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
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
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.
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
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
Well, it was an award from the defendant, not from the US taxpayers, so unless you're going to argue that the guy who stole sex.com was going to use his ill-gotten-gains to fight terror, slavery, bad breath, and the rest of the social ills you mention, I don't see how the rant is relevant. I'm not a fan of litigation, but I'm also not a fan of theft. David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
My favourite wierd place name is Wetwangin yorkshire, UK.
that you wouldn't pay for a continuance of neverending sex.com
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
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.
None of that crap made any sense at all. Basically you listed a bunch of things that you dislike, said it was the US's fault, then complained that instead of fixing the problems we were arguing about who gets $65million dollars and also complained about how that money was made.
None of the things you mentioned can in any way be said to be the USA's fault (not the government, and not the people). We have however, been TRYING to fix those problems, mostly without the the aid of non-americans like you. Just because we try to solve a problem and you sit back and compain, does NOT mean we are responsible for that problem.
And $65 million dollars is sufficient valuable to argue about. Sorry if you think $65 million is not worth talking about.
As for how that money was made, well I hate to tell you but non-americans contributed to it too. It is as much the non-american's fault as any anyone elses.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I suppose it's too bad if you happen to be a little old lady who subscribes to the Middlesex Bingo Club Newsletter... :-)
I understand that it's a landmark case, but as far as I can see, the courts have done a good job for once. The fact that the loser wants to have another stab with what seems to be a low chance of success is not important.
Please wake me again if the Supremes take it on, that would be news.
Karma? What's that again?
The fact that the loser wants to have another stab with what seems to be a low chance of success is not important.
Not unless you're a lawyer who gets paid either way. Damn lawyers...
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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?
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. ;-)
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
I'm sure someone could make a living out of it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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?
That whole story was actually bogus.
See the Snopes Article for more.
Raoul Mitgong: Unhelpful.
David,
Point taken.
I'm just a little disturbed that this kind of money can and is awarded for such trivial things like stealing web site names or spilling hot coffee on your own lap.
The US taxpayer didn't pay the award, but you bet they paid for the courthouse, the jury costs, the judge, the baliff, the court reporter, the filing papers etc in the place this case was decided. And now the Supreme Court of the US, clearly a government supported institution, is involved.
If such frivoulous law suites were disallowed or restricted by the "loser pays all" rule that many Commonwealth countries have, that money could be used to fix some of the US centred ills I spoke of, instead of being wasted on something so dumb.
If the guy committed theft, send him to jail. 8 years of litigation for an ungodly sum of money he is not likely to see even if he wins seems like a big waste of time, money and judicial resources.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Sorry you missed my point, but I see you are just proving it.
It's not whether the things I listed are the fault of the USA. I know most are not. Not the people, not the government, but the system. Which is supposedly controlled by the government, who are supposedly controlled by the people.
A system that seems to care more about awarding $65 million USD to a guy who said "hey you stole my sex.com" (or $100 million USD to an old lady who apparently doesn't know what a cup holder is or what the phrase "Caution, Contents are Hot" means) than about some real important issues (yes, I'm trying real hard not to say "Get some Priorities").
Wouldn't the time, money and judicial resources wasted on this crap have been better spent? The guy is not likely to see his $65 Million any way. How many people in the US could have recieved medical insurance for the public money this case has used up? How many more important cases could the judges and court staff helped to reolve instead of this one.
I really hope you guys DO fix it.
But I was simply giving you a taste of what many of us on the outside perceive when we hear about this kind of thing, which seems to be unique to the American system.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
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.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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....
Frivolous? You wouldn't say that if it was your website that was stolen. Also, the court costs are the same whether he paid $65MM or $10. The case had to be tried because he stole the guys site. And if you believe that people are not entitled to appeal a court decision no matter what the cost then you are far deluded than I thought.
Who are you to judge what is a valid case and what isn't? If you read anything about the McDonald's case you would know that the coffee was actually at 180-190 degrees and she received 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body! Over 700 people were burned by McDonald's coffee over a ten year period and McDonald's was well aware of the risk of heating the coffee to that temperature. I recommend you check this site out.
As for this case - the domain was stolen and Network Solutions would not give back the site without a court order so it had to go to court. The decision on the case awarded the site back to the original owner along with $65MM in damages with $25MM of those being punitive. Now if you lost a case for $65MM would you not try to appeal it? I know I would. It is up to the appeals court to determine whether the case has merit or not. If they decided it does then they hear it and the public pays the cost. If they don't hear it then that's it.
I think perhaps you don't understand what you are talking about and instead like to throw around kneejerk Anti-American sentiments.
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.
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
You have made a LOT of judgement on our priorities. But you have made very little statements to back them up.
The sex.com case is NOT about who has the right to say they own sex.com. It is about the corporation that made millions of dollars by owning sex.com. The fact that what they are arguing about is "sex.com" is what YOU are focusing on, because you have your priorities all screwed up.
You should instead be focusing on the IMPORTANT thing, which is the money, instead of getting so worked up against how it was made.
The sex.com case is well worthy of the US supreme court. It refers to a lot of money, deals with a complex issue (fraud, rightfull patents granted based on fraudlently obtained rights), and is still relevant - there was a lot of domain name theft.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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"
Say you owned a one of a kind hot dog stand making $10 a day. Someone comes by and steals the hotdog stand away from you and it takes 8 years to get it back. The damages to you in terms of lost revenue is about $10*365*8=$29,200
Sex.com is probably making a lot more money than $10 a day from advertising. I'm not saying he lost $65 mil. in revenue, but should be compensated for any lost revenue. The other portion of the award was probably punative damages and lawyer fees.
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