girl to successfully get someone arrested for baiting her over the Internet, then molesting her) - The book is called Katie.com, but the web site katie.com is owned by a woman who had the domain for years. Since the book came out, she now gets bombarded with hits of ppl looking for the book. The books domain name is katieT.com. The woman has tried unsuccessfully to get the publisher to stop using katie.com as the title of the book, but because she never trademarked her own name (which I don't think you can do anyway?) the publisher has no worries. Bottom line, if it's not trademarked, it could just be a spitting contest.
In another story, someone I know had a domain and received a C&D letter. The company who sent the letter did have a trademark which matched the domain name exactly, so the guy had to give it up.
CORRECTED:
"Because the average US citizen is a loathsome, greedy, insensitive fool."
Funny how people assume that the US represents the world. Guess what?
It doesn't. Enjoy your freedom.
I work with someone named Chris Farley. =)
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Remember in Count Zero where Virek's empire had taken on a life of its own? Yeah, it's like that.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Actually it's Sue, Grabbit and Run
do we cheat them and how?
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
And I don't give a darn!
Hello, my name is Rupert Xerox. I think that this corporate-name-patenting stuff is complete BS.
While that kind of thing is apperantly common in Germany (including charging the person you're suing) I don't belive law firms can just go off and sue people on their clients behalf without their knowlage in the US.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You weren't an ISP either, so .net isn't any more appropriate than .com would have been. The TLD naming guidelines haven't been enforced in years anyway, so who cares? Or, if you prefer, there IS no individual TLD, so by the old rules NO individual can register a domain.
.com is perfectly appropriate.
Either way, using this as criteria to settle court cases is absurd.
Oh yeah, one more point - the article here has SFA to do with domain names. And if you were referring to the Nissan case, Uzi Nissan uses his domain to sell computers, so
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
My friends name is Russell Nash. Now after reading this article i told him he should probably hide or start the battle now .. since well u know .. "There can be only one"
dvNuLL
You might find this website interesting: the True Stella Awards, put together by Randy "This Is True" Cassingham. Every week, he writes up another ludicrous lawsuit.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Lawyers are just serving a purpose, if people did not chase for money in stupid ways then they would not be needed!
I imagine a bleak future in which parents will name their children strategically, trying to predict the new and hottest up-and-coming businesses and grabbing their URL before the company does (in the name of our child!).
The standard in trademark law is "likelihood of confusion." I have it on good authority that people have been starting to wonder about Wyman-the-reporter. It turns out that reporter Wyman 1) doesn't play bass; 2) doesn't play with the Rolling Stones; and 3) has been known to just stand there like a statue. The third factor is what pushed the other Wyman over the edge and prompted him to sue.
The guy who was born Bill Wyman should change his name to Perks... ;-)
LeGuin wrote a rather nifty book, where among other quirks one of the societies did have unique naming. once the person was dead, the name could be used again.
heaven
why not letting the internet community decide on who should get the domain. this is not something for the courts to decide.
if people would like to get to nissan by using nissan.com then they will vote for it.
Did you go to Cherokee High? There were twins that went there named Lemonjello and Orangejello, which was what the mom ate during her pregnancy I think.
"Witty Phrase."
IIRC, Uzi Nissan will not even discuss selling the domain to Nissan Motors. And he has spent a fortune trying to defend his right to the domain. Far in excess of it's monetary value to him. If he WERE willing to sell the domain, then Nissan Motors would probably just use that as evidence that he registered it in bad faith. He is NOT doing this for money.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Force Nissan to accept the url NissanMotors.com.
Force Nissan computers to accept NissanComputer.com
Remove Nissan.com from the registery for 5 years and let this
thing cool off. Force Nissan motors to pay ALL the legal
fees for both parties.
Anyway he still has Nissan.net.
King Salomen has spoken.
