subject:"\[e\-gold\-list\] Re\: R\: Stealing Trademarked Words"

Khurram Khan wrote:
...
That's because e-gold is descriptive of exactly ONE company,
the one that trademarked both e-gold and egold long ago. If this
counts as ignoring your argument, so be it, but your argument
flunks the laugh-test IMO!!!

I have to disagree with you Jim, The e-anything and eAnything style
names are more and more becomming generalized terms to describe anything
about the "Anything" subject that is online.
Your argument is about where you think the English language
is going. Mine is about where (I think) the current state of the
law IS. Sometimes, lawyers ignore English, and sometimes hard
cases (like maybe the "Enjoy Cocaine" case*) lead to bad law. If
you disagree that the word "e-gold" SHOULD be a trademark, ok,
but until now the discussion is/was about what IS a trademark,
and e-gold is a trademark of e-gold Ltd.
This is like "Hormel"
suing people, because they refer to junk email as "SPAM".
Actually, at least until recently AFAIK, Hormel has been very
smart about this issue, allowing sites to call UCE "spam," but not
allowing things like a picture of a can of Spam on the same site.
Totally logical, and totally analogous to e-gold Ltd. leaving TGC
alone but going after trademark violators without the benefit of
the magic "th" in front of their egold-uses.
Also, it seems that the term "egold" has been trademarked by "Resource
Holdings, LLC". Is that a G&SR affiliated company?
(http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=5naie7.5.1)
I don't know.
JMR
* The "Enjoy Cocaine" case probably came about because judges in
Miami were feeling both impotent & hysterical about the quantity
of blow coming into Miami/Dade -- which was so-corrupt Dave
Barry suggested outsourcing Metro-Dade government to the mob,
so at least they'd have efficient criminals...

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Khurram Khan


>> You completely ignored that my primary argument is based on the
>> fact e-gold is descriptive.

>That's because e-gold is descriptive of  exactly ONE company,
>the one that trademarked both e-gold and egold long ago. If this
>counts as ignoring your argument, so be it, but your argument
>flunks the laugh-test IMO!!!

I have to disagree with you Jim, The e-anything and eAnything style
names are more and more becomming generalized terms to describe anything
about the "Anything" subject that is online.  This is like "Hormel"
suing people, because they refer to junk email as "SPAM".

Also, it seems that the term "egold" has been trademarked by "Resource
Holdings, LLC".  Is that a G&SR affiliated company?
(http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=5naie7.5.1)

Khurram Khan




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread James A. Donald

--
On 4 Aug 2003 at 13:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is one of these bizarre internet discussions...
>
> In any first-world court . it is just utterly, utterly,
> utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly inconceivable that you
> could get away with having "e-gold" in a name.

I think that the legal precedent is that you cannot trademark
e-genericword

If you could, the entire dictionary would have been trademarked
with an e in front of it during the dot com boom. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 Ho66kHh0C7qBp6y/2VQDXcO78r0LjXWk6G7Cpk7B
 4HAWMSDZ4UYocbkvmsPSwErXoWG1Ui30p2tmDQCDs

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 04:56 PM, James M. Ray wrote:

Adam Selene wrote:

Tell me, is egold == e-gold(R). How does one abbreviate "electronic
gold" when one is not referring to a particular implementation of it?
That's not e-gold's problem, but the community seems to have
settled upon "DGC." Whether this is a good thing or not doesn't
matter here (at least the term DGC doesn't infringe on someone's
property!!).

Right, e-gold is not simply an abbreviation of generic electronic gold.
It is a specific trade name referring to a specific business.

You could use JP's term "Internet Gold" abbreviated IG. I know, "IG"
is probably a little TOO abbreviated for your purposes -- no doubt you
would like to spell out the word "gold." Maybe just use "digital gold"
everywhere, it's short enough right? (And one char less than "internet
gold.") Just drop the word "currency" and say "digital gold."

By the way, "igold.com" is an online jewelry shop, and "i-gold.com" is
taken as a domain name but there's no web site there.

I thought maybe "d-gold" might be handy for digital gold, and here's
something cute I never noticed before -- did you know that
http://d-gold.com takes you to the PayByGold site? Cool!

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

Adam Selene wrote:

Different situation. My bet was about Coke (or pick a company
that has lawyers on staff -- anyone except e-gold).

Well, I can certainly create cokeforums.com as a discussion about
cocaine.
However, someone using the similar script-style lettering and
selling signs that said "Enjoy Cocaine" LOST a case to Coca Cola
in the late '70s or early '80s, so I'd suggest NOT-using their
script. (Also, my bet wasn't about your cokeforums, it was about
COCA-COLAforums. Discussing cocaine there might become
interesting, but only in terms of pre-1913 ingredients.)
You completely ignored that my primary argument is based on the
fact e-gold is descriptive.
That's because e-gold is descriptive of exactly ONE company,
the one that trademarked both e-gold and egold long ago. If this
counts as ignoring your argument, so be it, but your argument
flunks the laugh-test IMO!!!
Tell me, is egold == e-gold(R). How does one abbreviate "electronic
gold" when one is not referring to a particular implementation of it?
That's not e-gold's problem, but the community seems to have
settled upon "DGC." Whether this is a good thing or not doesn't
matter here (at least the term DGC doesn't infringe on someone's
property!!).
Hell, I will *pay* E-Gold Ltd to pursue UDRP against me once I
have some bankroll, just to set a precedent.
Hmm. Why am I wishing this message was PGPsigned? :) Do
inform [EMAIL PROTECTED] the moment you'd like to
pay some lawyers, I am sure he can set you up with a case if
you're still infringing on e-gold's name. You may not like the
precedent we all get, but I'll sure as hell like the price-tag!
JMR

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Adam Selene

> Different situation. My bet was about Coke (or pick a company
> that has lawyers on staff -- anyone except e-gold).

Well, I can certainly create cokeforums.com as a discussion about
cocaine.

You completely ignored that my primary argument is based on the
fact e-gold is descriptive.

Tell me, is egold == e-gold(R). How does one abbreviate "electronic
gold" when one is not referring to a particular implementation of it?

