until it used various legal tactics regarding the matter for force the small buiness owners buisness in backruptcy via legal fees .... In the end courts <> law
==

If your business is sued, and you win in court ; dont you get paid for your costs (time, money...)?

Patent-trademark industry is the second big industry (after drug industry ) in US according to some site I dont remember.

According to what I've read today - in most cases, you won't get your attorney fees back if you win in a trademark suit unless you are very lucky.

Take a look at the recent freebie.com case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031272p.pdf

The court held that the case did not satisfy the "exceptional"
requirement for an award of fees, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1117(a), and that an award of costs was inappropriate as well because "no violation of a registered trademark has been established." Retail Servs., 247 F.
Supp. 2d at 829. We review a denial of attorney fees for abuse of discretion.
See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 370 (4th Cir. 2001).

Remember that the ACPA is an extension to trademark law specific to domain names - the reason it exists as an extension rather than cases being heard under normal trademark law is because domain names have been deemend as requiring their own specific legislation.

That's exactly correct, Safesys. Going through the elements of trademark infringement, and asking "HOW WAS THE DOMAIN NAME INFRINGING THE TRADEMARK?" is the classic Garry Anderson mis-direction tactic of discussing what would be the wrong cause of action if the case were in court.

However, discussing outcomes under the law, as opposed by the UDRP, is equally fruitless, since Mr. Anderson has already said he doesn't like the law either and that US trademark law is itself "corrupt".

My admiration for John's skill and knowledge is well known (I hope).

I accept his dissing of me in 'good faith' :-)

However - again he has slightly misrepresent me.

My arguments are all based on objective logic.

If you go back to beginning of thread - you will see that I pointed out the likelyhood that similar words would be used by other businesses - and so asked what domain owner was doing illegal.

I further went on to point out that either Kirkbi AG or representives (Cantor Colburn LLP) hid the fact that Lego M. Lemelshtrich Ltd also had the same US trademark from UDRP.

On this UDRP flawed and corrupt logic - as virtually every word is trademarked (most many times) - how can anybody, using any word, not be a cybersquatter?

"discussing outcomes under the law, as opposed by the UDRP, is equally fruitless"

I certainly discuss UDRP outcomes - and how they came about.

You will note that John completely fails to acknowledge that even ACPA CANNOT IGNORE TRADEMARK OVERREACH.

Senate Rpt.106-140 - THE ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Quote:

The amended bill goes further, however, in order to protect the rights of domain name registrants against overreaching trademark owners. Under the amended bill, a trademark owner who knowingly and materially misrepresents to the domain name registrar or registry that a domain name is INFRINGING is liable to the domain name registrant for damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, resulting from the suspension, cancellation, or transfer of the domain name. In addition, the court may award injunctive relief to the domain name registrant by ordering the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name back to the domain name registrant.

www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpq...LD010:@1(sr140)

What John calls "mis-direction" is, in fact, getting to the root of the problem - TRADEMARK OVERREACH.

However - John does not want to talk about that - I simply just cannot guess why ;-)

Your turn, my mate John (long wait?) :-)

a trademark owner who knowingly and materially misrepresents to the domain name registrar or registry that a domain name is INFRINGING

This is not the same as them claiming exclusivity on their UDRP complaint - so its irrelevant in this instance. The ACPA does not require exclusivity.

"This is not the same as them claiming exclusivity on their UDRP complaint - so its irrelevant in this instance. The ACPA does not require exclusivity."

True Safesys - they certainly claimed exclusivity on their UDRP complaint - and it was shown not to be.

The ACPA LAW does though require that a domain name is INFRINGING - and I highlighted that fact also :-)

The problem is that UDRP pseudo-law was devised to allow illicit TRADEMARK OVERREACH.

A fact that our Learned Friends are most reluctant to admit.

Under the amended bill, a trademark owner who knowingly and materially misrepresents to the domain name registrar or registry that a domain name is INFRINGING is liable to the domain name registrant for damages

...however, while one conferee reported that comment on the bill as it was pending, the actual piece of legislation that was actually passed and made law did NOT say that.

What the ACPA ended up saying on the point of RDNH is this:

15 USC 1114(2)(D)(iv):

"If a registrar, registry, or other registration authority takes an action described under clause (ii) based on a knowing and material misrepresentation by any other person that a domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a mark, the person making the knowing and material misrepresentation shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorney's fees, incurred by the domain name registrant as a result of such action. The court may also grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant."

You will notice the prominent absence of the word "infringing", which you highlighted in the legislative report.

The ACPA LAW does though require that a domain name is INFRINGING - and I highlighted that fact also :-)

No, Garry, what you highlighted was a word from a congressional report on a piece of pending legislation that never made it into the actual ACPA. The relevant final ACPA section, quoted above, does not require infringement, and it is completely dishonest for you to quote something other than the ACPA in order to support the proposition that it requires infringement. If you want to make a point about the ACPA, then why not quote the actual ACPA instead of something which is most certainly NOT the ACPA. That would be a tremendously intellectually dishonest thing to do, if indeed you knew what you were talking about.

Another fine piece of misdirection, along with this one. The decision states the Complainant claimed:

"The use of the LEGO trademark has been extensive, exclusive and continuous in the United States since 1953."

Let's parse that sentence, shall we? In English grammar, what is the subject of that sentence (i.e. that which has been exclusive)? Is it the word "trademark"? No. Is it the word "LEGO"? No. It is the word "use".