Actually, YES THEY DO. A lot of times a lawyer is retained to "protect trademarks and copyrights", and then they just go off hell-bent to do it without further direction from their retainee. I recall a good while back one of Microsoft's law firms went around cooking up business for itself by deleting the mouse driver off a laptop, walking around to computer retailers and seeing which ones would install the mouse driver to help them out. The ones that did got letters in the mail about their "illegal piracy" (since the mouse driver was copyrighted), and demanded a settlement of $5000 or some damn thing, a portion of which went to the law firm, the rest to M$. It later came out that Microsoft themselves had no idea their firm had taken it upon themselves to do this, and told them to stop when the negative publicity started piling up. This lawyer for Wyman probably is proceeding along similar lines to "defend" his client proactively (and of course bill for his time....)
>>> I am now convinced that our species will not survive past the next century.
And a damn good thing that would be, given how its screwed up the world!
There are plenty of examples from history to draw upon to justify "people" versus "US". "A History of Britain" is a contemporary and rather convenient video source. I am sure there are many more.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It would give a whole new meaning to the term SLASHdotted.
Air Canada recently renamed one of its subsidiary airlines "ZIP" and then tried to bully zip.com (a postal-code database provider) into giving up the domain name. The domain owner said that he would be willing to give up the domain name if Air Canada would cover the legal and administrative costs of renaming the business -- less than $100,000. Air Canada refused to pay, and threatened to sue for cyber-squatting (in spite of the fact that the zip.com business is real). Meanwhile the zip.com website started getting hits from travellers looking to book flights. So of course zip.com placed a prominent link on their page directing ZIP Air customers to www.westjet.com, the prominent discount competitor to Air Canada. :-P I see that the link is no longer present, so I assume Air Canada abandoned its claim. ZIP Air is now advertising "4321zip.com" rather heavily in Canada.
Following letter sent to admin@billwyman.com:
Bill,
Hey I like your music, but why are your lawyers suing Bill Wyman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for copyright infringement for using his own name? As a lot of people know, you were born William George Perks and changed your name to Bill Wyman in 1964. This guy at the Journal-Constitution was actually born (in 1961) with the name Bill Wyman, making him the original Bill Wyman. What gives you the right to shut his scene down just because you fancied his name? I think this is Majorly Uncool, and it may cause me to stop listening to your music, just on the principle of the thing. Please reconsider this very unfair move - many of your fans oppose big guys shoving little guys around with the power of their lawyers. And we vote with our music dollars.
In the same sort of issue, for the last few years www.survivor.com. has gotten thousands upon thousands of hits, for people looking for the Mark Burnett/CBS series of the same name. However, the company that owns the domain, has owned it far longer than the television series has existed, and as such, still own the domain.
It seems resonable, that a first come, first serve policy be in order, presuming that whoever is in control of the domain, is using it, for other than defamitory purposes.
Again as an example, www.survivor.com still links to the company's homepage along with a description of the events which led the the confusion, however right next to it, is a link to www.survivorsucks.com
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Roses are red, Violets are blue, I'm schitzophrenic, and so am I.
-SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
No, your mother is going to kick your teeth in for being such a moron, and then kill herself for being such a shitty parent.
I depend on Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe for my legal matters.
-SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
...if you're a Yank like me, you already have a unique and arbitrary numerical identifier -- your social security number. Yes, no "Jr." allowed, indeed I believe you cannot tell heredity from the SSN alone.
Just be glad they haven't barcoded it into your forehead for airport security -- yet.
In other news, McDonnell, world-renowned maker of fighter jets including the F-15, has decided to sue McDonalds, world-renown maker of fried heart-attack hamburgers.
McDonnell is apparently worried that the US Government, intending to go to McDonnell.com and buy an airplane, will instead go to McDonalds.com and buy a Happy Meal.
"Naturally," a McDonnell representative said, "We don't want McDonalds taking advantage of our good name and making 15 million dollars on a Happy Meal because the US Government got confused."
McDonald's has filed counter-suite, claiming that a family wanting to buy a happy-meal for $4.50 will become confused, walk into McDonnell Corp and buy a F-15 for $4.5 Million.
