Is this true?
whats your take on this
http://journalism.medill.northwester...ybersquat.html
Is this true?
whats your take on this
http://journalism.medill.northwester...ybersquat.html
It is true however this ruling is seriously flawed..
That basically means in essence that you cant advertise something you are selling on a domain name as i understand it although, if this was to be taken offline into the real world its a whole different ball game for example how many times have you seen commercials on TV promoting medicines by saying Product A is not as good as Product B and vice versa?In April, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a Texas company had diluted the trademark of wine giant E. & J. Gallo by maintaining a site called "Whiney Winery" on the domain, ernestandjuliogallo.com. Although not a direct celebrity case, it still has implications as this was the first time the 5th Circuit applied the ACCP Act and the first time the Texas dilution act was applied to cybersquatting. "Many laypeople think that the regular laws don’t apply to the Internet. The courts are confirming what I’ve always believed, that the trademark and copyright laws apply to the Internet just like they apply to everything else," E. & J. Gallo attorney Craig Weinlein has said.
To me at least, if the Whiney Winery had challenged that decision again (if they were able to) then they could have potentially won it citing the explanation i gave above. They were running a business that actualy SOLD the products mentioned in the domain name.
Anyway interesting link thanks for posting it David
Regards,
Lee
Bookmarks