Hell, I will *pay* E-Gold Ltd to pursue UDRP against me once I 
have some bankroll, just to set a precedent.

Adam





---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

Adam Selene wrote:

One's a domain name, and the other's an invitation.
...

Your insistence on using Coca-Cola as an example is bad,
because Coca-Cola is a "famous" mark.
I needed to use something folks here have heard about, so I
chose Coca Cola. Yes, Coca Cola is more famous than e-gold
is, but I don't think it's safe for e-gold to behave in any way
differently from how I think Coca Cola would behave, and
further, even though Coca Cola is more-famous, Alexa.com
(if not stats.e-gold.com) would seem to indicate that e-gold
has a bit of fame these days. Coke has a decades-long head
start on fame, too.
...
E-Gold(R) is *not* famous, until they prove it is, and to simply
assume all marks are famous is rather broadly expand the scope
and intention of trademark law.
e-gold IS famous. There, conflicting assertions, but I cited
both the stats page and Alexa, an outside reference. Who
is right? I don't know, but assertions alone don't cut it if
counter-assertions are such a piece of cake I can do them
off the top of my head, with 0 research...
Of course, alternatively, my bet proposed above might take
it from the academic to the experimental -- if someone dares
to register Coca Cola's domain name.

If E-gold Ltd ever does pursue UDRP arbitration against one
of my domain names (which are very much like e-gold-casino)
I will gladly place a wager with you.
Different situation. My bet was about Coke (or pick a company
that has lawyers on staff -- anyone except e-gold). The purpose
of my wager is to DISSUADE, not encourage, infringement on
e-gold's property such as yours or this casino's, hence your
bet's a no-go with me as it presupposes wasting money paying
lawyers on a frivolous case, something that's happened before
but that I'd prefer NOT to see again unless the LOSER pays...
In fact, I will even make
whether I win or lose a wagerable proposition on the site so
anyone can take me up.
Still no go if it's e-gold. Can't you just infringe on another??
JMR

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Adam Selene

> One's a domain name, and the other's an invitation. Go try
> registering cocacolaforum.com and then on another site do
> a forum about the wonders of drinking a lot of CocaCola if
> you want to see the difference. 

Your insistence on using Coca-Cola as an example is bad,
because Coca-Cola is a "famous" mark. Under the Lanham Act,
the holders of famous marks only need prove someone causes
"dillution" to the mark, they have no litmus for proving alleged
infringment leads to consumer confusion.

E-Gold(R) is *not* famous, until they prove it is, and to simply
assume all marks are famous is rather broadly expand the scope
and intention of trademark law.

> Of course, alternatively, my bet proposed above might take 
> it from the academic to the experimental -- if someone dares 
> to register Coca Cola's domain name.

If E-gold Ltd ever does pursue UDRP arbitration against one
of my domain names (which are very much like e-gold-casino)
I will gladly place a wager with you. In fact, I will even make 
whether I win or lose a wagerable proposition on the site so
anyone can take me up.

Adam




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread jpm

At 15:44 -0400 8/4/03, James M. Ray wrote:
Would the same phrase "Bet with e-gold" used on the casino
 home page be infringing? What exactly is the difference?
One's a domain name, and the other's an invitation. Go try
registering cocacolaforum.com and then on another site do
a forum about the wonders of drinking a lot of CocaCola if
you want to see the difference


(Aside --- the internet is a place where people who know staggeringly 
utterly nothing about topics get to go on and on about them.)

Just incidentally FWIW, if you simply MENTION Coca Cola (or e-gold) 
on a web site, or perhaps in a brochure, advertisement or poster --

  YES !!

you are in fact or can be infringing on their trademarks seriously 
and in many situations you have to carefully point out that it is a 
registered trademark that you are just mentioning in passing 

EVERYONE who uses the company name "e-gold" anywhere on a market 
makers page or whatever, you should liberally pepper it with "TM" 
symbols...at least the first time you do so.

(You can see this everywhere about you -- look.)

indeed similarly if e-gold on their site says something like "there 
are many fine e-gold market makers, such as Icegold and Cambist" .. 
then e-gold should shove some TM symbols and legal language in there.

For example, I just saw an ad for Chevrolet trucks and it said 
something like "The biggest invention in comfort and safety since 
BubbleWrap"

yes, absolutely, they have a little "tm" or whatever above the 
BubbleWrap and down the bottom in fine print it says something like 
"We are Chevrolet and we use BubbleWrap's famous trademark only with 
permission and we explicitly do not take away any of their rights in 
doing so and we remind you tyhat BubbleWrap very much remains a 
trademark of the Sarin3M corporation ..." sort of thing.

Now - in fact - if bubble wrap WANTED to, they could STOP Chevy from 
doing this.  (that would be why it's called "property")  Say chevy 
went further with the gag and started a web site called 
"bubblewrapcars," then they could stop them doing that (and probably 
would).  I mean "bubble wrap" is their property.

Also, as an example, the last time I was filming a Levis commercial, 
it happened to have some coke logos in it (it was set in the 50s or 
whatever and there was an old red coke machine at the gas station the 
hero in the Levis stopped at) .. you have to be extremelyl careful 
about this sort of thing, for instance Levis checked it out first 
with Coke to see if they minded, and however small, it was careful 
that the coke logo seen incidentally included a "tm" thingy above it.



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread jpm

This is one of these bizarre internet discussions...

In any first-world court . it is just utterly, utterly, utterly, 
utterly, utterly, utterly inconceivable that you could get away with 
having "e-gold" in a name.

Honest.  I'm not lying.  It's just a non-starter.  There is nothing 
to discuss here.

No, you can not go "etrade" or "eTraDe" or "my name is Mr. E'ttie 
Rade'insky, honest!" or "but the 'trade' goes with the next 
word!!" or "et-rade," etc.

By all means, if you are a cambodian company or some neo-virtual 
presence on Sealand or something, e-gold is not going to be able to 
"get" you anyway, and if you merely have some sort of parked DOM that 
you arguably dont use or whatever - sure.

But I'm just saying, purely in terms of the "intellectual argument" 
about whether - in first world courts - you could get away with 
ANYTHING with "egold" or "e-gold" in it, the answer is "of course 
not," it's just a non-starter, it's silly.



