Slashdot Mirror
The Neverending Sex.com Story
fwc writes "This has to be the story which will never end. Back in 1996, Steven Cohen "stole" sex.com from its original owner (Gary Kremen) by forging a letter to Network Solutions asking for the domain to be transferred to him. Subsequently Kremen sued to get the domain name returned. Through what seemed to be a neverending parade of lawsuits and judgements (Documented on slashdot here, here, here and here, and also in several other places), Kremen finally got his domain back and Cohen was ordered to pay $65 million in damages. In the latest twist, Cohen is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the verdict of the lower courts by claiming that he owned the sex.com trademark prior to Kremen registering the domain. This should prove interesting since it looks like the filing at the USPTO occured two years after the domain was originally registered."
Who would want that domain?
You won't be able to send spam (I don't accept any email that contains the word sex, espescially in the address)
You'll be blocked by every single netnanny on the planet.
Your only visitors will be minors, who don't know how to search for porn, besides typing "sex" into the address bar.
Doesn't sound like the best audience to me.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Given the amount of comments thusfar, nobody?
Karma? What's that again?
I could try to make some joke about there having to be some prior art concerning sex, but I think this subject has been "beaten" to death... as it were.
All this suing countersuing and appealing just makes lawers richers and everyone else more pissed off! Network solutions should have been able to handle this on their own and stopped this whole mess.
There is no god
he still FORGED a signature in order to get the domain back. Right or wrong that's still breaking the law, isn't it?
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
No wonder they're fighting hard to keep the name.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
My god...this just never ends, he stole the domain...i dont know what ever possesed him to think he would get away with it...he got canned (big suprised) and hit with a lawsuit (wich he deserved) I hope the judge rules that he has to pay....and they both have to shut up about the whole thing. This has been going on far to long now
From day one Network Solutions has been horrible. Their customer service sucks. Because of their f-ck ups in the early days it is now nearly impossible to get information changed on an older domain. Compared to other companies, their prices are shit. And because of all this they ended up causing lawsuits. I'm just happy that now(or for the past few years) there is more than one choice for registering a domain name.
... seen the commercials?
/me mutters something and gets back to making amanda load stuff into the proper slot and receiving dumps from clients
:) ]
All this sex.com "controversy" makes me wanna take a few extra-strength Motrins...
[ you know... amanda
Have EVDO, will travel.
Talk about taking site squatting to the max.
I'm going to tell my children stories of Steven Cohen and his values of perseverence.
I also wonder if someone (other than the courts) can evaluate the sex.com websites value ($65 million is what the courts ruled, don't know if that includes any other charges with it). But I can only imagine the money sex.com could bring in.
---
Mike
I'm going to kick the next person that I see with their karma rating in their sig.
This just proves that sex is worth big money.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
...the first thing to do is to create http://goatse.sex.com ! Then, he'll be RICH!!
End this petty dispute. I want to start using it.
In the meantime, cocks.com is a good substitute.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
"lets fight over a domain that only red necks and kids at school will visit".
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
i thought the dot com bubble already burst? didn't we figure out that a specific generic name does not = lots of visitors? are these guys arguing over who owns it for their ego's sake? what a waste of time.
moox. for a new generation.
Any relation to the Steve Cohen that is suing George Bush, Tommy Franks, etc for war crimes in Iraq? Or just someone else who is similarly sue-happy?
can sex.com be trademarkable? This guy's just dragging out the inevitable. He's going to lose.
or so the saying goes.
I don't know if his trademark application was successful (and, frankly, in this particular case, I almost don't care) but it's pretty damning of the USPTO if it did award a trademark for to someone for a domain name that belonged to a third party.
Maybe the paperwork that was filed with the application was fraudulent - it wouldn't surprise me, given the rest of the sordid history surrounding this domain name custody case - but I would hope that the USPTO would check just who owned a domain name before recognising someone's right to own a trademark based upon that name.
Because, if domain name ownership isn't a legal or moral requirement when applying for the relevant trademark, this will open the floodgates to a slew of tenuous and unfounded applications. Anyone could file for a trademark for business.com, shop.com, maps.com, tickets.com, or any other generic (non-company specific) domain name in the hope of fleecing the legitimate domain name owners in a civil courtroom.