"Obviously," a McDonald's spokesperson said, "there is a great potential for consumer-confusion here. We just want to make sure that consumers intending to buy a Happy Meal will buy a Happy Meal and not an air-plane."
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Richard Hatch is also, of course, well known to everyone in America as the original Sole Survivor.
And it is reasonably well known that they aren't the same person. So, who wins that fight? The guy who had a starring role in a short-lived, well-known television show, or the one who had a short-lived role as the star in a well-known television show?*
I don't doubt that Bill Wyman's lawyers have a reasonable concern here, but it sure seems to get ugly fast. Personally, I think Atlanta's Bill Wyman should do what he can to waste the other Bill Wyman's money:
- Agree to give up the name for a sum of money, then spend years negotiating for a reasonable amount
- Start signing his column as Mick Jagger.
- Legally change his name to be the same as the lawyers.
- Send over an agreement that says he won't play bass as long as the other guy doesn't write about music.
- Agree to include a disclaimer, then ask for approval on each one, then ask for approval on minor changes, then make major changes and start the process over...
- And generally send back letters that lead the lawyers on wild goose chases. How many high-priced billable hours would it take to bankrupt The Other Guy?
Although I suppose his employer will decide it's easiest just to add a disclaimer. Sigh.TSG
*At least in the Internet Movie Data Base there is a "I" and a "II" so that you can tell the Dicks apart.
The really scary part is we were much worse. It's amazing we got this far.
where do these fuckwads come from?
as the late great bill hicks once said, "just kill yourself"
-
Registrant:
Natalia Skuridina (LASTNAME-ORG-DOM)
7 Chkalovo St., #47
Kostanai, 456000
KZ
Domain Name: LASTNAME.ORG
Administrative Contact:
quotes@DomainResearch.org
Research Institute
P.O.Box 1319
FIN-00101,
FI
Commercial law, when you are a rich country, is about how to divide the pie, not how to create it. So it makes sense for any individual or company to sue whoever if they have a case. If Mr. Nissan is preventing Nissan to use a domain that is important to them (and it IS very important, the first thing you WILL try is www.nissan.com) and he is not willing to sell it, they (for business reasons) have to sue. And get the best lawers of course.
So everything rests on what the law is, who can buy it and who your judges represent. Don't blame the lawers, they are just leechs playing for commercial entities the game of dividing the pie.
I mean: get GOOD judges, and support GOOD laws. That's the only way to keep sue-happiness from raping your rights.
unfinished: (adj.)
Oh wonderful. But...you neglected to tell us where we can find the country with all the good people in it!
/lastname/ is of course supposed to be replaced by my real family name which I don't find any interest in putting out here.
I dub thee flamebait. So, fuck you, you prick. You don't know shit!
You know, for a flame, this was pretty funny. :)
Just where the fuck do you think Wyman (the Rolling Stones one) is from?
Excuse me
who is it that is doing the leveling?
fundamentalist assholes
not us.
we have every right to defend ourselves, and anyone claiming that we are simply saying that as an excuse for some agenda is free to visit New York and explain to the families there how we ought to just leave everyone alone over theyah in tha middle east!
Do we cheat 'em? And how!
:)
I think it's a gag from a Marx Bros. movie.
deus does not exist but if he does
His name is my name too.
Whenever I go out,
the people always shout,
"There goes John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith!"
La la la la la la la.
Erik
YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!
My reaction to learning how all this works was to suggest that our system should be more like the British system, where the loser pays the legal fees. That would stop these nuisance suits. But it also effectively stops private indivuals from suing large corporations.
How many private individuals successfully sue large corporations in the US? Not many, huh?
Moving to a loser pays system will not make this sad fact appreciably worse. Under a loser pays system, private individuals will have no problems raising the necessary legal firepower to take on Nasty Large Corporation in a fair fight if their case is strong. In such a situation, the risk of the plaintiff losing is minimal, and Nasty Large Corporation will probably settle, or if spectacularly pigheaded, fight the case and lose.
