You’re right, tracer. Thanks.
-John
Miskch’s Law- It’s better to have a horrible ending than horrors without end.
tracer, I think you are correct and that this is a trademark, not a copyright, issue, but if you read the letter that Opalcat got from The Chicago Reader (it’s quoted over in the MPSIMS thread on this same topic) you’ll note that they referred to it as a copyright. The letter appears to have come not from a lawyer, but from a Reader executive, though it’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t written by, or at least vetted past, a lawyer.
-Melin
Can someone post the link for the MPSIMS thread? I don’t see it.
It has the unusual name “WHOA! TMHP!!!”-- http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002499.html
Thanks, whitetho. I understand the email address thing, but not making Opal remove all mentions of TSD. Could one of our lawyers here explain why that wouldn’t come under nominative fair use?
The only thing I can do about the email address is not have the login form on my page and not link to it. The site str8dope.zzn.com will still exist and I have no control over that.
Also, I’ve added this line to the bottom of all outgoing mail: “Not affiliated with The Straight Dope or the Chicago Reader”
–
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Oh, and btw… I had to giggle at the mention of revenue… Since the site has been in existance, I’ve made about $11 from it (ads + the bookstore)… Hey Chicago Reader… want your 10%?
–
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Well, there you go. 10% of $11 = $1 licencing fee, more or less.
I’d also like to weigh in with my opinion re: What to do about the site?. Don’t shut it down. I visit that site a lot. You don’t always see me, but I’m there.
Nolite bastardes carborundunum, as they say. Uh, did I get that right…?
God is dead. -Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead. -God
Neitzsche is God. -Dead
Thank you Opal. Thank you Opal. I’m not much of an HTML jockey but I can do a mean search-'n-replace-all batch command on some text files…if there’s any way I can help, let me know?
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
First of all, I don’t agree with the Reader & their attitude about the Straight Dope.
First of all, there are web sites called:
THESTRAIGHTDOPE.COM
THESTRAIGHTDOPE.ORG
THESTRAIGHTDOPE.NET
Why don’t they pick on them? On the other hand, the STRAIGHTDOPE.COM is registered by:
Domain Name: STRAIGHTDOPE.COM
Administrative Contact:
Kaplan, Dan (DK678) cecil@CHIREADER.COM
312-828-0350
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Administration, Dns (DA390) dns@MCS.NET
312-803-6271
Billing Contact:
Kaplan, Dan (DK678) cecil@CHIREADER.COM
312-828-0350
So, why don’t they go after those who own
thestraightdope.com , net & org???
Oh, Opal, I’m so sorry. I just “discovered” your website early last week, I enjoyed it so much. It really is a work of art and it’s obvious how much work and care you put into it. I’m a website design bozo and my ‘help’ would cause more problems than it would fix, but if there is anything else more mundane that I can do for you, please let me know.
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above as apparently my cat has learned to type. =^…^=
I just returned from a blissful long weekend in the northwoods, put in a hard day’s work, and finally had time to log on to my favorite MB, to find…this shit. Good luck, Opal. Screw you, Ed. I’m done. Bye, all.
Reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.
-Tom Waits
This comes right on the heels of the legal shut-down of The Dysfunctional Family Circus. O hold together, my achy-breaky heart! 
handy, when I visited thestraightdope.org and thestraightdope.net, there was nothing there. Though, I admit, at thestraightdope.com there was an “under construction” notice is several languages.
Cessandra
Why sex is better than religion: You can scream “Oh, God” during sex, but just trying saying “Oh, f***” in church!
Ok, I need some help understanding here…exactly how far does Trademark registration go?..I mean can they cover every possible way those 2 words can ever be typed?..What about sites like whitehouse.com?...shouldn’t the gov. be jumping all over them?..Can someone please explain exactly what a trademark is and how much control you have over one…
Opal–
I think it sucks too…best of luck and keep in mind that we’re all here for you.
“When it comes to thought some people stop at nothing.”
-Anon
Atrael, in partial answer to your question, I present the text of Senate Bill 1255:
S.1255
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. (Referred in House)
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The registration, trafficking in, or use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark of another that is distinctive at the time of the registration of the domain name, or dilutive of a famous trademark or service mark of another that is famous at the time of the registration of the domain name, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, with the bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of another’s mark (commonly referred to as cyberpiracy' and cybersquatting’ )–
(A) results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of goods and services;
(B) impairs electronic commerce, which is important to interstate commerce and the United States economy;
© deprives legitimate trademark owners of substantial revenues and consumer goodwill; and
(D) places unreasonable, intolerable, and overwhelming burdens on trademark owners in protecting their valuable trademarks.