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

Adam Selene wrote:
...
To the contrary, the best argument je can make in using E-Gold in
the name of the casino, is that E-Gold in the name is merely a descriptive
term, of a casino that accepts electronic gold
Hmm. Like a thermos, maybe, instead of a Thermos?

>
-- and not just e-gold(R),
but goldmoney, e-bullion, etc. It is futher demonstrated that
E-Gold != e-gold(R) in that the capitalization is different, and that the
e-gold(R) logo lettering/stylization are not used.

Um, what (aside from your assertion, I mean) demonstrates that
what's capitalized makes any difference whatsoever??? Flunks
the laugh-test, Adam, sorry.
An even stronger argument would be if E-Gold were not in the name of
the casino, but only in the domain. Then you can make the argument that
E-Gold is not only merely descriptive, but used in a way that can not
infringe in and of itself. eCash Technologies, Inc. v. Mark Guagliardo
set the precedent that registration and use of a domain name does not
in itself establish a trademark (nor a conflicting trademark). It can also be
strongly argued that DNS is a *directory* system and that domains do
not necessarily represent usage as a trade name. If DNS is a directory,
then the listing e-gold-casino is simply a directory entry of a casino
that accepts e-gold.
This doesn't seem to be how ICANN/legal-systems see it, so
whether or not this makes sense it's irrelevant IMO.
I am curious as to whether you think bet-with-egold.com would also
be infringing, used solely as a domain name (not the name of the destination
casino). Would the same phrase "Bet with e-gold" used on the casino
home page be infringing? What exactly is the difference?
One's a domain name, and the other's an invitation. Go try
registering cocacolaforum.com and then on another site do
a forum about the wonders of drinking a lot of CocaCola if
you want to see the difference. My bet (and yes, I'd put a
few grams behind this...) is that one will get nastygrams
and the other will be either ignored or welcomed.
You may not agree with these arguments, but until they are defended
in arbitration, the discussion is rather academic.
Ideally, arbitration or a lawsuit WON'T be needed, and the
site will be taken down. Of course, alternatively, my bet
proposed above might take it from the academic to the
experimental -- if someone dares to register Coca Cola's
domain name.
JMR

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Adam Selene

James M. Ray wrote:
> Failing that, I again suggest Evocashcasino, etc. instead of the 
> constant infringement on e-gold's name 

To the contrary, the best argument je can make in using E-Gold in
the name of the casino, is that E-Gold in the name is merely a descriptive
term, of a casino that accepts electronic gold -- and not just e-gold(R),
but goldmoney, e-bullion, etc. It is futher demonstrated that 
E-Gold != e-gold(R) in that the capitalization is different, and that the 
e-gold(R) logo lettering/stylization are not used.

An even stronger argument would be if E-Gold were not in the name of
the casino, but only in the domain. Then you can make the argument that
E-Gold is not only merely descriptive, but used in a way that can not
infringe in and of itself. eCash Technologies, Inc. v. Mark Guagliardo
set the precedent that registration and use of a domain name does not
in itself establish a trademark (nor a conflicting trademark). It can also be 
strongly argued that DNS is a *directory* system and that domains do 
not necessarily represent usage as a trade name. If DNS is a directory, 
then the listing e-gold-casino is simply a directory entry of a casino 
that accepts e-gold.

I am curious as to whether you think bet-with-egold.com would also
be infringing, used solely as a domain name (not the name of the destination
casino). Would the same phrase "Bet with e-gold" used on the casino
home page be infringing? What exactly is the difference?

You may not agree with these arguments, but until they are defended
in arbitration, the discussion is rather academic.

Adam

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread Danny Van den Berghe

> And if a site that has e-gold in the domain name but has nothing to do
> with DGC and the domain name actually means 'electronic gold-something'
> then that can not possibly seen as an infringement on the e-gold
> trademark, or?


Hi,


I see two possible ways to consider e-gold-casino

The first interpretation is that it is the bringing together of 'e-gold' and
'casino'
In that case it is clear that the e-gold trade mark is being used.

The second interpretation is to see it as 'gold-casino' with the prefix 'e-'
added to it.

'Gold' is a plain English word and the word 'gold-casino' can simply mean a
casino where gold is used to place bets.
You could also have 'diamond-casino' ... '-casino'
Putting the prefix 'e-' in front of it only signifies that it is
'electronic'

It will depend whether the court accepts 'gold-casino' as a valid word,
inorder to avoid violation of e-gold's trade mark.
It might be sufficient to point out that there are several 'gold-casinos' in
existence already.




Danny




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing trademarked words

2003-08-04 Thread Ben Legume



>Someone mentioned Australia, if you want a 
specific famous case if you know Sydney there 
is Betty's Soup Kitchen on Oxford St at the 
corner of Crown St..  She had a campbell's-like 
lettered logo in red and white painted next to 
the name Betty's Soup Kitchen. She lost. 
Yes, they argued endlessly that it was an 
ironic reference to popular culture Warhol 
whatever.  She still lost plainly after wasting 
the time and money on that.

Speaking of Australia, don't forget the Targets 
case in Tasmania. Where the chain clothing 
store Target opened up a shop then sued 
(unsuccessfully, ultimately) the pre-existing 
clothing store run by Mrs Targett for having a 
similar name to theirs. There are also some 
exeptions (in Australia, I wouldn't want to 
assume it applies elsewhere in the world) where 
you are using your name. So if my name is 
Ronald McDonald I can legally use the shop-name 
Ronald McDonald's Hamburgers.