If the plaintiff's case is weak or borderline, they probably won't take the risk of losing, and this is the only real drawback of the loser pays system. I'd consider it a small price to pay for being immune to nuisance suits. Remember, those nuisance suits are just as likely to be a case of Nasty Large Corporation preying on a poor helpless individual.
It was Burger King - And the Burger King (single) Won and the Burger King (corp) Lost, and wasn't allowed to put a resteraunt within a thirty mile radius - So folks attending EIU have a long way to go to get a whopper.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
My name is Slas Hdot.
Im sorry but come on, since when is a persons name a breach of copyright?
A persons name is part of their very being and like their genetic make up should not be part of the "sue til ya drop" atmosphere that seems to be affecting the US and the rest of the World more and more.
I give up. Wake me up when we get to reality
There was if I recall correctly the case of krupp.de where a guy with that family name lost in court to the steel corporation. The reason was that the corporation had a much higher "public interest" value in the domain name.
.com - to the international corporation rather than some guy.
While this sucks for the individual involved, I think it kinda makes sense to give a Domain - especially
Make all lawyers work for minimum wage!! That way when you get your next C&D letter, you'll be able to afford the very best, just like the big boys!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Its amazing how many people replied without RTFA and immediately started blabbering...
It's even more amazing how many times people feel compelled to point this out. Geez, can we get a few REDUNDANT moderations for these people instead of Insightful?!? Sorry for picking on your post, but it was at least the 20th one dedicated to RTFA.
I know a guy who went googling for his own name, and discovered that he was dead!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Oh, come on, you can go better. Here, let me help:
http://www.tgrigsby.com/lawyers.htm
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
It's pretty obvious this will be thrown out of court, but the real problem here is the lawyers: can the real Bill Wyman sue the lawyers, or can a judge fine the lawyers a huge amount for filing such a ridiculous cease and desist?
I mean obviously the renamed Rolling Stones Bill Wyman wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for the lawyers, and any half-way decent lawyer would have informed him he can't force people to stop using the name they were given at birth, so I think if I was the journalist Bill Wyman I'd go after the lawyers for filing the cease and desist.
Maybe Bill Wyman should file a complatin to the Bar Associatation...
Ah - thought it must be a problem with accents.
... not "do-ee".
"Dewey" is pronounced "jew-ee" where I am
As in "Hugh-ee", "Jew-ee" and "Loo-ee".
Thanks.
Why not make a simple deal: The corporations can have .com (it was made for them) if and only if they keep their greedy claws off .org
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Dewey, Cheatham & Howe produce the radio show Car Talk on National Public Radio here in the US.
That's the name that the very funny guys on Car Talk gave to their production company.
Disclaimer: This is just an idea off the top of my head, I'm sure there are holes...
Plaintiff must roughly estimate the amount they intend to spend. From that money they provide the defendant with equal funds for his own defense.
Example 1: A big corporation intends on suing you, it needs to provide equal large dollars for your defense.
Example 2: Little guy sues big corporation, slight burden as he has to spend twice what he would normally have, but he could find a lawyer who will work pro-bono.
Example 3: Little guy sues big corporation with lawyer on pro-bono. No money need be exchanged.
So it solves the big guys threatening the little guys, but does not necessarily help with suing the big guys. But, really how often do small time people sue big players without some sort of pro-bono situation?
Just a thought...
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that B.G. knew in advance of the 9/11th attacks - and could have done something to prevent them, if he had wanted to. But events like these were what the jerk needed to become a statesman.
I consider the ostensible stupidity of the so called intelligence most suspicious.
didn't Budweiser try this on with Budvar ?
despite czech brewers having called their beer Budweiser for generations...
The court case would be fun :-) Who would get to be called Bill Wyman in the transcripts...