Every way you look at it, this trademark application stinks. It should never be granted. Hopefully, the USPTO will see sense and learn something from this sad story.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think this going to end up claiming that somone time travelled to register the trade mark similar to the recent news item where someone on the NYSE managed to turn $800 into $30 million. When arrested for insider trading he claimed he was a time traveller who had knowledge of the stock market.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
We did, but people who pay to have banner ads to sex.com have not: heck, they think it is human beings clicking on those banner ads!
The Supreme Court would note Cohen's prior record (which also includes fraud and impersonation) and throw the case out. Also considering Cohen is on the run and failed to appear in court for an appeal, there is clear evidence he will not a) appear (He will be arrested for previous charges) and b) is stalling and wasting court time. You dont need to be a lawyer to see the end in this case, even if the trade name filing was valid, there is enough of a record against Cohen to suggest he has exactly zero chance of the case even being heard.
a new site is born!
CohenSexSucks.com
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Who I share a name with, why, oh why, did it have to be this jerk?
"This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries."
Attorney General Mike Hatch on Microsoft
That there is no such thing as "bad" publicity, esp. in the adult industry...this is nothing more than a bunch of white noise to generate free advertisement for the guy.
/.!
Wise up,
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
...Network Solutions is wonderful now. I'll agree with you on the pricing issue, they charge what's basically a ridiculous amount given the number of other registrars out there who are happy to register for $10/year and provide good service. I would never recommend them to anyone now.
;))
However, compared to several years ago, Network Solutions' security policies are very good at this point. Perhaps too good - I've heard horror stories about people having to go get documents notarized and snailmail them in just to make changes on WHOIS information. If anything, their security policies are overly strict and pre-assuming of wrongdoing at this point.
Step back several years, when NSI was the only registrar around, and all domain updates were handled via email to hostmaster@internic.net. Those were the days. I hijacked hundreds of domains back then, with nothing more than an anonymously sent email. All you had to do was fill out the domain modification template and forge an email from the person currently listed as the administrative contact - the changes requested via email would go through by default unless the true owner caught it and wrote in. Even if the legit domain owner figured out what was going on, the changes would often take place before they were able to contact NSI (and prove that they didn't send the update email).
Hijacking a domain was such a piece of cake back then. I'd just make a fake account with a service like mydomain.com, transfer the target domain's name servers to mydomain.com via an untraceable anonymous email, and set up the mydomain.com account to redirect the domain in question to the site of my choosing.
It was too fucking easy. These days you need a customer ID and password, what a pain in the ass
At least they finally got the security thing worked out.
Better yet: What makes it on-topic? Where's the relation between a ascii gay pr0n image and the debate concerning the ownership of sex.com?
But I kind of agree, it's more -1 Troll than -1 Offtopic.
-smurk
Saddam and OBL are still on the loose.
North Korea is doing a little nuclear dance, with Pakistan and India waiting in the wings and Iran putting on its dancing shoes.
Isreal and the Palestinians are murdering each other daily at the drop of a hat.
Children in parts of Central Africa are being sold into slavery to fight for a rebel army, who like to slaughter civilians.
Millions die of disease, malnutrition every hour of every day.
Bush and Blair get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for starting a war.
Millions of American citizens have no Health Care coverage and can't afford even basic medications.
Thousands of American citizens have had their rights trampled by the Patriot Act.
With these kinds of injustices going on all over the world and in the US, the US justice system, courts and resources are being used up by two idiots who have been fighting for 8 years over the words "sex.com"? One guy has even been awarded $65 million USD for wasting the time, money and resources of the US Judicial System all the way up to the Supreme Court!
Am I the only one who thinks this is just plain wrong? Stupid? Couldn't any of that public money (incurred by the courts for providing courtrooms, reporters, etc) be better spent?
Let me tell you, as a non-American who has lived close enough to the US all my life (about 15 KM) to have observed this, this is the reason the US is disliked and even hated in many parts of the world. Not individual American citizens mind you, but American culture and especially various American governments, especially Republican administrations. Outside the US you are seen as a petty, greedy society that only cares about yourself and are willing to use all your military and economic might to back it up. Kinda like the school yard bully...
Fair or unfair, that is the perception beyond the land of the stars and stripes. And this entire story, in all it's sordid detail, only backs up that perception.