The auctions are just begging for some juicy e-
gold bids! Books, CDs and DVDs (including 
Shrek, The Ring and Spider-Man)!

http://cgi6.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=dwarf_fighter&sort=
0&page=1&rows=200&since=1&showpics=1&stab=30


New Books at Discount Prices
  --- Send the right message ---

+ Today freemail +   

Get your free, private email address at
   http://www.today.com.au 

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

White Bear wrote:

By the way, E-Gold-Casino is not in any kind of related business with
E-Gold Ltd. We are not selling or buying eny e-currency. Gaming is not
banking.
e-gold isn't banking either (see the seldom-read e-gold account user
agreement). You are associating e-gold's name with your casino. I'd
suggest -- especially considering the problem with that user who just
clicked you a bunch of e-gold -- that you concentrate on gaming, and
not copy others' names. Failing that, I again suggest Evocashcasino,
etc. instead of the constant infringement on e-gold's name (and no,
just because lots of others do it doesn't make it right -- If I owned
Evocash and you did that, I'd do the same thing e-gold's likely to do
for the same reasons).
Again, I can't imagine "E-Gold-Casino is not in any kind of related
business with e-gold Ltd." not-flunking the "laugh-test." Discussion-
forums have nothing to do with soft drinks, but saying "Coca-Cola
Forum is not in any kind of related business with the Coca-Cola
bottling company" flunks the same laugh-test. If I were the judge
(and while I may not be a lawyer, I have worked for a US District
Judge in the past) I'd make the loser pay in such a case. Of course,
if I were a judge, a LOT more loser-pays would probably happen...
Again, IANAL.
In all known cases of e-gold trademark infringements, opponents tried to
perform e-currency dealing or even scam e-gold users under their name.
That is really inacceptable and must be pursued.
Its like i can own dollar-pizzeria but can not issue own dollars.
I disagree (see multiple examples from JP, [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc...). I
am not a lawyer and I don't speak for e-gold Ltd. Instead, I'm coming
at this as an e-gold user who would prefer that more resources go to
things like hardware and software -- having seen the results of using
finite resources to deal with legal frivolities in the past.
JMR

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-04 Thread White Bear

By the way, E-Gold-Casino is not in any kind of related business with
E-Gold Ltd. We are not selling or buying eny e-currency. Gaming is not
banking.

In all known cases of e-gold trademark infringements, opponents tried to
perform e-currency dealing or even scam e-gold users under their name.
That is really inacceptable and must be pursued.

Its like i can own dollar-pizzeria but can not issue own dollars.




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Cambist.net



> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:51:21 -0600
> To: "e-gold Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

> 
> Gordon -- don't you know?  I am actually Douglas Jackson.  AND I am
> actually Jim Ray -- AND I am actually Jay Wherley.  AND I am Barry
> Downey!  (No wonder I know so much about IP law)
> 
> ALSO I AM ACTUALLY the Turks, father and Son.  It's all a big nymous
> conspiracy theory, Gordon.


I've met both Douglas Jackson and James Turk; I must compliment you JP on
your excellent makeup/disguises.



- John
---
http://cambist.net




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Robert S.Z.

> Joel wrote:
> I was talking about merchants that rely on having an e-gold account.
> 
And that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. eGolddinar.com will not
be a merchant. It will be an information site.

You and I, we both know that CyberFrontier has other plans that involve
Malaysia, the Middle East, Africa and e-gold and I certainly wouldn't want
to jepardize those plans just to make a point with the eGolddinar domain
names.

However, making a point was never my intention and I only mentioned the
eGolddinar.com domain name as an example to compare against
e-gold-casino.com in order to point our how two domain names, both
containing e-gold in one form or another could be so different from each
other that one is likely to indeed infringe on e-gold's trademark, while
the other doesn't.

Of course, my mere mentioning the domains and the arguments I used were
then the subject of plenty of posters who differed with my views and I
suddenly had to defend the fact that we registered eGolddinar.com ...

That said, I take the silence from the @e-gold.com corner as agreement
that they also couldn't see how an information site utterly unrelated to
e-gold could be any cause for concern.

Cheers,
Robert.

budget & privacy website hosting
http://www.cyberica.net
budget & privacy domain registrations + mail
http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Asiana Gold

Joel wrote:
If you are trying to use the "e-gold" trade mark in your domain and also
use the largest electronic gold currency on the planet,
Robert S.Z. wrote:
Malaysia doesn't have an e-gold account, to the best of my knowledge
and
hence they are not subject to any agreement with e-gold. So the user
agreement wouldn't apply
I was talking about merchants that rely on having an e-gold account.

I suspect that one of the main reasons that people register domains
with e-gold in
them is for search engine ranking. At least that is the best legitimate
reason I can think of?
Because search engines like google place about 10% weighting on the
keywords
in the domain name, provided those key words are not highly competitive.
If you type "e-gold" into google for example , you will find
e-gold-casino.com ranked 5th.

It's a really good way to get highly targeted traffic to a casino that
accepts e-gold,
infact I thought of this idea 3 years ago!

Its an awesome way to get referrals for TGC ;)
I use to own egold-casino.com back in 2000 and I set up a few pages
that specifically
explained the benefits of e-gold and TGC. So I know how well it works!!!

I didn't get any letters from e-gold lawyers but I came across another
site that displayed the
letter they received from the e-gold lawyers on their index page. I
read it and it made sense to me to take
down my site ASAP and let the domain expire. I'm sure they would have
got around to me
in due course.

Now I just own shares in TGC! Because I know how much traffic my domain
used to get!

Regards,

Joel

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Robert S.Z.

Hello Gordon,

We registered the domains for the Malaysian government to preempt some
crook doing it and bringing the Golddinar into direpute before anything
got off the ground.
The government doe to the best of my knowledge neither own an e-gold
account, nor are they likely to want one. So I don't think that this would
be an issue.

Well, and I don't think that e-gold would shoot the messenger, ie. disable
our accounts. I mean that would be a real cheap shot as the site will have
nothing to do with e-gold whatsoever.

But thanks for the warning!
=
Joel, 

Malaysia doesn't have an e-gold account, to the best of my knowledge and
hence they are not subject to any agreement with e-gold. So the user
agreement wouldn't apply.
=
JPM,

Thanks for the input. But, one can't claim the trademark on something that
has nothing to do with one's business or trademark whatsoever. The
Golddinar was introduced around 700AD! Egold owns the trademark on e-gold
and derivatives, not on 'e-'.
Claiming that adding e- to Golddinar has anything to do with e-gold is
pushing it a bit too far. Indeed, a ruling could backfire in so far that a
court might find that while E-gold is protected, the two generic words of
Electronic Gold are not. With such a decission precedent things could get
real complicated.

As to your example with Ford. If someone's name happens to be Ford and he
incorporates a company called Ford International Corp. and then registers
fordcorponline.com then there is not much Ford Motor Cars can do about it.

Even under WIPO, e-gold has to prove something like: (1) that their
trademark is being misappropriated; (2) that this causes a damage to
e-gold; (3) that the domain was registered in bad faith.

egolddinar.com stands for Electronic Golddinar and does not contain the
trademark.
egolddinar.com does not compete with e-gold, nor does it conduct any
business in any way whatsoever related to e-gold.
there is no attempt to profit from the remote resemblance that some people
may see in the name to e-gold, nor indeed is there any plan to use the
domain to attract e-gold users. In fact, the site will default to an
Arabic and Malay language site, with Chinese, Tamil and English being
subdomains.
==

On a different note, we had actually asked e-gold how they felt about us
registering egoldindex.com for the directory site we run. At the time we
were told that that would be seen unfavourable and we went with
thegoldindex.com instead - proof of acting in good faith?

But in the case of e-Golddinar, both domains were available and it
actually only appeared to us that they contained the phrase e-gold, after
we got e-mails from e-gold about it.
Of course, I did reply pretty much right away and explained what purpose
the domains were registered for and what type of site we were going to
build.
And that was the end of that.

So, I'd say that the people at e-gold are much more reasonable than you
guys seem to be giving them credit for.
And I do agree that they should do their utmost to protect their
trademark, because if scam artists abuse the name it will hurt the
reputation of e-gold and by extension the business of all of us.

But, there is a difference between a scam artist who tries to profit from
e-gold's trademark and a site that wants to educate the public and promote
the use of the Golddinar program of the Malaysian government.

Cheers,
Robert.

budget & privacy website hosting
http://www.cyberica.net
budget & privacy domain registrations + mail
http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

My recollection that there was an important distinction
between e-gold (with the hypen) and egold (without the hypen)
appears to be incorrect.

I was recalling all the ruckus over e-cash and ecash, with several
parties each claiming trademarks and prior use over the term 
"ecash" (without hypen), while both ecash and e-cash were already 
in common usage as generic terms, and in several dictionaries.

I suggest that E-Trade, E-Gold and ECash (DigiCash) merely 
got lucky with the USPTO, and that the issue of the e- prefix
being descriptive may give them trouble with regards to future 
infringment cases.

"We hasten to add that this holding does not represent a per se rule 
that any mark beginning with "E-" is automatically descriptive.  
However, if the mark is used in connection with goods or services 
involving electronic commerce, and the matter that follows the "E-" 
prefix is merely descriptive of the goods or services, the resulting 
composite is generally merely descriptive as well." (U.S. Patent Office)


Noteworthy EWORDS:

ECASH

eCash Technologies, Inc. v. Mark Guagliardo dba eCash.com
http://www.casp.net/ecash.html

The domain name ownership was not overturned, as the defendent
registered the domain prior to the trademark. The counterclaim
to revoke the plaintiff's trademark is dismissed on the basis that
registration of a domain name alone does not itself create a trademark 
(hence no prior use).

E-TICKET

Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Airlines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385 (TTAB 1999)

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that "E-TICKET" had 
become a generic term for electronic ticketing services, so it refused to 
allow said term to be  registered as a trademark by United Airlines. 
(could not find online text)

ECERTIFIED

The trademark application for "ECERTIFIED" was denied on the basis 
that the term is merely descriptive.
http://www.sussmans.net/cases/unpublished/September01/75596169.htm#_ftn1

EAUTO

EAuto, Inc. v. E Auto Parts, Inc.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0121.html

Arbitration acknowledged the argument that EAUTO may be a generic term,
and that there are no trademark rights to assert, however unfortunately 
"the panel need not reach that issue" because the defendent demonstrated
clear prior usage, and that E Auto Parts is "an obvious abbreviation of its 
former name European Auto Parts."

E-CHAIN 

The trademark application for "E-CHAIN" was denied on the basis 
that the term is merely descriptive.
http://www.sussmans.net/cases/unpublished/September01/75684389.htm

Adam




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Katz Global Media



> I'm not e-gold Ltd and I don't know how they work but it makes sense to
> me that they
> may prevent you from having a functional e-gold account long before
> they take
> legal action.


they already do this as I have seen a few people attempt to register their accounts 
using e-gold in the account name and it
automatically creates a dud account with a spend limit imposed. I believe it is coded 
to automatically do that? They come to me
saying their account is frozen and that is the reason why sometimes.

Gordon H.
www.katzglobal.com




>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
> via the web and shopping cart interfaces to
help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Asiana Gold

If you are trying to use the "e-gold" trade mark in your domain and also
use the largest electronic gold currency on the planet, this section of 
the
e-gold account user agreement seems relevant:

4.6 Right of Association

Issuer reserves the right to refuse service to particular users or 
entities, at its sole
discretion, with or without cause.

I'm not e-gold Ltd and I don't know how they work but it makes sense to 
me that they
may prevent you from having a functional e-gold account long before 
they take
legal action.

 Regards,

Joel



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

Robert, the following is PURELY FOR WHAT ITS WORTH.

I love you but if you told all that to an attorney he'd glaze over
for ten minutes and then he'd be like..

"dude, here's a newsflash, you have "e-gold" in your name, you can't do that"

Honest to God, it's that simple.

Just to be clear ... (1) I absolutely couldn't give a flying fuck one
way or the other, I just couldn't care less. I thnkyou should go for
it and see what happens. I only responded to this because I happen
to have mucho practical experience {well, only with the largest
companies and most famous consumer consumer brands, maybe its all
different for small companies, I don't know reallly} in this type of
thing and I enjoy talking to you all on the mailing list, and there's
not a whole hell of a lot else to talk about other than like the
weather or new car models (what about the Pacifica??!) and (2) it
really is That Simple

You can't go, oh, this is FordTyre company and its just a coincidence
blah blah 500 words and its really 'for" "D." tyre company and our
intentions 10,000 more words and common English usage of libertarian
etc etc.

Your attorney would just say ... "here's a newsflash, you cant
have 'Ford' in the name. Can we think of something else? Without
'Ford' in the name?"

Incidentally! Regarding "Ford Towing". Ford Motor Company would
PROBABLY WIN in that case, in fact almost certainly. {The only thing
that might save them is if "Ford' is genuinely the family name of the
towing company principles involved, that's like a free walk --
*sometimes*.} {If you want an example of this there is a restaurant
in Greenwich, England called "McDonalds," a little old restaurant
actually owned by some McDonalds family which is a similarly famous
bit of arcana in brand circles}

I know numerous specific cases like this, because they're always
famous in big-brand circles of people who work in that scene.

Someone mentioned Australia, if you want a specific famous case if
you know Sydney there is Betty's Soup Kitchen on Oxford St at the
corner of Crown St.. She had a campbell's-like lettered logo in red
and white painted next to the name Betty's Soup Kitchen. She lost.
Yes, they argued endlessly that it was an ironic reference to popular
culture Warhol whatever. She still lost plainly after wasting the
time and money on that.

You're forever getting some idiot opening up "Donald Duck's Carwash"
because "My name really is donald and it means 'Duck Car' see because
its a car in the water, its a DuckCar, nothing to do with Donald
Duck, and Disney cant own the English language blah" and the judge
just orders the sign removed and that's that. This is all well
covered ground!

(You just HAVE TO WONDER why people bother getting into things like
this? WHY???)

Talking of Australia, consumer products v. consumer products, there
is a well-known multinational brand of chocolate cookie "Tim Tams".
Earlier this year a local nationalist manufacturer came out with
"TEM'p'TIMs" with a similar looking script -- of course he lost.
(Didn't even go to trial, duh.) they modified it so it looked
nothing like "Tim Tams". But, the guy got lots of publicity, so
that's great in this case.

As Howard Gump says, that's all I have to say about that. Good luck
in your trademark adventures!

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Robert S.Z.

Hello JP and Adam

We have actually been getting the usual form letter for two domains we had
registered recently, replied to them, explained, and that was that.
The domains I am referring to are: e-golddinar.com and egolddinar.com

There are two main distinctions between the two above and
e-gold-casino.com, though. As JP points out, latter has actually the name
'e-gold' in it, and I would think that to be indeed an infringement.
More so as the message that White Bear posted actualy quotes 'Egold
Casino'.

The difference between the casino and our two domains is this:
We registered the two names as 'Electronic Golddinar', NOT as 'eGold
Dinar'.
This fine nuance, makes all the difference. After all, as I explained in
my reply to the e-mail from e-gold at the time, E-gold Ltd. can not
possibly claim the trademark on a currency that what widely in use some
600 years before Columbus (re-)discovered America.

Adding the 'e-/e' in front is a widely used practice that signifies the
electronic version of a real life article or service. Hence
e-golddinar.com can not possibly infringe on the e-gold trademark.

Of course, in our case, there is also to consider that we are building an
information site about the electronic version of the Golddinar system as
it is being developed and promoted by the Malaysian government. That in
itself, should make a lot of difference.

To sum up, rather than looking at the words used in the domain three other
tests need to be applied to establish if an infringement indeed takes
place:

(1)
Does the domain name include the actual trademark or parts thereof and
does the operator engage in a related field?
(ie. e-gold-seller.com infringes, egoldcardonline.com doesn't - if it
stands for Electronic GoldCard Online and neither is, nor accepts DGC)

(2)
Does the domain name that includes all or parts of the trademark,
capitalize on the trademark? (in the sense of promoting something that
will benefit from the use of the trademark, such as e-goldseller.com)

(3)
Are the motives of the registrant of a domain name such, that he wants to
benefit from the fact that e-gold.com is well known in certain circles and
is there evidence that the registrant acted in bad faith?

Looking at the above, I would say e-gold-casino.com does indeed infringe
in the first two instances, while e-golddinar.com doesn't at all.

I personally dislike the thinking of 'anything goes unless litigation
proves otherwise'. On the other hand, there need to be limits to what one
can claim and I think that the three tests above should be used - in
addition to common sense - to establish if an infringement is taking place
or not.
And if a site that has e-gold in the domain name but has nothing to do
with DGC and the domain name actually means 'electronic gold-something'
then that can not possibly seen as an infringement on the e-gold
trademark, or?

Cheers,
Robert.

PS - just imagine the Austrians would claim prior art on the word 'Dollar'
because it is derived from the word 'Taler' and would then proceed to
trademark it and force other countries to rename their currencies...

budget & privacy website hosting
http://www.cyberica.net
budget & privacy domain registrations + mail
http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

> I think e-gold(tm) should vigorously pursue to the ends of the Earth 
> anyone who violates the e-gold trademark.

Well at this point, speculation to the contrary notwithstanding, they
have not.

Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. Giacomo Furlan
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/109054.htm

This is the only time the "E-Gold" trademark has *ever* been 
involved in a UDRP domain name dispute (assuming the Cornell
database is accurate).

http://udrp.law.cornell.edu/udrp/advsearch.html

Whether they have used the U.S. court system, I don't know, however
provided neither the Registrar nor the Registrant are in the U.S. it
should not matter, UDRP/WIPO Arbitration is supposed to be 
authoritative.

Adam





---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

JPM,

it seems to me you are very emotional over this (as you obviously
have an interest in some way with e-gold LTD)
Gordon -- don't you know? I am actually Douglas Jackson. AND I am
actually Jim Ray -- AND I am actually Jay Wherley. AND I am Barry
Downey! (No wonder I know so much about IP law)

ALSO I AM ACTUALLY the Turks, father and Son. It's all a big nymous
conspiracy theory, Gordon.

I only wish I owned shares in e-gold, I have never been able to
weasel any out of anyone.

Emotions run high when IP issues are at stake (you get the whole
wired-magazine-libertarian mindset clashing again the Machine).

I was merely pointing out the blatant reality of how that would work
in 1st world countries. OF COURSE, obviously, blatantly,
"e-goldcasino" or "e-goldshop" is a 100% flagrant violation of
e-gold's trademark. I mean, you couldnt make a clearer example of
outright, blatant trademark violation.

In the end I think if e-gold became litigious against the people who
use e-gold as a payment system they would quickly fins that i-gold
or something similar would become a little more popular a little
more quickly.

I think e-gold(tm) should vigorously pursue to the ends of the Earth
anyone who violates the e-gold trademark.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

I guess e-trade is sol. I couldn't see someone starting e-trade-mutual.com
for an electronically traded mutual fund, or e-trade-realestate, a site
where property is traded electronically. Such names would be viewed as
somehow having a connection or being endorsed by E-trade.
Similarly, if I operate an internet casino that takes mastercard, I can
display the mastercard logo and say I accept mastercard, but I couldn't call
my casino mastercard-casino.com
- John


John is right.  Again, this is just SO OBVIOUS, so glaringly obvious, 
that you barely need examples.

It is inconceivable you could use "e-gold" in a dom or company name, 
in a vaguely related field (ie - anything to do with IG) and win in 
court!

JP!



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Cambist.net



> From: "Adam Selene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:28:52 -0600
> To: "e-gold Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words
> 

> 
> I think that about sums it up.
> 
> The prefix "e-" (Merriam-Webster: electronic) is generic. To suggest
> that you can use this prefix with any other dictionary word (e.g. "gold")
> to create a proprietary term is nonsense.



I guess e-trade is sol. I couldn't see someone starting e-trade-mutual.com
for an electronically traded mutual fund, or e-trade-realestate, a site
where property is traded electronically. Such names would be viewed as
somehow having a connection or being endorsed by E-trade.


Similarly, if I operate an internet casino that takes mastercard, I can
display the mastercard logo and say I accept mastercard, but I couldn't call
my casino mastercard-casino.com





- John






---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

2003-08-03 Thread Katz Global Media



JPM,

it seems to me you are very emotional over this (as you obviously have an interest in 
some way with e-gold LTD) which may server to
scare some people, but tell me where is the case history in protecting your particular 
trademark? Has your company taken anyone to
court to date over trademark infringement?

There are so many URL's out there in the world now with e-gold and egold mixed up in 
them that I don't see why anyone would bother.

I still consider it a compliment to your company that people think there is enough 
money around it to pick up some pennies.

Even 2 hours ago someone attempted to register a name with egold in it. It is so 
common as to be silly at this point,

but i think that what would make your case very unique in Trademark law is the fact 
that most people who use a domain such as that
also use e-gold as a payment provider and i would tend to think that this is an 
unprecedented situation with a lot of grey areas to
consider.

In the end I think if e-gold became litigious against the people who use e-gold as a 
payment system they would quickly fins that
i-gold or something similar would become a little more popular a little more quickly.

respectfully,

Gordon H.
www.katzglobal.com
Anonymous Hosting Solutions
Offshore Anonymous Hosting
Offshore Reseller Plans




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

 I'm just talking, Adam, about what the reality is.  Not political
 views on trademarks and how it SHOULD be, just what would happen
 in all first world countries.
Granted, and unfortunately you are probably 100% correct.
fair enough, i didn't mean to be unctuous by the way.  I does just 
seem like a knock-down case, under US law anyways.  (I worked in 
advertising for ages, for coke, levis, johnson & johnson, miller beer 
(whoo!), proctor, etc and we would constantly discuss arcana of 
evolving copyright law as you can imagine)



I'll volunteer once I have a little more capital reserve. I own several domain
names containing e-gold, and I am also not under U.S. jurisdiction
(Costa Rica).
Adam
Enjoy!   I imagine you'd have no problem in C.R. (actually I for one 
have no idea about international aspects of trademarks, really!!)

JP!



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words


> An example is "Ford Automobiles".   You and I could not start a "Ford 
> Tire Company" or "Ford Windhsield Wiper Factory" or so on.  You could 
> start Ford Marshmallows, but not Ford Leather Auto Seating.  Ford 
> Clinic, but not Ford Tow Bars.

What aboug Ford's Towing Company?
http://www.fordsservice.com/

Granted, the issue of whether the services are "related" is the key element
(unless they argue the mark is famous).

> and anything vaguely related to the "IG economy".

What about the Dollar economy, or the Yen economy. One should hope
that the IG economy would grow to the point one may not consider every
company accepting IG currencies as being related.

> I'm just talking, Adam, about what the reality is.  Not political 
> views on trademarks and how it SHOULD be, just what would happen 
> in all first world countries.

Granted, and unfortunately you are probably 100% correct.

However, are those "first world" legal systems necessarily the authoritative?
e-gold-casino.com is in Russia (is that still "second world"?).

ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Protocol (UDRP) via WIPO Arbitration
is what should be authoritative, I am currently investigating. I do know that 
UDRP does not consider trademark in a domain as automatic infringement.

There appears to be an interesting database here: http://udrp.law.cornell.edu

In which I find the following:

e-g0ld.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-g9ld.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-gild.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-gkld.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-glld.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-glld.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
e-qold.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02
3-gold.com Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v. furlan, giacomo 05/23/02

There are only 28 disputes in that database with "gold" in the domain name,
none of which involve G&SR or E-Gold (except the above).

So I guess we will see, provided anyone has the balls to use e-gold in a
domain name and defend it if they ever get disputed.

I'll volunteer once I have a little more capital reserve. I own several domain
names containing e-gold, and I am also not under U.S. jurisdiction 
(Costa Rica).

Adam




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

"A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law when another person
uses a device (a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the source or
sponsorship of the goods or services involved
Right, it's that simple.

Note, under standard trademark law, E-Gold Ltd would need to argue that using
e-gold in the name of a casino "causes confusion as to the source or
sponsorship", and that the provision of gambling services versus digital
currency issuance are "similar as to cause confusion among consumers." I don't
disagree this is not possible, but I think it would be difficult to prove that
consumers that visit e-gold-casino.com truly have any confusion (particularly
given no similarity in branding).
I think you're "just not right" unfortunately Adam.

(Again! I am only saying what is reality in the US, not how life
should be!!! )

It's utterly inconceivable e-gold would lose. It's just totally knock down.

I mean Jesus Christ, the exact total NAME ("e-gold" !!!) is IN
THE NAME of the property in question.

To make one of innumerable examples, "chase manhattan" is a bank that
deals with money. It's totally inconceivable you could have "chase
manhattan casino" or "chase manhattan mutual fund" or "chase
manhattan check cashing".

It's just a non-starter. It's just a knock down, flat out, obvious
case. (the ENTIRE NAME of the complainor is contained in the name of
the property in questions!! Jesus!)

It's utterly, utterly inconceivable that the "e-gold-casino.com" guys
would win -- or even get an attorney to take their case. It's a flat
down, knock out, no chance, utterly total complete trademark
violation. I mean you could barely make a better example of a flat
out violation!

once again -- I'm just saying how the law would go, not how it should
be politically or anything like that.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

And to follow up with a bit of legal summary, excepts from bitlaw.com regarding
trademarks.

"Trademark rights arise in the United States from the actual use of the mark.
Thus, if a product is sold under a brand name, common law trademark rights have
been created."

"A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law when another person uses a device
(a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods
or services involved. Multiple parties may use the same mark only where the
goods of the parties are not so similar as to cause confusion among consumers.
Where a mark is protected only under common law trademark rights, the same marks
can be used where there is no geographic overlap in the use of the marks."

Note, under standard trademark law, E-Gold Ltd would need to argue that using
e-gold in the name of a casino "causes confusion as to the source or
sponsorship", and that the provision of gambling services versus digital
currency issuance are "similar as to cause confusion among consumers." I don't
disagree this is not possible, but I think it would be difficult to prove that
consumers that visit e-gold-casino.com truly have any confusion (particularly
given no similarity in branding).

"The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 expanded the scope of rights granted
to famous and distinctive trademarks under the Lanham Act. Dilution differs from
normal trademark infringement in that there is no need to prove a likelihood of
confusion to protect a mark. Instead, all that is required is that use of a
"famous" mark by a third party causes the dilution of the "distinctive quality"
of the mark."

In order to avoid proving consumer confusion, E-Gold would need to prove their
mark is "famous." One of the determining factors of whether a mark is famous, is
that it has not been used by third-parties. So, White Bear (and others) are
effectively engaging in preventative infringement, provided E-Gold Ltd cannot
prove now that their trademark if famous.

"Examples of marks which will clearly be considered "famous" would be: XEROX,
KODAK, COCA-COLA, and REEBOK. It would be much harder to protect a mark like
APPLE (computers) against dilution, since the term APPLE has been used in
connection with other well-known products, such as the Beatles records, and has
been used by numerous other business. Of course, the mark APPLE is still
protected against trademark infringement when likelihood of confusion can be
established."

Regarding registration with the USPTO, there are several prohibited categories,
one of which is marks which are "merely descriptive" -- that is, words/phrases
that are merely descriptive of the goods, of a quality or feature of the goods,
or of the geography.

In this sense, "E-Gold" cannot be trademarked by White Bear with respect to
"Casino" given E-gold simply describes a quality of the service (a casino that
accepts e-gold). Perhaps it would be better if they used the tradename "White
Bear's e-Gold Casino" to insure distinction (although the domain
e-gold-casino.com remains fine).

Adam




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words

Regarding generic words, as an exception, it is possible to maintain
a trademark within a specific industry. For example, Apple Computer
could successfully prevent someone else using "apple" (or even names
of apple varities such as macintosh) in the computer industry.

However, defending generic words across industries would be
completely unprecedented. Apple Records, Red Apple Grocery, Fiona
Apple, etc, all exist without infringement.

But that's only half way true Adam. If it is a RELATED industry,
it's inconceivable any court would let it fly. the "related
disqualifier" thing is a big part of trademarks.

An example is "Ford Automobiles". You and I could not start a "Ford
Tire Company" or "Ford Windhsield Wiper Factory" or so on. You could
start Ford Marshmallows, but not Ford Leather Auto Seating. Ford
Clinic, but not Ford Tow Bars.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm just talking, Adam, about what the reality is. Not
libertarian or other views on trademarks and how it SHOULD be, just
what WOULD happen in all first world countries.

E-Gold can probably defend their trademark of e-gold as it applies to
digital currencies,
and anything vaguely related to the "IG economy".

It's totally inconceivable you could get away with "e-gold-store" or
"e-gold-online-porno" or "e-gold-casino" or
"e-gold-exchange-services" or "e-gold-software-development" or
"e-gold-online-magazine" etc. This is basic trademark stuff.

Once again

Please note...

I'm just talking, Adam, about what the reality is. Not political
views on trademarks and how it SHOULD be, just what would happen in
all first world countries.

I missed the start of this, but if there's someone going
"e-gold-shop" or whatever, they're simply not going to be allowed to
do it if they're in a 1st world country and Barry or whoever bothers
suiing them.

Registration of a trademark does not in itself create a trademark. The
trademark must be used, and must be defended. To suggest people
simply ought to avoid a trademark is to suggest one ought to forsake
the most important moderation aspect of trademarks and take the
trademark office at face value. (This is even more important with respect
to patents).
Right on! "Trial by jury is the heart and lungs of liberty".

IMHO, every new trademark and patent ought to be infringed upon,
and forced to be defended in court.
Well, in say the USA or any first world country, it's difficult to
conceive how there could be MORE litigation over patents and
trademarks, if your desire is to see a "lot of" such litigation,
you're there!!

PS. On two practical notes regarding using e-gold in domain names:

1) If one were to own e-gold-casino, and have it direct to another
domain (e.g. wb-casino), one can claim that the domain does not
represent use as a trade name, but as a *directory* entry, and thus
cannot be infringing.
2) If one were to use the tradename (Electronic Gold Casino), and
have the domain e-gold-casino, one can argue the domain represents
a valid abbreviation.
Unfortunately both these cases would utterly lose -- in US courts --
for what its worth.

Again please see my clarifier above.

PPS. IANAL either.

I'm far more knowledgable than most attorneys about IP issues. You
can take it from me as gospel and not worry about it any more. ;-)

[e-gold-list] Re: R: Stealing Trademarked Words