That would be a more-iffy case. Another, which nobody has
mentioned in this debate, is the case of *Sucks.com
domains.
I was actually debating taking up your wager with regards to
cocacolaforum.com.
If it were a site for consumer and/or investor speach, it would
be just as well protected
Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
...
Interesting, it never occurred to me that thegoldcasino might be a
sneaky way of including egold in the name. I never even perceived the
embedded egold substring because I most naturally parse according to
English word boundaries.
Yes, as most folks do. I think
On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 11:47 PM, James M. Ray wrote:
...
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.
Interesting, it never occurred to me that thegoldcasino
anyone know of a site that legally accepts bets on issues such
as civil/criminal trials?
Great idea, I'll put it in my queue. Check back in 18 months.
Interesting concept, companies could use this hedge their legal liability;
bet against themselves in the case.
I'm not sure who would be
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
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
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
James M. Ray wrote:
Exactly. Remember, too, that we're discussing LAW here, not
logic...I am not a lawyer, though, so this is just a layperson's
opinion of how this stuff usually-works. Consult a real lawyer
for real legal advice.
I think that about sums it up.
The prefix e-
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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,
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
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),
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
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