In the first world, we outside the US just shake our heads in disgust and wonder at such things. In the third world, they throw stones, pick up guns and drive trucks full of explosives when they hear about this (especially if they are living under a repressive regime and their children are starving). So when there is a "next time", don't act surprised...
I hate to be harsh, but as a friend and a cousin, just thought you'd like to know.....
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I wish /. had a full-time lawyer to read over this stuff and offer her opinion, that would be cool.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
There is a town in New Zealand called Urenui. In Maori, this means "big penis". But no-one thinks it funny, compared to names of towns with quite innocent derivations...
Actually, all he had to do was show that he had used the mark in commerce or had a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce to file the app. In the latter case, he could have filed up to three year's worth of extensions for time to show use of the mark in commerce.
The USPTO is not the "trademark police". It is the trademark holder's responsibility to police the mark. So when he filed his app, other potentially valid owners should file notices of opposition (to the registration of the mark). While filing for a "domain name" may seem like the more important thing to do... afterall, you have the domain, you own it, right?... a trademark owner can trump your domain name registration with prior use of the mark.
Now, they may have a battle in trying to get the domain name transferred (obviosuly, this case is a battle). The USPTO doesn't "compare notes" with NetSol. In fact, I doubt they all that much give a hoot about NetSol.
The key point is that, even though the guy who forged the letter may have had "bad faith" in acquiring the domain name, if he actually used the trademark first AND filed for the USPTO application first, he is the "senior user" and would theoretically win the "trademark battle".
Domain names are pretty irrelevant to trademark rights. The fact that you reserve one doesn't mean jack to the USPTO nor the courts in determining who owns a trademark (especially if all you do is reserve it and park it!). If anything, you are better off spending that money filing with the USPTO, because the key thing an USPTO application gets you is "constructive notice" (i.e., anybody who uses your mark after you should have known you owned it) and that is more powerful than registering a domain name (which, by itself, is not use in commerce anyway).
here is your link.
since you were too stressed tired and arsed for this
You forgot to yell, "Get Some Priorities!".
The Supreme Court would note Cohen's prior record (which also includes fraud and impersonation) and throw the case out
The Supreme court does not throw cases out. They decline to hear them. They get thousands of appeals every year and only hear a minute fraction of those.
This is not a news item. It lacks significance, period.
Just another example of the dimwit mental capacity of the editors that run this sight.
You are a failure, just like everything else.
Because, this is a landmark case involving such topics of debate as whether a domain name is owned by registrar or registrant, whether virtual, incidental prior art can trump a patent, and why the hell they'd kill Trinity at the end of the movie. Maybe this should be relegated to yro.slashdot.org, but hey, it's early in the AM :)
My favourite wierd place name is Wetwangin yorkshire, UK.
If they feel that it's a waste of time, and this certanly qualify, they'll just refuse to hear the case.
that you wouldn't pay for a continuance of neverending sex.com
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
Yeah, but the whole argument is that he filed the trademark two years later, making the origenal registrant the "senior user"
But Cohen's been such a damn pain in the ass, that if I were a judge, I would through him away.
Seriously.
Then you have to pay a royalty everytime you do sex?
As all of you are aware, Michael Sims is the Jerry Falwell of the 21st Century. He stole away my award winning project, the Censorware project, in what can only be called the crime of the century. (Do revisit, I've added many updates.)
When Michael Sims took away my project, he left me angry and bitter. From his first message "The Censorware Project is now closed" to his current propagation of lies and slander, Michael Sims has desecrated the freedom that I and every American stand for.
Sex.com is a pitiful excuse for a "hijacking." I implore you, Slashdot, do a story about Michael Sims taking away a web site that is far more enticing than any "Sex" site.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
For a fee of $1,000, Networks Solutions processed the domain name conversion and sex.com officially became Cohen's property.
Wow. I sold my old domain a few years later (waste.com in '98 I think) and I don't recall a fee for the change at all (or it was a modest fee and the buyer paid).
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
He forged a signature. The man commited fraud. I say throw him in jail.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
1) find companies that did not go through the USPTO to protect the .com, .net or whatever attached to thier regular name.
2) go through the USPTO and do it.
3) Sue the company for use of your name
4) Profit.