Fortunately in the UK _anybody_ can trade under their own name, even if it's the same as some other well known name so long as they do not attempt to act in a fraudulant manner.
Unfortunately, companies with lots of money will just drag the legal process out for month after month in the hope that the small guy runs out of money first.
There is a good argument that in david v. goliath court cases that a maximum expendature be imposed by the court before the case starts, to prevent misuse by the very rich.
BTW, I'm not really Bill Wyman.
Sorry, couldn't be bothered to read parent.
"[...] It's slander when it's spoken. In print, it's libel."
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Because otherwise economic forces would encourage people with marketable names to have a disproportionate number of children, making phone books of the future more difficult to hash efficiently.
Virtually serving coffee
Too right, my man, too right! On like EVERY level!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
So ... Where the heck are you from? Just curious!
Actually on car talk it's the law firm they emply not the production company. I should also mention they name huey, dewy, and louie in the same referance.
aparenly the D,C&H. is an old joke, long before click and clack.
I put together a web page on this type of issue 6 years ago. In fact, I drafted a tongue-in-cheek letter on that page frightenly like the one journalist Bill Wyman received!
B.G. .....
Bill Gates?!!?!?!?! You fucking moron!
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
That in mind, consider that it *is* still against the law to actually impersonate someone else with intent to commit fraud. The operative term here however, is INTENT... and since a person does not choose their own given name, there is no legitimate reason to suspect intent.
Maybe they should sue the parents. Oh, THAT'D go over well... "Yah, let's sue the parents for naming their kid after us: it's clearly an attempt to profit from our good name." NOT!!!
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Actually, check the link that I provided. Look at the bottom of the page. Yes, it's an old joke, but one that they took so far that they used the punchline to name their company.
A: Chum.
"Tank you, I'll be here all ze veek."
John
NICE! :)
They authorities know the solution.
When Nissan Motors tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan, their spokesman said "We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free, but he has no interest in being Nissan Computer -- his real name"
They have nissanmotors.com - so is it not EXACTLY the same as them having no interest in being Nissan Motors -- their real name.
IANAL but Nissan act unlawfully by overreaching their trademark - they cannot claim all occurances of the word 'nissan'. It is against Competition Law for them to prevent others from doing using the word in business - if they are not acting unlawfully (which Mr Nissan is not).
Quote from European Competition Law:
2. Abuses of dominant position (Article 82)
2.2. What are the prohibited practices under Article 82?
c) Abuse of intellectual property rights The mere existence of a patent, trademark or copyright is not sufficient to establish a dominant position.
Like I say, the authorities know the solution to trademark conflict and consumer confusion on the Internet. It is therefore logical to conclude that the US DoC, ICANN and UN WIPO are dishonest (to say the least), as they hide the answer (ratified by honest attorneys).
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it. Not associated with corrupt United Nations !
These type of headlines infuriate me. If any judge permits this type of corporate and Hollywood bullying of the law, he or she deserves to be tried for stupidity and degradation of society. A person's name cannot and should not be a copyright concern. Do you know how many Bill Wymans and people with the last name Nissan there must be in this world? It's bad enough a burnt-out rock star is claiming copyright infringement when he is the one that changed his name in the first place. What is the original Wyman supposed to do, change his name? Damnit this flames me!
I was born "Dennis Carr", and yet people find it strange that I don't own any sort of internal combustion vehicles.
This sig no verb.
> BTW, my given first name is Duff
> you can bet I would raise all hell if FOX tried to take it from me
There's a guy in Dunedin, New Zealand by the name of Duff. He owns (and has for years) one of the many micro-brews in town. A year ago or so FOX shut him down, now the brewery's called McDuff's. They used to sell small window stickers, but he runs a really tiny outfit & I'd guess market penetration never made it north of 45 degrees south..
Does he live in a van down by the river ?
-Linux is SO fast it does an infinite loop in 5 seconds.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
Probably the key bit of new information, in answer to the "why now?" question:
Any relation to a certain F1 driver?