ASU finally going after Sun Devil Angels

[Bugbee]

I always was curious how they did not go after SDA...

http://www.tmz.com/2013/02/19/arizon...orn-imposters/

Arizona State University believes a porno website is sullying its good name ... and if it's allowed to continue, ASU's reputation as the Harvard of Maricopa County will forever be damaged.

Long story short ... ASU is trying to shut down a website called Sun Devil Angels ... which features neither Sun Devils nor Angels, but rather barely attractive young women placing various body parts in other body parts.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/02/19/arizon...#ixzz2LHTpjumn
Visit the TMZ Store: http://tmzstore.com

[MaDalton]

just careful - Eddie is armed

[Rochard]

Surprised it took them this long.

They'll run him over like a steam roller.

[shimmy2]

lol@ smokieflames comment

[EliteWebmaster]

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

[brassmonkey]

hmm i guess they like sun devil auto. they do great work

[astronaut x]

Personally I don't see how asu could win this. Where are the asu-ish looking logo's?

That would be like the chicago bears suing a site based in chicago that contains burly furry dudes with bears somewhere in the domain name.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

ummm... that bunny example isn't necessarily a good one as it makes a good case for infringement.

[billywatson]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

Resemble a Playboy bunny's ears enough and Playboy will go after them...just like I told Eddie, long ago, that ASU would eventually go after him.

Well...I think I said that to Eddie. I can't remember now...

I love getting old.

[Wizzo]

Bet the site is getting more traffic then its ever seen!

[Google Expert]

ASU doesn't have a leg to stand on in this. Also, Eddie must be getting mad traffic right now.

[EliteWebmaster]

Originally Posted by Far-L

ummm... that bunny example isn't necessarily a good one as it makes a good case for infringement.

Originally Posted by billywatson

Resemble a Playboy bunny's ears enough and Playboy will go after them...just like I told Eddie, long ago, that ASU would eventually go after him.

Well...I think I said that to Eddie. I can't remember now...

I love getting old.

It's true Playboy would probably try to go after anyone that it deems infringing on their trademarks but they lost a landmark case against Netscape below when they tried suing Netscape because of the use of "Playboy" and "Playmate" which Playboy claimed was infringing on their copyrights but as the courts concluded, both those words are part of the English dictionary and used before it was trademarked so Netscape won.

http://news.cnet.com/Playboy-loses-r..._3-228787.html


Playboy also lost a case against Tori Welles (a former playmate) when she used the terms "Playboy", "Playmate of the Year", and "Playmate" on her site's meta description. Again, the judgement was that she was allowed to use it.

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl...2/02/17/074232


So as much as Playboy would like everyone to think they have exclusive rights to the words "Playboy" and "Playmate", they don't at least if someone doesn't use those words to closely resemble the actual Playboy brand. So if they don't have a foundation to stand on with infringement with their main two words, I don't think someone using a Bunny should be all too worried about Playboy winning an infringement against them.

[lagwagon]

This has been on the radio a few times today...

[lazycash]

At least Eddie will get some nice traffic before being shut down. Wonder if Alienq is still handling Eddie's public relations?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Eddie wins at losing...



ADG

[Legendary Samir - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Lucky guy. His traffic is thru the roof.

[Nikki_Licks]

Heard this on the news this evening and I am surprised it took them this long to go after him.

I am sure it will come down to who has the most money to throw at the legal system and I think ASU has a ton of cash to make something like this disappear if they really want to.....

[dillonaire]

I found this in the comments section and found it interesting.

fun fact: the Sun Devil logo was made by a former Walt Disney employee..who was so upset at Walt he designed the Devil logo to resemble him...

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

I wouldn't exactly use those words to get out of a trademark lawsuit.

.

[Supz]

any press is good press

[DeanCapture]

Eddie doesn't own that site anymore. It's under new ownership and new management.

The new owner just signed up for GFY and is waiting for his acct to be approved.

He will comment further once he's able to post......

[SBJ]

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

Eddie doesn't own that site anymore. It's under new ownership and new management.

The new owner just signed up for GFY and is waiting for his acct to be approved.

He will comment further once he's able to post......

yup I was thinking Eddie didn't own it anymore.. haha love it that the most traffic the site is ever going to get came after he wasn't part of it.

funny that the new owner isn't allowed to post yet but 20 Eddie fake nicks have posted here no problem.. I think Eddie has a new fake nick here now but he hasn't shown his true color yet.

I think ASU will win this np cause one they have the money to throw at it. Also the main reason is it's a site that is mostly shot out of Tempe, AZ and surrounding areas.. If SDA was shot and out of Florida then SDA might have more rights but shooting girls that could go to ASU and calling them sun devil angels is just asking for trouble.

[Mutt]

who's the new owner and why wouldn't Eddie have put it up for bids to get the most money out of it? that site has limited content, not many members and without Eddie, no shooter.

[Kevin Marx]

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

Eddie doesn't own that site anymore. It's under new ownership and new management.

The new owner just signed up for GFY and is waiting for his acct to be approved.

He will comment further once he's able to post......

Saw that some of your content was on there. It's an interesting combination of styles now.

[kyro]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Surprised it took them this long.