I claim mcdonalds.com and mcdonalds.de see you at the USPTO offices.
Here in South Africa we have a (cough) performance artist called steven Cohen who's 'art' consists of walking around without pants on , a dildo up his butt irritating the narrow minded and being laughed off by the rest. Seems like as pointless a pursuit as fighting over sex.com.
Irrespective of the content of this story, Slashdot, how could you profane one of my dearest childhood memories (of the movie The Neverending Story, although I'm sure some have similar memories of the book as well) with an idiotic story title like this? What's next, Final Sex.com Fantasy or Super Sex.com Brothers or Twinkle Twinkle Little Sex.com?
I suppose it's too bad if you happen to be a little old lady who subscribes to the Middlesex Bingo Club Newsletter... :-)
you can suck my American dick
Dildo, Newfoundland, Canada
That doesn't make any sense. You might want to click here
How in the heck could this "prove interesting?" If the domain was registered in 1994 and the trademark was not filed for until 1996. Not to mention that this has not affected the case up to now, the thief ran away to Mexico, and the Supreme Court is likely to refuse to consider it - I fail to see the interesting part.
What it does remind me of is the "Famous Monsters of Filmland" ugliness. Forrest Ackerman won the court case hands down, but Roy Ferry continues to flaunt the law. Do not buy the magazine, unless the rightful owner gets his baby back. Here is a link to Ackerman's site:
http://4forry.best.vwh.net/
There is a short description of the case on the site. This is even more tragic thant the Sex.com case, because there is no sex.com - it is all about a man who loves science fiction and monsters and another man who is a huge bastard.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
I've never looked at a trademark patent before, but what does it mean near the bottom, First use date, and First commerce use? Was this guy telling them in 1996 when he filed, that he had first used 'sex.com' in 1979? What?? Or am I missing something?
Mr. Liggett: Alright, Lightman. Maybe you can tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.
David Lightman: Um, your wife?
Really - so what.
Observe that, generally, domain name urls take the form of TRADEMARK_NAME.com. So maybe this guy should get together with C|Net and start up a sex.com.com section for technologically discriminating adults. ;-)
The supreme whores will rule in favor of whoever contributed the most to the republican party.
I work in the adult industry, so while I haven't followed the newswires every day, its one of those communities that stuff gets around in. After the he lost the domain and the Judge ordered a 65mill lawsuit, everyone said he fled with the money.
So Cohen got all the assets that hadn't been frozen like a $5mill house in San Diego that was stripped to the bone before the guy ran. Now its used for sex.com parties.
I wonder what repercussions his resurfacing might have???
A website that tells kids the truth about sex. I'm not talking about planned parenthood here.
It's like "the talk" but done in the style of Fred Durst telling you HOW IT IS.
STDs, how to protect yourself, and what it means when you hear "It's not you, it's me".
That kinda stuff.
The "How to avoid roofies at parties" guide for girls. Etc.
Secretly it's funded by Playboy, NIH, and the Ad Council. Finally, personals for teens. To help out all those lonely geeks in high school.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Thanks!
It's like the gift to slashdot that wont' stop giving similler to napster and Sean Fanning,
Oh and lets add MS
Linux Kernel _____
I'm sure someone could make a living out of it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
once of these bozos may try to get licensing fees for every biological apparatus capable of performing the sex act with payment retroactive to the initial commencement of said activities.
The potential payoff could be in the trillions or trillions of dollars however I'm certain a settlement could be reached for a lesser sum.
In fact parents may be encouraged to prepay the license fees for their children along with any pets or other biological childhood companions (excluding other biological companions of the bi-pedal humanoid variety) they may have at substantially discounted rates, the aggregate of which would assure the licensor adequate funds to comfortably live out several lifetimes.
Cheers and remember that a percentage of your allowance must now go for license fees every day.
If I ever get into trouble then I want Cohen on my side. That guy never gives up!
18. Gator.com
Gator free eWallet download fills in online forms.
www.gator.com
A case only goes to the Supreme Court if four justices agree to hear the case. Why should they?
One point that isn't brought out in the article is the history of this argument (i.e., Cohen's IP defense). Was this defense raised during the original trial and dismissed, or is Cohen raising it now for the first time? In the former case, it would then warrant an appeal as Cohen would be arguing that the trial court erred in precluding this defense or restricting him from presenting it properly (whichever is the case). If it's a new argument for the defendant, however, procedurally he's barred from raising it on appeal. I wish this fact (has Cohen raised this argument before?) was covered in the articles, as it matters a great deal...