(2) Amendments to the Trademark Act of 1946 would clarify the rights of a trademark owner to provide for adequate remedies and to deter cyberpiracy and cybersquatting .
SEC. 3. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
`(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a trademark or service mark if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person–
`(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that trademark or service mark; and
`(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that–
`(I) in the case of a trademark or service mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to such mark; or
`(II) in the case of a famous trademark or service mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is dilutive of such mark.
`(B) In determining whether there is 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;
`(iv) the person’s legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
`(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 substantial consideration without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
`(vii) the person’s intentional provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name; and
`(viii) the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous trademarks or service marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of such persons.
Basically, this bill gives extra protection to, say, McDonalds, by saying that by virtue of their trademark on “McDonald’s,” they are a priori entitled to mcdonalds.com, mcdonalds.net, mcdonalds.org, etc. It also entitles them to goldenarches.com, bigmac.com, and any other phrase for which they own the trademark/service mark.
It also targets the people who have the foresight to register the domain names of famous people, then sell them to the people at a profit.
“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”
It would seem that this case ought to be governed by
Now again, the email situation may be different, but for the rest of the TMHP Opal’s use is non-commercial, probably “fair use” although I’d have to do some research on that, and not only is it unlikely to divert customers from TSD, it’s likely to send customers to TSD. All IMHO, of course.
Atrael, “The White House” is not a trademark. A trademark, or service mark, is an item of commercial property, is a distinctive word or phrase which is used by a commercial enterprise to identify its products or services. “Coca-Cola” is a registered trademark, for example, and “Midas Muffler” might be a servicemark.
The owner of such a mark has typically invested a lot of time, money, and energy in building up a following for its product or service. Someone coming along and using the mark without permission is taking advantage of the goodwill associated with the mark to pawn off his own product on an unsuspecting customer, who thinks that he or she is buying the real thing. This harms the trademark owner in several ways; it loses the economic benefit of the transaction with the customer, and if the pirated item (the counterfeit) is of poor quality (and it usually is), the customer becomes dissatisfied with it and thus “badwill” toward the trademark owner is generated, since the customer assumes that the trademark owner is the one behind the product.
Amazon.com is currently engaged in litigation with Amazon bookstore in Minnesota. The litigation has gotten personally nasty at times, with Amazon.com’s lawyers asking the owners of the Amazon bookstore, in deposition, if they are lesbian. Apparently Amazon.com’s argument is that Amazon bookstore has a limited market, to members of the gay and lesbian community, and possibly to Minnesota.
The Amazon.com case illustrates two points relevant here: first, two different entities can use the same mark if they have different markets and there is no likelihood of confusion between the two. (There was a big fight when the Lexus automobile came out; Lexis – the legal computer search company – claimed possible confusion, but the court ruled against it, on the grounds that they had differet markets.) Second, a trademark owner must indeed be vigilant in protecting its mark; if it knows of someone using its mark it must make attempts to prevent that use, or it could lose the right to exclusive use of the mark.
Now, I’ve only been around the boards for a little over a year and a half; I don’t know how long Opal’s maintained her site and all, but it’s been here since before I got here, and quite obviously TSD has known about it for a long time. Opal doesn’t have the money for a lawyer, as I’m sure The Reader knows, but one has to speculate as to whether she might not win on this issue if it ever went to court. The conflict seems to be generating illwill; at least two people have posted now that they’re gone based on this (one over in MPSIMS). Somebody ought to be looking for a speedy, mutually agreeable resolution.
-Melin
The Amazon case was settled a few days ago, see: http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9911/04/amazonbattle.ap/ for more details. (I hadn’t been aware that the Minnesota store was the one suing the online company for infringemnt.)
Cessandra, their might not be much on the sites, but those names are taken. I use a little program that Pings the site names to find out who owns them & if they are taken.
pldennison, is that signed into law yet? I know some guy in Calif is pushing something like that but only that you can’t profit from ‘parking’ names.
That would seem to mean that you can register a name but you can’t sell it for more than you bought it.
Very Important Note: The Pebble Beach Comp, in PB, Calif, SUES, or threatens to sue, any & every artist who does a picture of their lone Cypress tree & trys to sell it. This may seem unbelievable, but they do. Do they have a right to do so? Yes. Would they win? No. But they are a big powerful comp, with lots of money to sue people who don’t have the 50 grand to defend. So, the artists take the pictures out of the galleries. That is why you don’t see pictures of the Cypress for sale.