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 ..

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

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

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/112/2...20Elephant.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/img/112/2...20Elephant.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/img/112/2...20Elephant.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/img/112/2...20Elephant.jpg

nothing out of the ordinary?

I see it now actually . must have been busy :)..

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

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 :thumbsup 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. ?

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

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 )

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