Still, as the article points out, Cohen is not complying with the trial court's judgment so his chance of winning on appeal is exactly zero as he has "dirty hands"...
IAAL...
Shouldn't "sex" be an .org? Or, perhaps multiple .orgs
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
right on brother ! agree 100%
agree 100% right on brother !
right agree 100% brother !
How about selling TRADEMARKED domain names (filed and approved, of course). It would seem that the domain name selling business could add value to their sometimes unscrupulous business by providing this as an option. M
> In the latest twist, Cohen is asking the US > Supreme Court to overturn the verdict of the lower > courts by claiming that he owned the sex.com > trademark prior to Kremen registering the domain. Duh, isnt it obvious that Cohen is either clueless or looking for some more free publicity? I mean, why dramatize this story thats already reached its logical conclusion. Its obvious that the guy acted in bad faith. On a related note, I saw the millionaire scandal on TV last night. Isnt it fairly obvious that major was cheating? You've really got to see it to observe the absurdity of it all - changing answer every single time until the right *cough*.
If you're not using firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
---
I wish there was a way both of these schmucks could lose. Fighting over sex.com bah
I say no gnews is good gnews from gary gnu
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a law student. So, while I couldn't offer any valid legal advice, I could self-promote and get my name out to the masses so that you'd all be suckers for my services when I can actually work for a living. :)
oh, and, erm... I'd be happy to help however I can... :-/ (seriously.. the previous was a joke...)
Better get me before I take my professional responsibility course in two weeks and find out what I'm not allowed to do until I have a law degree.
Why the F#*&ING HELL does slashcode put "translation please..." as my default subject line in every F$(*ING comment I make? *growl....
I hate to sound like a racist bigoted conservative slob, because I'm not, but I'll never work for a jew again. Cheap cheap cheap!
It's clear this Cohen character is clinically insane. The SCOTUS won't even review nonsense like this. They'll tell him to get lost. Then they'll probably send a note to the US Marshalls to go help Kremen collect his $65 Million.
Ah, yes -- I remembered the days when even a realtively clueless newbie like me could register bill-is-lord.com, resistance-is-futile.com, and weshallprevail.com in Microsoft's name, and watch people (and MS) freak out. Good times.
Let's toss Cohen back in jail, this time for life. Repeat offender, no remorse, no sense of responsibility, nothing but a financial danger to society.
I'm all for reform as much as possible, but this guy is just a dirtball who has had too many second chances already.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
He may actually be entitled to the trademark - that he filed the application to register the trademark with the USPTO at a certain time doesn't exclude the possibility that he did own the rights to the trademark prior to that. But he might have a "slight" difficulty proving it... ;-)
Man, because of the title of this article, "The Neverending Sex.com Story," I was expecting some kind of eternaly-updating fictional erotica on Sex.com.
Instead, I just get some boring old dissertation on who owns the domain.
Oh well, back to work I go.
"Sometimes you have fun, and sometimes the fun has you"
Trademark rights arise from use of a mark, not solely in registration of a trademark. Whether this guy filed a registration or not ahead of the use by the first netsol registrant, it's not relevant unless he had some bona fide usage of the trademark that he can submit evidence of. IANAL
This should prove interesting since it looks like the filing at the USPTO occured two years after the domain was originally registered.
Not at all. For our foreign friends, the United States is not a first-to-file nation for trademarks, but a first-to-use. The registration has many relevant benefits, but it does not *CREATE* the right to the trademark (although it can in some other cases). The right to the trademark derives from use in commerce, which may or may not have preceded the domain name registration -- and a later filed application for registration can easily prevail if predicated on prior uses.
In this case, the application claims a remarkable date of first use in the late 70s. Whether it is true or not is litigable, and the oath of a known forger isn't terribly persuasive to support it, but the date of registration, that's not even an interesting question.
Yes, a lawyer saying something doesn't make it right, but it does make it an informed legal argument, that's all.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I like this part of the article:
"agreed to expedite oral arguments"
Oral arguments persuade me every time!
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal