Slashdot Mirror
Abercrombie & Fitch Loses Domain Name Suit
An anonymous reader writes "Abercrombie & Fitch has lost a case against the owner of a parody web site, Aberzombie.com, who sells t-shirts."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The level of activity on this announcement shows Slashdot readers' interest in Abercrombie and Fitch related affairs.
Umm...who confuses "cr" with a "z"??? I don't think people are that out of it.
Unbelieveable how inconsistant our laws are. Maybe they should have to re-pass every law or it expires. For example, those stupid ass inter-racial laws in the south, or consentual sodomy (oral-sex), or murder.
Obviously the good ones would be passed again and the stupid ass 1800's laws would expire and no longer be the grounds for police/legal harassment.
That's a pretty weak parody. I wonder what the legal standard for parody is? I guess parody quality doesn't come into it.
They are still actively enforced, and the Supreme Court has consistently held in modern times that a search warrant is not needed to break into your house if it is suspected that you are in the act of sex without the possibility of pregnancy.
What we really need is a hard and fast limit on the number of words of law allowed, maybe 100,000 words, otherwise there will just be an omnibus bill every year where all the laws are renewed. Then this bill would be held hostage just like the spending bills are now, except instead of just suspending law enforcement, it would actually be perfectly ok to rape and murder until the Republicrats learned which "side" had done more favors for the media moguls lately and folded accordingly.
I think if old law expired in a FIFO or explicit manner specified in the bill this could be abused equaly, since they could scheme ahead of time. Instead I think they should determine which sentences should be deleted randomly when the bill came up for a vote so that the deleted stuff would be debated then and there whatever it was. It would make for a more exciting C-SPAN.. The number of words could even be keyed to some real goals, like they get a free word for every independent newspaper with over 100,000 dayly readers, and one for every hundred thousand college graduates, and one for every thousand PhD's... gain one word for each 1% over inflation raise in the median income, lose a word for each 0.5% under inflation loss to the median income... So all in all the book would grow, but you could carry around a paperback with all the laws of the land. You could read the tricked out version with interpretations in a month, it could even be a Jr. High requirement to explain a random chapter in the law book. Maybe a high school requirement to watch an hour of the new improved C-SPAN live and name six factual errors and six opinions you didn't agree with and why before a jury of citizens in a fifteen minute response.
If you're old enough to go to war and die for your country, then you're old enough to get a fucking beer.
In European nations and many other nations, the legal age for drinking is 18, and the age of sexual consent is 16. No, the sky isn't falling.
Fucking XXX-tian zealots need to get with the modern times.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Why waste hundreds of dollars on clothes that are essentially made out of the same material, look the same, as other clothes, the only difference being they have an abercrombie logo on them? It's like those fucking morons in the 70's and 80's who'd pay 40 dollars for those stupid fucking alligator shirts.
Same thing goes for Nike, Reebok, Addidas, and lots of other "brand name" products, that sell for hundreds more than other products, but aren't any better. Only a fucking moron would buy them. Even in the business world, there are morons spending 10 times more for a 1000 dollar suit, when that suit is only maybe 10% better than a 100 dollar suit.
I'm not a parent, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't waste money getting my kids fucking crap like Nike or Abercrombie because "it's in". It is not cool to be a fucking moron and waste money on crap.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
More lawyers getting richer - I suppose you know it is all a big con.
.reg - like duh, simple or what.
I have identified the solution to the conflict of domain names with registered trademarks.
Honest expert lawyers have agreed it would uniquely identify all registered trademarked words on the Internet.
Not one lawyer has ever given logical reasoned argument against this. Indeed most are too cowardly to answer.
You may be interested in the solution and my informed opinion:
I make no egotistical claim that I was the first to see the solution. The authorities must have always known - it is indisputable that the answer was self-evident.
This is really very strange - because the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) said they were stumped. Having contacted them, UN WIPO does not refute or admit the solution - such is their contempt for the law.
I have even communicated with the United States Department of Commerce about it - they are most evasive. As are our own cowardly and dishonourable UK Patent Office.
As you will have guessed - it is mainly about the abuse of power by big business and money. On that - do you know where UN WIPO gets most their money?
From the facts (and this silence) it can be assumed that UN WIPO, US DoC and ICANN (with their lawyers Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue) are all a bunch of crooks. They aid and abet the violation of Trademark and Antitrust Law. They also abridge the choice of words that people may use - violating the US First Amendment.
Even Karl talks about the abuse of power.
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
Some simple facts - which even the layman can see is true:
1. You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. It is AGAINST THE LAW to prevent them from using their legal name - as the authorities do with UNLAWFUL fatally flawed Sunrise period and UDRP.
2. It is possible for many different firms to register the same word as trademark in the same country - but only with different type of goods or products, e.g. the word 'apple' is used by computer and tobacco companies in the US.
3. With the vast ocean of domains, most are not owned by registered trademarks, so some sort of label is required to identify them - or else they claim 'trademark conflict' or 'consumer confusion' - even 'passing off'. The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - it is really very very most exceedingly obvious that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function. For example - a protected Top Level Domain of
4. Using format of name.class.country.reg would identify ALL registered trademarks - e.g. apple.tobacco.us.reg and apple.computer.us.reg
This is then used as certificate of authentication or as a directory (dual functionality). There is NO RESTRICTIONS any business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG e.g. apple.com is directed to apple.computer.us.reg
If somebody could ask the Secretary for US DoC this easy question (as he ignores me) - "Mr Eva
Kinda like Alabama then.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
There are plenty of high quality sneakers available that don't cost anywhere near hundreds of dollars.
I bought a pair of leather/swade boot-type (brown) shoes from Dexter's 3 years ago, and they still basically look new, once washed off. $40 bucks, not a couple hundred. I'm sure the same can be said for sports shoes.
Are Nike's and Reebok's better than non-brand shoes? Probably yes. But they certainly aren't better enough to justify the increased cost. Your paying 400% extra to get shoes that are maybe 30-50% better.
Besides, it's stupid to buy them for other reasons. What if something happens to them? Then it's a $100+ dollars down the drain. Or if you grow a foot-size? $100 wasted. Or if, heaven forbid, you get a little bit fatter -- $100 wasted.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Where else are you gonna get proper thong undies for your eight year old?