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."

23 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Why want? by Malicious · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Why want? by yatest5 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Your only visitors will be minors

      Well, they've got nothing much else to do these days what with the sweeping redundancies and the move to cheaper, foreign imports - leave them alone!

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    2. Re:Why want? by hughk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I hope you are only blocking the word, not the string.

      In the UK, there are the counties of Essex, Middlesex and Sussex. There is also the region of Wessex. There are a number of organisations that have *sex in their domain name, including, I would guess, the police force.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    3. Re:Why want? by Zach+Garner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I've got .uk blocked as well!

    4. Re:Why want? by pldms · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I've got .uk blocked as well!

      Clever. Additionally removing Scunthorpe, Peeover and hundreds of other dubious place names from your mailbox :-)

      --
      Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
      me a number based on the order in which I joined
    5. Re:Why want? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 5, Funny
      (I don't accept any email that contains the word sex, espescially in the address)

      And slashdotters wonder why they're single. I, on the other hand, allow the word "sex" in e-mails, and because of this, have gotten numerous e-mails from eastern european girls who want to marry me or from lonely housewives who want to chat when their husbands are away. Now, which one to choose...

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    6. Re:Why want? by Spunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      spoogle.

    7. Re:Why want? by sirinek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh come on, Dildo, Newfoundland has them all beat!

    8. Re:Why want? by rembem · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget Fucking, Austria.

  2. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. What a waste of court time! by rkz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What a waste of court time! by hendridm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might not feel it's a waste of time if it could mean that $65 million in damages would be wiped off of your list of bills to pay.

  4. Of course regardless of if his claim is valid by Mossfoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. This never would have happened by dirkdidit · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. dot com bubble burst? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. How silly is his patent? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  8. Re:Talk about taking site squatting to the max by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 5, Informative

    according to theregister.co.uk (sorry tired and stressed and cant be arsed to make that a link)

    the site generates somewhere in the region of 500,000 dollars a month in advertising space alone

    So worth quite a bit by the looks of it

    S

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
  9. just remember by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. yes by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why yes, yes it is still breaking the law. Besides the fact that he applied for the trademark 2 years after the original registration of the domain, forging a signature is a serious offense. I say throw the bastard in the slammer for a few months.

    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
  11. Re:How silly is his patent (trademark)? by cenonce · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  12. Wetwang by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 4, Funny

    My favourite wierd place name is Wetwangin yorkshire, UK.

  13. Re:So "sex" is trademarket? by Drakkar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm doing this already, so no big difference

  14. Re:WRONG! by arkanes · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know whats REALLY funnny? When you put that into google so you could have a scathing link, you misspelled apostrophe. Note the spell=1 on the url.