Playboy gets okay to sue Netscape

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Rictor
    Old Timer
    • Jan 2001
    • 12208
    #1

    Playboy gets okay to sue Netscape

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/15/pl....ap/index.html
    Tags: None
    • Pete
      Confirmed User
      • Jan 2001
      • 6617
      #2
      Its a bullshit case but what can you do. Playboy will probably win.
      Evoke Electronics

        Comment

        • silentkey
          So Fucking Banned
          • Nov 2003
          • 452
          #3
          I agree. Would it even be possible for them to lose in this case?

            Comment

            • Manowar
              jellyfish  
              • Dec 2003
              • 71528
              #4
              do playboy own the rights to those keywords ?

                Comment

                • Amputate Your Head
                  There can be only one
                  • Aug 2001
                  • 39075
                  #5
                  Originally posted by Manowar
                  do playboy own the rights to those keywords ?
                  they're trademarks. So, yes. They do.
                  SIG TOO BIG

                    Comment

                    • pamphage
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 3569
                      #6
                      interesting case. i totally see playboy's point. without their product no one would be searching for those keywords.
                      SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR.
                      Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
                      Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

                        Comment

                        • blackmonsters
                          Making PHP work
                          • Nov 2002
                          • 20990
                          #7
                          Originally posted by pamphage
                          interesting case. i totally see playboy's point. without their product no one would be searching for those keywords.
                          Yep, and it's about time and probably better for the search engines in the long run. It's stupid as hell to do a search with terms like "playboy magazine" and not have Playboy come up fisrt in the search. It's just fucking stupid; it's not like the SE's don't know what playboy is.

                          Same for well known people in history, a search on "Geroge Washington" should not have the first link point to a guy named George Smith that lives in Washington state.
                          Your neighbor will murder you with frogs
                          Click here

                            Comment

                            • seven
                              Confirmed User
                              • Apr 2002
                              • 2697
                              #8
                              Originally posted by pamphage
                              interesting case. i totally see playboy's point. without their product no one would be searching for those keywords.
                              Yeah but then again without search engines nobody would be able to search for playboy
                              Toy Rev
                              Rouge Web Design

                                Comment

                                • Baal
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Jan 2002
                                  • 696
                                  #9
                                  Very interesting.

                                  What if a site features a former playboy playmate "Tina" (and has unique content of just "Tina"), and gears it's SE optimization towards those keywords (Playboy Playmate Tina)? Should Playboy get a better listing than them if the Playboy site sucks at SE optimization?

                                  Search engines are becoming more and more like yellow pages, where to be listed at all, you have to *pay*. Why should a non-paying company get a top listing if it's not willing to pay (or pays less than someone else)?

                                  I'm not taking sides, but these are some of the questions that came to mind.

                                    Comment

                                    • Rochard
                                      Jägermeister Test Pilot
                                      • Dec 2001
                                      • 75733
                                      #10
                                      This is interesting........

                                      I'm sure Playboy has trademarked both it's name and logos. However the term "Playboy"....... has represented nudity for decades now and besides being a company it's also a way to describe things....... You can say we shoot "Playboy type photos". Is that a violation of their trademark?
                                      Herschel Savage
                                      Brooklyn, NY

                                        Comment

                                        • Volantt
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Nov 2003
                                          • 745
                                          #11
                                          Case will be settled... Only winner here will be the Attorneys who billed both companies.

                                          V
                                          "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                                          "In the abscence of orders, go find something and kill it." - Erwin Rommel
                                          "A man's worth is no greater then the worth of his ambitions." - Marcus Aurelius

                                            Comment

                                            Previous template Next
                                            Working...