Playboy gets okay to sue Netscape - GoFuckYourself.com

Rictor · 01-16-2004, 11:49 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/15/pl....ap/index.html

Pete · 01-16-2004, 11:52 AM

Its a bullshit case but what can you do. Playboy will probably win.

silentkey · 01-16-2004, 11:59 AM

I agree. Would it even be possible for them to lose in this case?

Manowar · 01-16-2004, 12:04 PM

do playboy own the rights to those keywords ?

Amputate Your Head · 01-16-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manowar
do playboy own the rights to those keywords ?

they're trademarks. So, yes. They do.

pamphage · 01-16-2004, 01:48 PM

interesting case. i totally see playboy's point. without their product no one would be searching for those keywords.

blackmonsters · 01-16-2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

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.

seven · 01-16-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

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

Baal · 01-16-2004, 02:39 PM

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.

Rochard · 01-16-2004, 02:42 PM

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?

Volantt · 01-16-2004, 03:02 PM

Case will be settled... Only winner here will be the Attorneys who billed both companies.

V

01-16-2004, 11:49 AM	#1
Rictor Old Timer Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 12,208	Playboy gets okay to sue Netscape http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/15/pl....ap/index.html

01-16-2004, 11:52 AM	#2
Pete Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Mr. Rogers Neighborhood Posts: 6,617	Its a bullshit case but what can you do. Playboy will probably win. __________________ Evoke Electronics

01-16-2004, 01:48 PM	#6
pamphage Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 3,569	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.

01-16-2004, 02:42 PM	#10
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,036	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? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

01-16-2004, 03:02 PM	#11
Volantt Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Penguin vs Devil Posts: 745	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

01-16-2004, 11:59 AM	#3
silentkey So Fucking Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: .Freedom. Posts: 452	I agree. Would it even be possible for them to lose in this case?

01-16-2004, 12:04 PM	#4
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	do playboy own the rights to those keywords ?

01-16-2004, 02:39 PM	#9
Baal Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 696	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.