www.sex.com wtf !! ?? - GoFuckYourself.com

SmokeyTheBear · 04-23-2005, 09:18 PM

www.sex.com

what do you see ??

about sex.biz ?
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/124756.htm

what does this mean ?

Am i stoned or doesnt it say that it doesnt matter if its .biz or .com.

Im sure this has been brought up before many times as its old , but im out of the loop on this one..

And why isnt sex.com a working site ..

WiredGuy · 04-23-2005, 09:20 PM

Hmmmm, sex.com is loading fine for me. What are you seeing??
WG

baddog · 04-23-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

www.sex.com

what do you see ??

about sex.biz ?
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/124756.htm

what does this mean ?

Am i stoned

I am opting for yes. I see sex.com . . . what do you see?

chupachups · 04-23-2005, 09:28 PM

nothing out of the ordinary?

SmokeyTheBear · 04-23-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I am opting for yes. I see sex.com . . . what do you see?

I see it now actually . must have been busy

..

But why doesnt that other guy own it. or am i missing something

MrFierce · 04-23-2005, 09:36 PM

The answer is multi-faceted, first and foremost is that "sex" is so generic that many countries will not register or recognize the US trademark, second the respondant lives in Korea where he is not subject to US laws, third since his site in effect promotes and sells items that are subtantively differentiated from the sex.com site he has the ability to claim that his site promotes something not the same as sex.com and therefore is not infringing on the complainants mark. My personal opinion is that this is an unenforceable case of infringement as the services are closely related and the sites are in the same field.

SmokeyTheBear · 04-23-2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFierce

The answer is multi-faceted, first and foremost is that "sex" is so generic that many countries will not register or recognize the US trademark, second the respondant lives in Korea where he is not subject to US laws, third since his site in effect promotes and sells items that are subtantively differentiated from the sex.com site he has the ability to claim that his site promotes something not the same as sex.com and therefore is not infringing on the complainants mark. My personal opinion is that this is an unenforceable case of infringement as the services are closely related and the sites are in the same field.

good answer

but the judge said that it doesnt matter. If the domain is the EXACT same as the trademark then it belongs to the trademark owner., why wouldnt it be the same for .com or .net ( infact the judge even said that the fact that it was .biz was irrelevant )

Enforcing it is another story , but for .com or .net that are registered in the u.s.a. it should be simple shouldn't it. ?

baddog · 04-23-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I see it now actually . must have been busy

..

But why doesnt that other guy own it. or am i missing something

Did you read the decision and how it was arrived at? I don't think the Complaintant is going to try and state that Gary (or Scott) are not using sex.com

baddog · 04-23-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

good answer

but the judge said that it doesnt matter. If the domain is the EXACT same as the trademark then it belongs to the trademark owner., why wouldnt it be the same for .com or .net ( infact the judge even said that the fact that it was .biz was irrelevant )

Enforcing it is another story , but for .com or .net that are registered in the u.s.a. it should be simple shouldn't it. ?

Might be a "good answer" but the judge did not seem to agree with it.

And why go after a small guy in Korea, vs going against Gary "I love Court" Kremen? Gee, I don't know . . . can't afford it, perhaps?

SmokeyTheBear · 04-23-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Might be a "good answer" but the judge did not seem to agree with it.

And why go after a small guy in Korea, vs going against Gary "I love Court" Kremen? Gee, I don't know . . . can't afford it, perhaps?

Thats what i thought too , it went against most arguments i have heard. But from the sounds of it he could go after sex.com with the same results ( possibly )

baddog · 04-23-2005, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Thats what i thought too , it went against most arguments i have heard. But from the sounds of it he could go after sex.com with the same results ( possibly )

His point was that the Korean wasn't using the domain, and only wanted it, to sell it to him later.

04-23-2005, 09:18 PM	#1
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	www.sex.com wtf !! ?? www.sex.com what do you see ?? about sex.biz ? http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/124756.htm what does this mean ? Am i stoned or doesnt it say that it doesnt matter if its .biz or .com. Im sure this has been brought up before many times as its old , but im out of the loop on this one.. And why isnt sex.com a working site .. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

04-23-2005, 09:20 PM	#2
WiredGuy Pounding Googlebot Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 34,482	Hmmmm, sex.com is loading fine for me. What are you seeing?? WG __________________ I play with Google.

04-23-2005, 09:28 PM	#4
chupachups Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sweden/Spain you sum bitch! Posts: 6,576	nothing out of the ordinary? __________________

04-23-2005, 09:36 PM	#6
MrFierce Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 134	The answer is multi-faceted, first and foremost is that "sex" is so generic that many countries will not register or recognize the US trademark, second the respondant lives in Korea where he is not subject to US laws, third since his site in effect promotes and sells items that are subtantively differentiated from the sex.com site he has the ability to claim that his site promotes something not the same as sex.com and therefore is not infringing on the complainants mark. My personal opinion is that this is an unenforceable case of infringement as the services are closely related and the sites are in the same field.