Toys R Us Isn't Toying With Gus 81
NutBat writes
"News.com has an article about Toys "R" Us threatening
legal action against a guy named Gus Lopez who runs a site with the domain toysrgus.com for his Star Wars toy collection. It seems that he will be backing down."
It appears that Gus' website did not sell anything despite the .com
suffix, although I have not been able to confirm this.
The letter sent to Gus is on his website, and is worth reading.
Ajax.org and veronica.org were resolved due to public
pressure. Perhaps this one will be too?
Toys R US has a customer service page
I don't mind this one... (Score:1)
Toys R Us has a much more respectable position
here than ajax or veronica did. I think I'd back
them on this one, rather than Gus.
John
You must be kidding me! (Score:1)
Let's face the facts here people. Toys R Gus represents NO threat to the business of Toys R Us. His site hurts them in absolutely NO way whatsoever, it does NOT infringe on their trademark (just because you choose a similar name does not constitute infringement), and in short, they have no reason to pursue this action other than the fact that 'they can'.
This isn't really about infringement or trademarks I'm sorry to say.
Toys R Us has NO right to pursue this action in any sense. No damage to business or reputation. No infringement of trademarks. The question is, why do they do it? The answer: Because some lawyer noticed it, and said, "hey, we can pick on the little guy here."
You should definitely give Toys R Us the slashdot effect on their customer service page for this. Somewhere, a line must be drawn. This is becoming all too common. Some company nails the little guy with threats of a lawsuit because he has a domain name that can be viewed as an infringement of some sort. They may have no legal backing of this, and it may not fly in court, but they figure they can just do it with a threat, so why not give it a shot?
This happens once a week now, damnit! We have to stand up and say, "This will not do. We cannot stand anymore of this shit, it's time for ACTION!"
otto - who's getting fucking sick of it all.
bianca.com won theirs... (Score:1)
Cats'R'Us (Score:1)
Parody? (Score:1)
Toys R Us Customer Service Page Died on Me (Score:1)
HTTP/1.0 542 InterWorld Exception caught Content-Type: text/html
The InterWorld Extension 'ContactUs' threw an Exception.
Error Description =
ProcessStreamApplication::getStep -- Step not found.
Step name --------------- 'error0'
Process stream name ----- 'ContactUs'
Two possible causes for this error are...
1) A branch condition in the
is referring to a non-existant process step.
2) The step did not load because the
not load because either the path in the config file is wrong or
the
Error Location
filename = ProcessStreamApplication.cpp
linenumber = 466
Using generated page because either the error template does not exist
or there was an error finding or expanding it.
error template name = error.tem
Could not dump the Connection Namespace because the registry setting 'Oasis.allowBrowserToReceiveDebugInformation' is not set to 'yes'
# find
find: cannot open
Can't believe you punked out . . . (Score:1)
And the poor guy is scared cause of the LAWYER letter, I swear this is bulling in the greatest, WHY not just offer Gus . . $5,000.00 for the domain ? . . NO . . let's feed him some papers and SHUT HIM DOWN .
WAKE UP !!!
(PS. . . I could care less but I hate it when somoene gets bullied by Corporate types)
(PSS . . but I will take their money !!!)
The difference between this and ajax/veronica... (Score:1)
and pokey is that these are single words, that
alone or out of visual context, then it's hard
to infer if they are names, products, or just
generic words. On the other hand "Toys-R-Us"
is a trademark *phrase*. Take that out of context, and you still know it refers to the
toy manufactures. Same thing with "america
on-line", "apple computers", etc. The phrase is
obviously connected with the company or product.
But a single word is hard to narrow down, especially if it has prior use or is an
established word in a language.
Mind you, I think there's a better way to settle
the dispute ("To ToysRGus, please add a notification on your site that you are not
affliated with Toys-R-Us, and please provide a
link to our site...") than plain old stripping the domain name away, but...
toysrgus.com / Toys "R" Us (Score:1)
Like it or not, your friend chose the name "Toys 'R' Gus" *because* of the name recognition factor. It isn't a matter of a coincidental sound-alike or anything unintentional. He took the Toys 'R' Us trademark and skewed it slightly because it was funny/a novelty.
IMO, Toys 'R' Us is in the right here. They are watching out for their trademarks. If everyone on the 'Net were allowed to make and market their own variations of "Toys 'R' Us", the *real* Toys 'R' Us would lose name recognition (which is why we say it "dilutes" their trademark). Companies have a responsibility to protect their trademarks or else they lose them. This should not have come as a surprise to Gus.
Cease and Desist (Score:1)
Wait until the Slashdot/Redhat merger.
