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."
That's like San Fransisco suing eBay...
First post?
I hope that Visa gets e-visa-rated in the ensuing lawsuits.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I mean, I know this is slashdot, and a million people are going to say the same thing...
but that's rediculous. A VISA is a very, very common international term NOT related to credit cards.
If the site was about any kind of financial transaction providing, I'd say this was completely justified.....
I hate to say it, but I think Visa's got a case. My first thoughts when I see evisa.com are "electronic Visa". There is legitimate potential for confusion here (unlike the Lindows case). Now, you can argue that Visa shouldn't be allowed to trademark dictionary words, and you're probably right, but legally Visa's on solid ground.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
...unless Visa (credit card corp) is planning on going into the travel visa business with a one-card system (all your info is based on the numbered tracks on your card, which reference a central database). Even then, there is no case at current until Visa owns the travel visa process.
I can't believe they convinced a Las Vegas federal court that it was a legit case. It should have been laughed out by the judge in less than 10 minutes. There is no way this should have gotten this far.
Visa is not suing JSL because their website "evisa.com" dilutes Visa's trademark. They are suing JSL because their website dilutes Visa's "e-visa.com" trademark. Which Visa owns. Visa owns the trademarks to both E-Visa and to eVisa. Neither of which is in the dictionary, thank you very much.
EFF should be spending its time on a more worthwhile lawsuit. They'll go down in flames on this one: Visa is dead right.
Judge should rule that unless Visa corp is in the business of distributing entry clearance permits for world nations, they must immediately change their name to something else.
They are diluting the normal outlets for visa applications and work permits.
HOLLAND, MI -- Popular geek news site Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) has come under fire recently for featuring articles on the Visa, Inc. credit card company. Visa has trademarked any combination/permutation of the English letters "v", "i", "s", and "a".
Lawyers from both sides have slated a preliminary meeting and hope to settle outside of court.
Slashdot's head honcho, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, was unavailable for comments. Members of his site appear to be concerned about dealing with Visa's behemoth legal team, and plan on purchasing hot grit and goat insurance just to be safe.
Stay tuned as further details from this shocking case come to light.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
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.
Visa will lose on appeal. Though eVisa provides SOME services also provided by Visa credit cards, their core business is entirely different and they are using the term "visa" in its common, not proprietary, sense. Unless Visa can produce some proof of eVisa's *intent* to derive value from the Visa mark (through internal communications or similar graphics), they'll lose.
I, for one, cannot imagine how someone might be mislead into thinking that they were utilizing Visa's credit services.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Possibility for confusion is the test, but I'll never understand why a jury system is suitable for criminal offences (entailing possible deprivation of liberty -- very serious stuff) and not suitable for trademark issues. If confusion is the test, why not have a dozen or more impartial people decide if they would be confused? Have all the usual jury safeguards -- each side able to object to a certain number of candidates to get as unbiased a sample as possible, and go from there.
Personally, I'd have to agree with the above poster -- I did originally think electronic Visa, as in the card. But you can't trademark a common word unless it's acquired a secondary meaning linked to the product. This isn't like calling all tissue papers "Kleenex" or all snowmobiles "Skidoo". I'm sure visas (the passport related ones) were around before Visa was, and this business is using the word with a minor adjustment.
Another factor is supposed to be the point of sale. Are visas and Visa transactions done at the same place? No. So the possibility for confusion diminishes yet again.
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
Technology professionals: massive unemployment
Lawyers: massive employment
Lucy You should go into high technology. That's where the future lies.
Charlie Brown Yeah, right. Just hold the football.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Only in the credit card trade, I would imagine. Visa would have to either prove that their eVisa trademark is 'famous', or prove that evisa.com is in the credit card business to win this suit.
but I believe the eVisa.com guy could still be saved. The content on the previously-known-as-evisa.com site clearly showcases Passport-related items.
I think the best option for him is to buy the domain ePassport.com (if it's still available).
Doh! I forgot, he will then be sued by MS for 'diluting' MS's cross-site authentication trademark...
I guess he's screwed then... too bad.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Visa convinced a Las Vegas federal court to prevent the small business JSL Corp. from using the term 'evisa' by presenting all court official with visa credit cards to demonstrate their ownership of the visa trademark.
Later that day, the judge assigned to the case was seen in a Jaguar dealership, obviously conducting an investigation into the visa case by using the above mentioned cards. He refused to comment.
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
Exactly. evisa.com has been around since 1997. If I open a store called epillows.com and don't trademark the name and some big pillow company decides to trademark epillows and e-pillows, there's no way in hell they're taking my domain without a fight.
Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
// jeku.com
While USPTO.gov does state that Visa's Trademark application was roughly 2.5 weeks prior to the defendant's, the JSL (the defendant) application includes dates for first use and first use in commerce:
Visa's application: August 19th, 1999
JSL's application: October 6th, 1999
JSL's First Use/in Commerce: December 27, 1997
This handily beats out Visa's information, which doesn't include these dates at all. IANAL, but as far as I know the date of established use trumps date of application.
In fact, it could even be argued that JSL Corporation (the defendant) could sue Visa for dilution of trademark.
-----------------
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
ALPHA CENTAURI, Universe--Today when Visa Corp. sued the natural laws of...well...everything in a federal court for infringing on their European trademark of "Visa Electron" the court orded the Universe to cease and desist producing, using, or even acknowlodging the atomic particle formerly known as "electron." Incidentally, the Universe came to a screeching halt everywhere except for Alpha Centauri where the whole Universe is pilled onto one atom with no valence electrons. More news at eleven.
JSL has owned the "evisa" trademark in international category ic042 since October of 1999.
VISA has owned "evisa" in ic036 since august of that year. Why they didn't register evisa.com at the same time is beyond me, but in any event, they both have valid claims to the domain name, and JSL registered first.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I had this kind of a thing happen with my domain acbay.net. I was using the term bay to mean a body of water and eBay threatened to take me to court over it! I wasn't doing anything with online auctions. I just didn't want people to have to type www.animalcrossingbay.net....that is just too long! This is crazy...legal departments suck!
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
Reading the 26 page court document you'll find that this guy negotiated the sale of evisa.com for $250k and apparently wanted more so Visa went to court. Also according to the court document, this guy also registered:
usadirect-online.com (USADirect is an AT&T trademark)
picturebookmaker.com (Picturebook is a SONY trademark)
Now usadirect.com is not an AT&T website and usadirect-online.com is no longer registered. The picturebookmaker.com was registered in 1995 so there's more to it but either this guy had a horrible attorney or the judge was asleep the day they explained those two domain names.
While this is a small business, it has a total of one employee... the owner. He also has two corporations. You incorporate in Delaware to keep corporation officers anonymous. You incorporate in Nevada to avoid paying income taxes. So what does this guy do? Incorporate two companies. He owns the Delaware one directly (anonymously) and the Delaware one owns the Nevada one. The Nevada one is the company that holds evisa.com and "operates" it.
Mega-rich-corporation : 1,875,258
Some-guy-at-home : 0
Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
--technically, you are entitled to a jury trial for any dispute involving more than 20$. Just another one of those pesky constitutional "theories" that "modern law" ignores in a lot of cases. As to these trademark disputes, it would have to be alleged that somehow someplace someone lost more than 20$. The evisa domain holder could assert that handily. Visa on the other hand would be hard pressed to prove they lost one penny, as evisa doesn't issue credit as a business.
"Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law."
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.