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."
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.
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.
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?
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!
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."
Why? Or perhaps more appropriately...Why, man? (sorry)
Should someone really be forced to limit the use of their name because it's already taken by a spotlight star? What's next - the need to copyright and enforce IP rights on your name so that no-one else can use it? Give me a break.
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
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
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?
No one should ever be forced to change their given name. Period. Why can't people like you understand that real people are living real lives, and that they names are not properties to be bought and sold via lawsuits.
There is absolutely NO inconvenience if both Bill Wymans use their own names. Geez! Next thing you know you'll be arguing that there should be only one John Smith in the world.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"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
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.
...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
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").
It's a small point, but it says:
"brand names of those two wholly American lifestyle products"
For some reason, you are trying to substitute Uzi and Nissan for "wholly American lifestyle products" which yields the completely illogical conclusion that Uzi is a brand name of an Uzi, and Nissan is a brand name of a Nissan.
The products are cars and guns. The brand names are Nissan and Uzi.
We certainly need some changes to the U.S. legal system, but I don't know what it should be.
/. recently (I'll avoid mentioning the case to not attract the attention of the agressive plaintiff). I've learned a lot in the 18 months that this case has dragged on. What they taught me in high school government class has very little to do with the realities of the legal system. You can sue anyone for anything, whether there is merit to the case or not. Even if the suit is completely bogus, it is likely to cost so much to defend that many people settle anyway. When the guy suing me filed a second similar suit, I was tempted to defend myself (the legal term is "pro se"), cribing from materials my lawyers produced in the first suit. But since it's actually my one-peson web programming business (which is incorporated) being sued, I'm required to be represented by a lawyer.
I'm a defendant in another lawsuit which has been mentioned on
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. It's not clear that this would be any better.
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
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.
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.
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.)