quote:...yet you insist on judging the legal merits of Pat's claim to the domain name which Pat owns and The Way Denomination does not.
You're STILL missing my point, Mark. I don't know if Pat will win the lawsuit or not. Therefore, I do not know if he has a legal right to the domain name or not. That's the point of the lawsuit. I don't know about the legal merits of Pat's case. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, this is not about the law (thank you Greek for your exposition on the bottom of the previous page).
My contention is that Pat has no MORAL claim to the domain name. Give it up and watch the lawsuit evaporate, because there will be nothing to fight over except for Pat's first amendment right to criticize a contemptible, controlling organization.
Thank you Templelady for your succinct and clear analysis of this matter. I just heard from Pat and he has agreed that it is not in his best interests to commment on this suit. Thanks to all who have posted. Some good points have been made.
Agreed. I still say (always have) that TWI's refusal to secure the domain name when they were specifically told to do so is probably Pat's greatest legal advantage in this case. Somehow, when I say that, it's okay. But when I say that Pat is not The Way International, I'm giving an uninformed legal opinion.
quote:What's the Quickest & Easiest Way for Domain Name Owner to Lose an ACPA Lawsuit?
If the domain name owner, including a domain name owner that may not otherwise be liable under the ACPA, offers at any time to sell or transfer the domain name for value, most courts will find that the owner has acted in bad faith and if the other elements of the case are proven, the plaintiff will win.
Another easy way for the plaintiff to prevail is if the domain name owner supplied material misleading contact information on the domain name registration application or if the defendant intentionally fails to maintain accurate contact information with the domain name registrar. Because of this bad faith factor, it is important for all domain name owners to check their domain name registrations at their registrars Whois database to determine if the contact information is correct. See Who Owns Your Domain Name and Who Controls Your Domain Name.
quote:Generally, courts will not allow cybersquatters to extort money from trademark owners in return for a domain registration. Not all of these cases are easily decided, however, because it is frequently difficult to determine whether the alleged cybersquatter is truly attempting to extort money from a trademark owner or if he or she has a good faith basis for believing he or she is entitled to the domain name. Recently, the federal trademark laws were amended to specifically address the problem of cybersquatting, giving trademark owners access to important remedies generally available under the trademark laws.
quote:Can somebody else use my trademark as a domain name?
Because of the unique character of Internet addresses, someone else may be able to use your trademark as a domain name. The same word can be used as a trademark for several different businesses, but only one of those businesses may use the mark as a domain name. For instance, the word “delta” is used by many different businesses as a trademark for various goods and services. Nevertheless, only one “delta.com” domain name is available, so only one business will be entitled to use that name. Others who use “delta” marks may choose to register domain names with extraneous material, such as “delta-inc.com.”
That's the point of the lawsuit. I don't know about the legal merits of Pat's case. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, this is not about the law (thank you Greek for your exposition on the bottom of the previous page).
>>
Raf I got to disagree with you. You've posted
sections of laws - ostensibly in an attempt to
convince PR that the law unambiguously reads in the favor of
TWI hence he should concede that TWI is entitled
to the domain. If its a moral issue then why
the citations of law ? Its well known that written law is just a small part of the process
since lawyers use precedent and god knows what
to make their cases. I think you are saying
that its a moral issue because you believe that the law says what Pat is doing is wrong. With all respect thats for the courts to decide.
Whats wrong with letting that process take place ? I don't see this case as cut and dried at all though I agree that PR should be more low key about it.
Seems to me that TWI wants to cybersquat on
a domain that they didn't want at one point
until it became clear that a critic had possession of it. (There are some moral issues
My first post on this thread was on p. 4 and was in answer to a legal question that Pat asked: Why is TWI going after him and not anyone else using the trademarked phrase? My response was as follows:
quote:Pat, you're doing this on purpose. I don't know if you'll win in court or if you'll lose, but as a general rule I consider cybersquatting to be low-level extortion. You're being a cybersquatter with a vendetta, and that won't serve you well in court.
Note, I said "as a general rule," not "as a matter of law." I also said that attitude would not serve him well in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in plenty of courtrooms on both civil and criminal cases. I stand by that statement without reservation.
My next post states:
quote:Cybersquatting is taking a domain name that reasonably belongs to someone else. I don't know what the law is on this, but you look at me with a straight face and tell me that taking the name "thewayinternational.com" is not cybersquatting.
In other words, I'm not appealing to the law. I'm appealing to "a straight face." Common sense.
quote:Look, as far as the law of the U.S. is concerned, I don't know if you're right or wrong. Good luck. But in my humble opinion, as far as right and wrong is concerned,you're cybersquatting, you're not The Way International, and you're being a pest. I don't like TWI any more than you do, but watching you guys go at it is going to be very much like watching an arm wrestling contest at a leper colony.
Hmm. An explicit appeal to right v. wrong as opposed to the legality of his position. I'd say I was pretty clear about that.
Here's my next post:
quote:No, Pat. I wouldn't. That's what makes us different, I guess. I wouldn't have TWI take me to court just to rub their faces in the fact that they didn't take sound advice. You may have the legal right to do so: I'm not disputing that. But Christian to Christian, I'm not with you on this one.
Pretty dang clear that I'm not pretending to be an expert on the law, eh?
Then comes this one, which seems legal until you look closer:
quote:Pat, TWI is not wrong in this case. Give them their name back. Ask for the money you invested in acquiring the domain name. That's all you're entitled to.
A judge and jury may get you more,but that doesn't make you right.
Hmm, in other words, what I believe he is entitled is unrelated to whether I believe he is right legally. A fairly clear distinction.
Next:
quote:Your legal rights may well entitle you to a fat paycheck. As you point out, TWI specifically ignored advice to grab the domain name well before you bought it. That arrogance will cost them, I'll bet.
But I guess I'm coming at this from too much of a "sermon on the mount" attitude. If this doesn't call for an application of "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies," I don't know what does.
So far, you'll note, I haven't cited the law. I've deliberately sidestepped it because I don't see this as a legal issue, I see it as a moral one. Let them have their danged name. Why is this even a question? For a petty vendetta?
After that post, I wrote nothing for several pages. Then, on PAGE 8, I dispense my first bit of bona fide legal advice:
quote:Pat,
If I was a lawyer, I would tell you to bring this topic up on as many threads as possible, discuss your tactics and legal strategies, and explain your version of the history of this conflict as publicly as possible. If I was a lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
Oh, clarification: If I was TWI's lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
And I stand by that.
Then Pat claimed that the Latham Act allows for the use of a trademark in "all forms of news reporting and news commentary."
Now, I happen to know a thing or two about news reporting and commentary. And I know that I can't name a newspaper "The Coca-Cola Times," but I can write whatever I want about Coca-Cola. So my first interpretation of an actual law is in response to Pat making a HUGE blunder about his rights under that particular provision of the Latham Act. And then, and then, and then, look at how I characterize my argument...
quote:Any reasonable person who goes to "www.thewayinternational.com" has a reasonable expectation to access a web site owned and operated by The Way International. You are deliberately capitalizing on that expectation in order to provide information that would lead people AWAY from TWI.
Wow. "I don't know if they WOULD win (ie, forget the law for a second), BUT THEY SHOULD WIN". Sounds like even in the midst of this legal discussion, I'm still trying to draw the discussion away from the law and just get right back to plain old right and wrong, doesn't it?
Diazbro, with all due respect, I reject your characterization of my posts.
quote:Raf I got to disagree with you. You've posted
sections of laws - ostensibly in an attempt to
convince PR that the law unambiguously reads in the favor of
TWI hence he should concede that TWI is entitled
to the domain.
I defy you to name one section of law I posted (not counting quoting someone else's quote). The post earlier on this page cannot be interpreted unambiguiously in TWI's favor or Pat's.
The burden of proof is required not assumption and/or opinion. There are laws out there that supercede other laws.
TWI's court track record has cost them buckhoos of moola but of course it's nothing out of Rosie's pocket. I believe that TWI's deception, lies and cheap tatics will continue to be their breath for life.
Rosie's fax indicated she had one more lawsuit to go. The Rosie must need to throw an extra one in there to thrive on until the Peelers get their day in court.
I defy you to name one section of law I posted (not counting quoting someone else's quote).
>>
Okay I'm not going back to look at each post
I believe you. My bad..
But how is this - you've commented and analysed sections of laws which were posted and those which you have quoted ,have you not ? (Midway page 8 of this thread for example). And I think its safe to say that you , and others, have used the results of those analyses to support your point(s) of view. Are you in agreement or no ? Of course you can only speak for yourself
I understand that.
And on moral grounds I really don't see this as black and white. I really don't. TWI had a shot
at the name, passed on it, and only once it got registered by a known critic who wanted to sell it did they get involved. It wasn't out of any sense of mission to "serve god and his people" that they did this.
I think it's fair to say that I've consistently tried to draw the question away from a discussion of law and to a simpler analysis of plain old right and wrong. TWI is TWI. Pat is not. TWI wants their name. Pat should give it to them. TWI should reimburse Pat for the cost of securing and maintaining the name. No one should make a profit from this.
LEGALLY: TWI's decision not to go after the name when they had the chance was a stupid blunder on their part. LEGALLY, I think that will cost them. Somehow, when I say that,you have no problem with me playing amateur lawyer. Why is that? Why can I play amateur lawyer when I think TWI is wrong, but I cannot play amateur lawyer when I think maybe Pat doesn't have the right to knowingly use another's trademark to explicitly provide negative information about the holder of the trademark? I just want to know why one opinion gets no reaction, and the other gets me accused of amateur lawyering.
MORALLY, and this is strictly my opinion, TWI's legal blunder (of not securing the name) does not entitle Pat to secure the name with the expressed intent of using it to provide anti-TWI information. I think if someone types in "thewayinternational.com," they should get The Way International's web site, not the web site of someone who hates the organization and wants to see them shut down.
Maybe I'm just stupid. Maybe TWI should secure "www.patroberge.com" and use it to provide news about his credibility and the credibility of the sources used on his Web site. Then they can trade domain names and we can ALL stop wasting time on this.
What problems are there with letting this play out in court? No problem at all, unless you have something better to do with your time, which I submit Pat does. But that's his call.
Pat, you have better things to do with your time and money.
reason they want it and they most likely don't have plans to do much with it except map it to
their own website.
And WHAT, pray tell, is wrong with that? It's THEIR NAME.
I could see "thewayinternational.com" but "the
way" is much too generic to be unambiguosly associated with any single entity. "the way" has been used by many ministries and programs. There are investment clubs and weight loss groups that use "the way" in their title.
If in fact TWI owns a trademark to "the way"
then that can only help them in court though
they will have to explain to the satisfaction
of a judge why they only very recently developed
in an interest in the .com designation.
For us with experience with TWI we know that
the potential for setting up an expose site is
quite likely. for the bulk of americans with
no knowledge of TWI I don't think that the relation between theway.com and TWI that we know
Pat only has one affirmative defense, it appears. If he can prove a "laches" case, that is, if he can show that TWI was negligent or untimely in exercising its legal rights to the name, he could still win. Unfortunately, he's butting up against the "bad faith" clause in the copyright and ACPA laws, so it's going to be tough. Especially after he all but wrote his bad faith here in 30-foot tall letters... The odds are not in his favor.
Obligatory Note: I am not a lawyer, and I don't care whom that bothers.
quote:he's butting up against the "bad faith" clause in the copyright and ACPA laws
The bad faith guidelines are that:
1) Registering the domain name without the intention of using it. I used the domain name so this proves good faith on my part.
2) Approaching only the copyright holder to buy it at a profit. Again, I offered it for sale at a public auction. Another statutory proof of good faith on my part.
3) Previous pattern or history of buying quantities of domain names for re-sale to the legitimate owners only at a profit. I have never done this.
_1) Registering the domain name without the intention of using it._ I used the domain name so this proves good faith on my part.
2)_ Approaching only the copyright holder to buy it at a profit._ Again, I offered it for sale at a public auction. Another statutory proof of good faith on my part.
3) _Previous pattern or history of buying quantities of domain names for re-sale to the legitemate owners only at a profit._ I have never done this.
Got a reference for that, Pat? The misspelling of "legitemate" leads me to suspect that it's not an accurate quote.
Oh, heck! I'll be more blunt. What you wrote is not a quote from any law.
I didn't say I was quoting the statute. I just stated the conditions of some of the statute in what some people commonly do called paraphrasing.
You know, your deduction that improper spelling is an indication of it not being true is completely ignorant of you. I hand typed it, and people make mistakes.
quote:Oh, heck! I'll be more blunt. What you wrote is not a quote from any law.
Wrong again
15 USCS § 1125 (2004)
§ 1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a) Civil action.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
(b) Importation. Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this Act in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;
(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
(2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 34 [15 USCS § 1116] unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 35(a) and 36 [15 USCS §§ 1117(a), 1118], subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
(3) The ownership by a person of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
quote:I could see "thewayinternational.com" but "the
way" is much too generic to be unambiguosly associated with any single entity.
Fine. This lawsuit is over thewayinternational.com. The rest of what you wrote is a topic for another discussion.
Pat,
For God's sake, shut up before you get yourself in real legal trouble. We may be amateur lawyers here, but trust me, TWI's lawyers are NOT amateurs. Simply stating that what you have done is not in bad faith does not make it so. Simply using the site does not mean or imply that you have not registered the name in bad faith. You are explicitly WRONG about teh "news" interpretation of the law. Please, please, I BEG of you, if you're not going to listen to me in terms of what to do to get rid of the lawsuit, at least listen to me on this: SHUT UP about the lawsuit, publicly, until it's over. PLEASE, Pat. This is for you, not me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
16
22
47
Popular Days
Apr 6
37
Apr 2
37
Apr 3
35
Apr 5
31
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 24 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 16 posts
LG 22 posts
pjroberge 47 posts
Popular Days
Apr 6 2004
37 posts
Apr 2 2004
37 posts
Apr 3 2004
35 posts
Apr 5 2004
31 posts
Raf
You're STILL missing my point, Mark. I don't know if Pat will win the lawsuit or not. Therefore, I do not know if he has a legal right to the domain name or not. That's the point of the lawsuit. I don't know about the legal merits of Pat's case. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, this is not about the law (thank you Greek for your exposition on the bottom of the previous page).
My contention is that Pat has no MORAL claim to the domain name. Give it up and watch the lawsuit evaporate, because there will be nothing to fight over except for Pat's first amendment right to criticize a contemptible, controlling organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Thank you Templelady for your succinct and clear analysis of this matter. I just heard from Pat and he has agreed that it is not in his best interests to commment on this suit. Thanks to all who have posted. Some good points have been made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Agreed. I still say (always have) that TWI's refusal to secure the domain name when they were specifically told to do so is probably Pat's greatest legal advantage in this case. Somehow, when I say that, it's okay. But when I say that Pat is not The Way International, I'm giving an uninformed legal opinion.
?
Don't understand it, but I'll accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mark... that's kind of like shutting the door to the barn after the horses already got out isn't it?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Well, Tom. Hopefully, the best horses are still in the barn and the ones out are just grazing. Hopefully!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Here is a link concerning a case that includes the nine points used to decide "cyber-squatting"
click here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
ACPA Law
Note this quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another good page of questions regarding cybersquatting. You have to scroll down a little or search for the word "cybersquatting." Keep scrolling to the section on trademark infringement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
That's the point of the lawsuit. I don't know about the legal merits of Pat's case. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, this is not about the law (thank you Greek for your exposition on the bottom of the previous page).
>>
Raf I got to disagree with you. You've posted
sections of laws - ostensibly in an attempt to
convince PR that the law unambiguously reads in the favor of
TWI hence he should concede that TWI is entitled
to the domain. If its a moral issue then why
the citations of law ? Its well known that written law is just a small part of the process
since lawyers use precedent and god knows what
to make their cases. I think you are saying
that its a moral issue because you believe that the law says what Pat is doing is wrong. With all respect thats for the courts to decide.
Whats wrong with letting that process take place ? I don't see this case as cut and dried at all though I agree that PR should be more low key about it.
Seems to me that TWI wants to cybersquat on
a domain that they didn't want at one point
until it became clear that a critic had possession of it. (There are some moral issues
with that aren't there ?) On the other hand
I don't know if this has legal impact even
if its proven to be true but I'm sure that
no amount of amateur/armchair legal analysis
would settle it hence its a matter for the courts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone said:
Mark, there are no amateur lawyers on this thread. Not one of us is practicing law or giving legal advice.
>>
but also said:
In addition, I think that Pat is both morally and legally wrong in registering and holding the subject domain
>>
"legally wrong" sounds very much like a legal
opinion to me.....
Long Gone said:
Finally, I’ll state that relevant laws, rulings, court opinions, and facts are not particularly difficult to look up or comprehend.
>>
Well if this isn't amateur lawyering I don't
know what is. If you aren't a practicing
lawyer how do you know what facts are "relevant"
which "rulings" and "court opinions" are salient ?
I respect your right to suggest that PR's suit
is not founded in the best of principles but
the suggestion that your reading of the law
is sufficient to try the case here is a problem
for me and perhaps others who don't see it as
you do. Plenty of people know by experience
that supposedly simple cases involving "obvious"
elements of the law can be notoriously difficult
to resolve. If a person isn't a lawyer then
the only opinion they can offer is that of a
layperson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Diazbro,
My first post on this thread was on p. 4 and was in answer to a legal question that Pat asked: Why is TWI going after him and not anyone else using the trademarked phrase? My response was as follows:
Note, I said "as a general rule," not "as a matter of law." I also said that attitude would not serve him well in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in plenty of courtrooms on both civil and criminal cases. I stand by that statement without reservation.
My next post states:
In other words, I'm not appealing to the law. I'm appealing to "a straight face." Common sense.
Hmm. An explicit appeal to right v. wrong as opposed to the legality of his position. I'd say I was pretty clear about that.
Here's my next post:
Pretty dang clear that I'm not pretending to be an expert on the law, eh?
Then comes this one, which seems legal until you look closer:
Hmm, in other words, what I believe he is entitled is unrelated to whether I believe he is right legally. A fairly clear distinction.
Next:
So far, you'll note, I haven't cited the law. I've deliberately sidestepped it because I don't see this as a legal issue, I see it as a moral one. Let them have their danged name. Why is this even a question? For a petty vendetta?
After that post, I wrote nothing for several pages. Then, on PAGE 8, I dispense my first bit of bona fide legal advice:
And I stand by that.
Then Pat claimed that the Latham Act allows for the use of a trademark in "all forms of news reporting and news commentary."
Now, I happen to know a thing or two about news reporting and commentary. And I know that I can't name a newspaper "The Coca-Cola Times," but I can write whatever I want about Coca-Cola. So my first interpretation of an actual law is in response to Pat making a HUGE blunder about his rights under that particular provision of the Latham Act. And then, and then, and then, look at how I characterize my argument...
Wow. "I don't know if they WOULD win (ie, forget the law for a second), BUT THEY SHOULD WIN". Sounds like even in the midst of this legal discussion, I'm still trying to draw the discussion away from the law and just get right back to plain old right and wrong, doesn't it?
Diazbro, with all due respect, I reject your characterization of my posts.
I defy you to name one section of law I posted (not counting quoting someone else's quote). The post earlier on this page cannot be interpreted unambiguiously in TWI's favor or Pat's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Diazbro, for someone who criticizes amateur lawyering, you really should have refrained from this comment.
You cannot cybersquat on your own name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
The burden of proof is required not assumption and/or opinion. There are laws out there that supercede other laws.
TWI's court track record has cost them buckhoos of moola but of course it's nothing out of Rosie's pocket. I believe that TWI's deception, lies and cheap tatics will continue to be their breath for life.
Rosie's fax indicated she had one more lawsuit to go. The Rosie must need to throw an extra one in there to thrive on until the Peelers get their day in court.
Rosie needs to get a life...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I defy you to name one section of law I posted (not counting quoting someone else's quote).
>>
Okay I'm not going back to look at each post
I believe you. My bad..
But how is this - you've commented and analysed sections of laws which were posted and those which you have quoted ,have you not ? (Midway page 8 of this thread for example). And I think its safe to say that you , and others, have used the results of those analyses to support your point(s) of view. Are you in agreement or no ? Of course you can only speak for yourself
I understand that.
And on moral grounds I really don't see this as black and white. I really don't. TWI had a shot
at the name, passed on it, and only once it got registered by a known critic who wanted to sell it did they get involved. It wasn't out of any sense of mission to "serve god and his people" that they did this.
What problems are there with letting this play
out in court ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
You cannot cybersquat on your own name.
>>
Rolls eyes... Raf you are in this thing deep.
the fact that I didn't know that (or didn't care) should be a clear and obvious indication that I'm NOT
performing amateur legal analyses here.
My point was that TWI doesn't want to have
anybody else to have it and this is the only
reason they want it and they most likely don't have plans to do much with it except map it to
their own website. thats an opinion on their
motivations and I have no idea if , even if
proven to be true, would have legal impact.
Thats what lawyers are for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think it's fair to say that I've consistently tried to draw the question away from a discussion of law and to a simpler analysis of plain old right and wrong. TWI is TWI. Pat is not. TWI wants their name. Pat should give it to them. TWI should reimburse Pat for the cost of securing and maintaining the name. No one should make a profit from this.
LEGALLY: TWI's decision not to go after the name when they had the chance was a stupid blunder on their part. LEGALLY, I think that will cost them. Somehow, when I say that, you have no problem with me playing amateur lawyer. Why is that? Why can I play amateur lawyer when I think TWI is wrong, but I cannot play amateur lawyer when I think maybe Pat doesn't have the right to knowingly use another's trademark to explicitly provide negative information about the holder of the trademark? I just want to know why one opinion gets no reaction, and the other gets me accused of amateur lawyering.
MORALLY, and this is strictly my opinion, TWI's legal blunder (of not securing the name) does not entitle Pat to secure the name with the expressed intent of using it to provide anti-TWI information. I think if someone types in "thewayinternational.com," they should get The Way International's web site, not the web site of someone who hates the organization and wants to see them shut down.
Maybe I'm just stupid. Maybe TWI should secure "www.patroberge.com" and use it to provide news about his credibility and the credibility of the sources used on his Web site. Then they can trade domain names and we can ALL stop wasting time on this.
What problems are there with letting this play out in court? No problem at all, unless you have something better to do with your time, which I submit Pat does. But that's his call.
Pat, you have better things to do with your time and money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And WHAT, pray tell, is wrong with that? It's THEIR NAME.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I could see "thewayinternational.com" but "the
way" is much too generic to be unambiguosly associated with any single entity. "the way" has been used by many ministries and programs. There are investment clubs and weight loss groups that use "the way" in their title.
If in fact TWI owns a trademark to "the way"
then that can only help them in court though
they will have to explain to the satisfaction
of a judge why they only very recently developed
in an interest in the .com designation.
For us with experience with TWI we know that
the potential for setting up an expose site is
quite likely. for the bulk of americans with
no knowledge of TWI I don't think that the relation between theway.com and TWI that we know
is going to even be remotely apparent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Pat only has one affirmative defense, it appears. If he can prove a "laches" case, that is, if he can show that TWI was negligent or untimely in exercising its legal rights to the name, he could still win. Unfortunately, he's butting up against the "bad faith" clause in the copyright and ACPA laws, so it's going to be tough. Especially after he all but wrote his bad faith here in 30-foot tall letters... The odds are not in his favor.
Obligatory Note: I am not a lawyer, and I don't care whom that bothers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
The bad faith guidelines are that:
1) Registering the domain name without the intention of using it. I used the domain name so this proves good faith on my part.
2) Approaching only the copyright holder to buy it at a profit. Again, I offered it for sale at a public auction. Another statutory proof of good faith on my part.
3) Previous pattern or history of buying quantities of domain names for re-sale to the legitimate owners only at a profit. I have never done this.
Edited by pjrobergeLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
diazbro,
Whether or not any discussion in this thread constitutes "amateur lawyering" is not worth quibbling about. If you want to call it that, go for it.
If “the suggestion that [my] reading of the law is sufficient to try the case here is a problem for [you],” then relax. Nobody suggests that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Oh, heck! I'll be more blunt. What you wrote is not a quote from any law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
long gone:
I didn't say I was quoting the statute. I just stated the conditions of some of the statute in what some people commonly do called paraphrasing.
You know, your deduction that improper spelling is an indication of it not being true is completely ignorant of you. I hand typed it, and people make mistakes.
Wrong again
15 USCS § 1125 (2004)
§ 1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a) Civil action.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
(b) Importation. Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this Act in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.
© Remedies for dilution of famous marks.
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;
© the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;
(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;
(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
(2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 34 [15 USCS § 1116] unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 35(a) and 36 [15 USCS §§ 1117(a), 1118], subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
(3) The ownership by a person of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
© All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(d) Cyberpiracy prevention.
(1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection ©(1) of section 43 [subsec. ©(1) of this section].
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. © In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Diazbro:
Fine. This lawsuit is over thewayinternational.com. The rest of what you wrote is a topic for another discussion.
Pat,
For God's sake, shut up before you get yourself in real legal trouble. We may be amateur lawyers here, but trust me, TWI's lawyers are NOT amateurs. Simply stating that what you have done is not in bad faith does not make it so. Simply using the site does not mean or imply that you have not registered the name in bad faith. You are explicitly WRONG about teh "news" interpretation of the law. Please, please, I BEG of you, if you're not going to listen to me in terms of what to do to get rid of the lawsuit, at least listen to me on this: SHUT UP about the lawsuit, publicly, until it's over. PLEASE, Pat. This is for you, not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.