Now, what "use" has the Complainant been making of the term "LEGO"? Well, for one thing, they have been applying it to toy plastic building blocks. Has anyone else been doing that in the United States since 1953? No. The Complainant has been doing so exclusively.

"You will notice the prominent absence of the word "infringing", which you emphasize in the legislative report."

Well spotted - guess why it was taken out.

Who do you think played a part in this trademark overreach?

"Now, what "use" has the Complainant been making of the term "LEGO"? Well, for one thing, they have been applying it to toy plastic building blocks. Has anyone else been doing that in the United States since 1953? No. The Complainant has been doing so exclusively."

Hardly the "whole truth" - is it?

The Complainant has NOT been using the US trademark "LEGO" exclusively - true or false?

"Lego" is used by another business.

Clearly - material misrepresentation.

You will note that John still refuses to talk about TRADEMARK OVERREACH.

And he did not answer, "On this UDRP flawed and corrupt logic - as virtually every word is trademarked (most many times) - how can anybody, using any word, not be a cybersquatter?"

"it is completely dishonest for you to quote something other than the ACPA in order to support the proposition that it requires infringement"

Complete dishonest - gosh - never been accused of that before.

I googled "INFRINGING ACPA" and got that congressional report .

It showed the weakness in cybersquatting law as opposed to normal trademark law.

Sorry if you think that dishonest.

"Well spotted - guess why it was taken out"

Well spotted? You lied about what the ACPA actually says. It wasn't "taken out", because it was never "in" to begin with. The report made a boo-boo.

"The Complainant has NOT been using the US trademark "LEGO" exclusively - true or false?"

Safesys already pointed this out to you, and you don't seem to get the point.

Delta Airlines uses the trademark "Delta" exclusively for airlines.

Delta Faucets uses the trademark "Delta" exclusively for faucets.

Even *if* it was a misrepresentation, what makes it a "material" representation (much less a knowing representation - do you see where the statute says "knowing and material").

Let's look at some context, again from the decision. You do not know what the Complaint said:

"The Complainant and its licensees (collectively “the LEGO Group of Companies” or “the LEGO Group”), through their predecessors, commenced use of the LEGO mark in the U.S. during 1953 to identify construction toys made and sold by them.

The use of the LEGO trademark has been extensive, exclusive and continuous in the United States since 1953."

The sentence at issue is clearly in the context of using the LEGO trademark to identify toys. They are the only ones who have been doing that. But, yes, if you rip the second sentence out of context from the sentence immediately preceding, then you can shout "liar, liar pants on fire" until you turn blue. However, since the case was not decided on the basis of that single out-of-context quote, then your conclusion that your context-twisting is "material" is another classic argument from the absurdtor (tm) himself.

Hardly a lie - I was negligent in not checking the wording was included on ACPA.

"It wasn't "taken out", because it was never "in" to begin with."

Forgive poor grammar, I should have said, "not included" instead of "taken out".

"The report made a boo-boo."

How was taking into account "protect[ing] the rights of domain name registrants against overreaching trademark owners" a boo-boo?

"Safesys already pointed this out to you, and you don't seem to get the point."

The fact is I DO get the point.

"Even *if* it was a misrepresentation, what makes it a "material" representation (much less a knowing representation - do you see where the statute says "knowing and material")."

It was an important fact about one of the issues which, if known, may result in a different result - true or false?

"The sentence at issue is clearly in the context of using the LEGO trademark to identify toys"

Duh - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country - so every trademark is considered exclusive in that way.

Why did they hide the fact that Lego M. Lemelshtrich Ltd also had the same US trademark from UDRP?

Others will have noticed that you still refuse to talk about TRADEMARK OVERREACH ;-)

And you did not answer, "On this UDRP flawed and corrupt logic - as virtually every word is trademarked (most many times) - how can anybody, using any word, not be a cybersquatter?"

"Why did they hide the fact that Lego M. Lemelshtrich Ltd also had the same US trademark from UDRP?"

What makes you think the person who drafted the UDRP complaint even knew about that registration?

Hardly a lie - I was negligent in not checking the wording was included on ACPA.

Perhaps you might consider being as charitable about the accusations you fling at others, if you expect others to be charitable to your deceits.

Yes, one standard of materiality is whether a different result would have obtained. I don't see anything in the decision that remotely suggests the exclusivity claim, even if one reads it the way you do, was outcome determinative.

"Others will have noticed that you still refuse to talk about TRADEMARK OVERREACH ;-) "

Having obtained several RDNH determinations on behalf of domain registrants, I refuse to play your stupid game. I have written extensively on the subject, have worked to establish RDNH as an affirmative cause of action in the US, and that record speaks for itself.

"On this UDRP flawed and corrupt logic - as virtually every word is trademarked (most many times) - how can anybody, using any word, not be a cybersquatter?"

Not showing up in a UDRP proceeding to deny you registered the domain name, and then offering an explanation of why you registered it, would certainly be a good start.

Why did they hide the fact that Lego M. Lemelshtrich Ltd also had the same US trademark from UDRP?

perhaps because it wasn't relevant to their case. More to the point, why didn't the respondent include this fact if it was material to their defense?

And you did not answer, "On this UDRP flawed and corrupt logic - as virtually every word is trademarked (most many times) - how can anybody, using any word, not be a cybersquatter?"

Perhaps because a word matching/being confusingly similar to a trademark is only one prong of the udrp and acpa.

Perhaps because a word matching/being confusingly similar to a trademark is only one prong of the udrp and acpa.

Hey, can I hire you?