Slashdot Mirror
Visa vs. evisa.com In Vegas
wessman writes "In October 2002, Visa (the credit card company) convinced a Las Vegas federal court to prevent the small business JSL Corp. from using the term 'evisa' and the domain 'evisa.com' for its website offering travel, foreign language, and other multilingual applications and services. The court ruled that the website--run by Joe Orr from his apartment-- 'diluted' Visa's trademark, even though the site uses the word 'visa' in its ordinary dictionary definition, not in relation to credit card services. Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is helping JSL with an appeal. The EFF has a press release available."
ivisa.com and myvisa.com
which are also registered on who-is
and where does it end?
bluevisa.com, redvisa.com...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Garbage. E-Visa is not a trademark of Visa. /applied/ for it to be a trademark, but that's not to say it is one -now- for them to be suing under. RTFA.
They may have
On the E-Visa.com website, under Legal it lists their trademarks as:
The trademarks, logos, and service marks (collectively the "Trademarks") displayed on the Visa site are registered and unregistered Trademarks of Visa and others. VISA®, the Three Bands Design Mark®, CLASSIC®, the Comet Design Mark®, the Dove Design Mark®, ELECTRON®, ENTREE®, the Impulse Design Mark®, INTERLINK®, the Network Design Mark®, PLUS®, the PLUS Design Mark®, and It's Everywhere You Want To Be® are registered Trademarks of Visa in the United States and other countries
If you exchange your Visa for a MasterCard, you won't really be boycotting Visa:
Visa and Mastercard are really two names for the same economic enterprise, i.e. a group of 6000 banks. Of these, the same 50 or so big banks own, govern and make all of the competitive decisions for the brands called Visa and Mastercard.
From PBS
Visa and MasterCard are being sued by American Express and the DOJ for antitrust and by a a group of retailers for antitrust related to debit cards.
>> Now, you can argue that Visa shouldn't be allowed to trademark dictionary words, and you're probably right
Of course you can trademark dictionary words, or combinations of them.
Are you saying every company should make up some gibberish string of characters for every product or service they want to offer?
How would you like a alvnernmpal digelflorp?
A trademark only applies to the specific product or service, though. And it's only being violated if someone uses it for a similar product or service.
Trademarks are valuable not only to corporations, but to you. If you buy a Ford Explorer, you're getting a Ford Explorer. If I sold you a mo-ped and told you it was a Ford Explorer, I'd be guilty of fraud - because I misrepresented it as a trademarked good. If not for the trademark, I'd be innocent so long as there was a sticker on it saying 'Ford Explorer'.
In this case, if evisa offers credit, or some other financial services, they'd be fraudulently tricking people into thinking they're Visa.
But the name of the company doesnt matter. If you go to the website to apply for a credit card, you quickly realize that it's not the same company at all.
They aren't going to trick you into booking a vacation thinking that there's a gold card waiting in Tahiti for you.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Reading the 26 page court document you'll find that this guy negotiated the sale of evisa.com for $250k and apparently wanted more so Visa went to court. Also according to the court document, this guy also registered:
usadirect-online.com (USADirect is an AT&T trademark)
picturebookmaker.com (Picturebook is a SONY trademark)
Now usadirect.com is not an AT&T website and usadirect-online.com is no longer registered. The picturebookmaker.com was registered in 1995 so there's more to it but either this guy had a horrible attorney or the judge was asleep the day they explained those two domain names.
While this is a small business, it has a total of one employee... the owner. He also has two corporations. You incorporate in Delaware to keep corporation officers anonymous. You incorporate in Nevada to avoid paying income taxes. So what does this guy do? Incorporate two companies. He owns the Delaware one directly (anonymously) and the Delaware one owns the Nevada one. The Nevada one is the company that holds evisa.com and "operates" it.
Also on page 10, "JSL stated on its Web site that it provides e-commerce, Web site development, and payment services, including online credit card processing. After Visa International filed this suit, JSL removed the reference to credit card processing".
On page 8, defendant says, "[f]or the right price, evisa.com might be available, but I'll have to check with a couple of people, one of whom is in Japan and one of whom is on vacation." He later admitted that this was a false statement because he did not have to check with anybody. He turned down an offer to sell the domain name for $50,000, instead demanding $250,000.
While I suspect the judge's ruling was based more on the fact that the defendant was a sleazy bastard rather than on the merits of the case, I don't think the EFF should have taken the case. My guess is, if the EFF helps him overturn the ruling, he will turn around and sell the site to Visa. He's just using the EFF to get free counsel for his profit venture.