CopyRight Law / Question:

General Questions
#1

Hi!

Here is the problem, any lawyers in the house who can offer any insight?

Party “A” owns the domain name truckworld.com
Party “B” owns the doamins: fordtruckworld.com, dodgetruckworld.com and sporttruckworld.com

Party “A” sends Party “B” a “Cease & Decisit” letter stating that people will think fordtruckworld.com is associated with truckworld.com.

Does party A have any legal leg to stand on?
Party B is compliying with the cease and decist, stating it would be too costly to fight this in a court of law.
Does this sound reasonable?
I thought Party A would have to “prove” any copyright infingement, and therefor be responsible for the costs.

Can someone please shed some light on this?

Many thanks

#2

Depends if fordtruckworld is a derivative of truckworld. I have done a bit of research, to enrich my feeble mind, don’t know if I am in the right direction. My talent is that I know how to read.

#3

If you’re interested in doing some more research, this wouldn’t be a copyright issue; it would be a trademark issue. Totally different segment of the law.

#4

Cervaise is correct.

This might help:

Nolo.com Internet Law

Gigalaw.com

#5

Thanks for the replies fellas.
Bojon, as far as I am aware, fordtruckworld is an entity all on it’s own, and has nothing to do with truckworld.com

Here is how I see it…
Suppose I own the domain people.com (Ha, I wish!)
and someone comes along and buys smartpeople.com, how on earth can I claim that a trademark is being violated?
Afterall, trucks are generic, and fordtruck is specific, this seems unreasonable to me.
I think fordtruckworld should fight the cease and desist, and I was hoping there would be someone on here who might give an indication if they would win.

Thanks again, now I have to read through those legal sites.

Regards

#6

Ordinarily, parties are responsible for their own costs. Only if a court deems the case frivolous will it order one party to pay the other party’s costs. So Party B may have just taken the line of least costs.

#7

You may find this case interesting: Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001).

See also 15 U.S.C. 1125(d).

#8

Very interesting read Max, tyvm.
After reading that case, it seems to me that “intent” also plays a key role.
Acting on bad faith, acting on good faith, etc.
If truckworld.com was “branded” by years of recognition, and was a household name, perhaps there could be a conflict (i’m thinking out loud here)
Since however it is a no name name, how on earth could fordtruckworld be acting on bad faith?

Myself, and many others from fordtruckworld are urging them to fight this cease and desist, but they seem to think it would be too expensive.
Maybe they are right, I wish I knew all the answers.

Thanks for your help

#9

Party B should retain an attorney licensed in its state and familiar with trademark law.

–Cliffy