They'll run him over like a steam roller.

i am surprised they ever noticed, not like many people were visiting that site. Maybe 1 or 2 people a day.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's true Playboy would probably try to go after anyone that it deems infringing on their trademarks but they lost a landmark case against Netscape below when they tried suing Netscape because of the use of "Playboy" and "Playmate" which Playboy claimed was infringing on their copyrights but as the courts concluded, both those words are part of the English dictionary and used before it was trademarked so Netscape won.

http://news.cnet.com/Playboy-loses-r..._3-228787.html


Playboy also lost a case against Tori Welles (a former playmate) when she used the terms "Playboy", "Playmate of the Year", and "Playmate" on her site's meta description. Again, the judgement was that she was allowed to use it.

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl...2/02/17/074232


So as much as Playboy would like everyone to think they have exclusive rights to the words "Playboy" and "Playmate", they don't at least if someone doesn't use those words to closely resemble the actual Playboy brand. So if they don't have a foundation to stand on with infringement with their main two words, I don't think someone using a Bunny should be all too worried about Playboy winning an infringement against them.

Totally missing the point. Those cases are not using a bunny for an adult property logo that is heavily trademarked, branded, and identifiable worldwide.

In the one case, Tori was allowed to use her former status as a Bunny which makes sense since she, as part of the magazine, is forever identifiable as part of the brand.

Also, the "landmark case" you claim was won in the first article - where do you get that? The ruling was merely a stage in the process and since then obviously branded keywords do have a lot more protection. While Playboy can't stop someone from selling "playmate" searches to the Igloo Playmate coolers, they can go after anyone using it to market adult properties.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Far-L

Totally missing the point. Those cases are not using a bunny for an adult property logo that is heavily trademarked, branded, and identifiable worldwide.

In the one case, Tori was allowed to use her former status as a Bunny which makes sense since she, as part of the magazine, is forever identifiable as part of the brand.

Also, the "landmark case" you claim was won in the first article - where do you get that? The ruling was merely a stage in the process and since then obviously branded keywords do have a lot more protection. While Playboy can't stop someone from selling "playmate" searches to the Igloo Playmate coolers, they can go after anyone using it to market adult properties.

I have models remove Playboy logo clothing and jewelry, however I was always wondering what about tattoos?









ADG

[Nikki_Licks]

Who owns the site now?
Dean mentioned the new owner was going to chime in after being approved by the admins, but I don't think they made an appearance as of yet.

[dgraves]

I went through a similar situation with Hustler and after speaking with several trade mark lawyers, I was advised to change the site name and move on unless I had $400K to waste. Kind of ironic coming from a company who produces all those stupid "This ain"t" parodies.

The point is, it can be a very expensive gamble to fight a trade mark case.

[DeanCapture]

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks

Dean mentioned the new owner was going to chime in after being approved by the admins, but I don't think they made an appearance as of yet.

Yea you're right, they haven't been approved yet

[Rikki-Nyx]

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

Yea you're right, they haven't been approved yet

please see link in signature. good luck.

[Seth Manson]

Originally Posted by Rikki-Nyx

please see link in signature. good luck.

Please die in a fire. Good luck.

[JLB]

Originally Posted by Rikki-Nyx

please see link in signature. good luck.

I like the contact emails, hotmail is the new thing, right?

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by dgraves

I went through a similar situation with Hustler and after speaking with several trade mark lawyers, I was advised to change the site name and move on unless I had $400K to waste. Kind of ironic coming from a company who produces all those stupid "This ain"t" parodies.

The point is, it can be a very expensive gamble to fight a trade mark case.

Originally Posted by dgraves

boy, it's a good thing you're not a lawyer...you'd be broke!

It looks like I was right after all. Do you know that Directech, Inc. dba DogFart also has a registered trademark (#3492496) for Gloryhole?

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring adult entertainment; providing information in the field of adult entertainment via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 20030507. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20030507

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

This says otherwise : https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+devil+definition

There is no other reference to "Sun Devil" except being a mascot of ASU.
Please define what a sun devil is without using the university.

Not the same as "bunny" which has a definition of an animal rather than a team of company.

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by EliteWebmaster

It's a very weak excuse to go after the porn site. It's not like Sun Devil Angels are actively intending to say they are affiliate with ASU.

It's like Playboy going after your Rochards Bunny Ranch just because your logo has a bunny ears and resemble the playboy bunnies theme.

Like I said, a very weak attempt by ASU.

Using Rochards Bunny Ranch is a bad example. There is a clear association between Rochard and Playboy given his prior employment with them.

Originally Posted by Rochard

When I worked at Playboy we just handed out GFY gear....

[brassmonkey]

guess you need permission. sun devil auto is not part of the school. part hehehe

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by Mutt

who's the new owner and why wouldn't Eddie have put it up for bids to get the most money out of it? that site has limited content, not many members and without Eddie, no shooter.

I wonder why someone would buy it knowing the pending case?

I would guess that if the plaintiff wins the infringement case, the sale would be seen as a fraudulent transfer and the previous owner would have to pay back the proceeds to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the new owner would be subject to suit as well and would have to return the domain.

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

I wonder why someone would buy it knowing the pending case?

I would guess that if the plaintiff wins the infringement case, the sale would be seen as a fraudulent transfer and the previous owner would have to pay back the proceeds to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the new owner would be subject to suit as well and would have to return the domain.

WHOIS shows ASU is the current registrant and site is just a GoDaddy parked page.

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by InfoGuy

WHOIS shows ASU is the current registrant and site is just a GoDaddy parked page.

Ah, well ASU has the domain. They probably settled out of court. I searched though justia.com but I'm unable to find anything on the case.