I think it is trademark infringement (Score:1)
He could probably fight this in court, and maybe he could win, but I'm not going to make any noise over this. It's not like veronica.org.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
Letter to ToysRUs (Score:1)
The site in question was a resource for collectors of Star Wars memorabilia and has been in operation for nearly five years. It is my opinion that toy collectors have long supported your company, and that in this case your actions have repaid their passion for toys with legal threats.
Please note that the name of the site is a reflection on the owner's first name, Gus, and that, to the best of my knowledge, there was no intention of using this domain to attempt to compete with your company, or to confuse readers of the site into thinking they were reading a web page created by Toys'R'Us.
As a side note, I find the recent great increase in the aggressiveness of large corporations in taking legal action against small website operators to be disturbing. For examples, please see recent actions against the holders of ajax.org and veronica.org. Your company has been very active in this field, making truly bizarre claims such as that the site at rru.com might be mistaken for your company. In the case at hand, regarding toysrgus.com, if you truly feel that the destruction of a long-standing website resource for toy collectors will increase good will towards your company, then carry on. However, I urge you to consider alternatives.
Perhaps an arrangement could be made in which Mr. Lopez would clearly identify on the first page of his site that he is not a representative of your company, and provide a link to your site from that first page. This would allow both clients of yours who have mistyped your domain name, and the toy collectors who regularly visit his site to quickly and easily reach your site for more information on your products and services.
Your company (along with many others) is relatively new to the internet. I believe it is high time that large companies realized that this is an international medium, and that it is an individualized medium. I urge you to take the time to understand how it works and the nature of the internet community before you take similar actions in the future.
I have been a regular and happy customer of Toys'R'Us for many years. However, I feel strongly enough about this issue that I will be finding alternative vendors for toys I purchase in the future if this action is not brought to a civilized end.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Stade
acheron@mnj.ml.org
Am I the only SAD who got this form letter ? (Score:1)
A Little Girl's Web Site
Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:13:54 -0500
From:
"Michael Silberkleit"
To:
Kevin Forge
In case you had not heard, I am pleased to say that
Veronica Sams will continue to have her veronica.org
web site. Please allow me a moment of your time to
explain how this situation came about.
When we first learned of the site a few months ago, it
was an inactive site that had been registered by David
Sams Industries Inc. and we had no idea what would go
up on the site. We were concerned that we might be
facing a repeat of an earlier situation.
In 1997, someone had put up an archie.com site that
contained pornographic material. We were very upset
that such a site associated with our character's name
would have material unsuitable for small children.
Concerned parents began to e-mail us thinking we were
responsible for the content because of the domain name.
After extensive discussions with the owners failed to
convince them to take the site down, we decided that
the best way to solve this problem was to buy it from
them. We did this because we believe we have an
obligation to the children who may be searching for
material based on the names of our characters, not
because we needed another domain name.
I can understand your concerns about the veronica.org
web site since initial press reports made it appear
that we were trying to deny a little girl her web site.
Our sole intent was to protect children from seeing
objectionable material on the Internet when they
accessed what they might think is an "archie" web site.
Given that David and Renee Sams were unaware of our
previous problem, it is also understandable that they
were initially upset with our action. However, as soon
as we saw that it was a site dedicated to their daughter,
we withdrew our request to place the domain on hold. I
am happy to report that I met with the Sams, we shook
hands and put this unfortunate matter behind us.
Now that you know the circumstances, I hope that you too
will understand our actions.
For your convenience, we have gathered a number of links
to articles regarding the chronology and happy settlement
of this matter. To see them, please visit our web site, at:
http://www.archiecomics.com/insideacp/inthenews.h
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Michael Silberkleit,
Chairman and Co-Publisher
I disagree with Toys 'R' Us on this... (Score:1)
Someone mentioned that he would never have thought it up without having seen Toys 'R' Us, but I disagree. With online talk as it is, many words are abreviated if they have the same pronunciation as a letter. Just hang out on IRC for an hour, and count how many times you see 'how r u?' Considering that, Replacing 'are' with an 'r' isn't that special.
On another note, the guy's been running this site for 5 years now, from the sound of the article. And now, after 5 years, it's suddenly an infringement on their trademark?
Also, I fail to see how this really in any way affects them. I don't care what anyone says, no one is going to mistake his site for a Toys 'R' Us site. It's a catchy name, he's been using it, let him keep using it. If every part of a company's name is reserved for their use only, we are going to have a whole lot of trademark issues real soon.
"What? No, you can't use MicroSystems. The 'Micro' is an infringement on MicroSoft's trademark."
Toph
How's this for amusement. (Score:1)
TrademarksRUs.com [trademarksrus.com]
Toph
Isn't there a store called tots r'us? (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
tacobell.com (Score:1)
posting while on painkillers =)
My letter to Toys R Us (Score:1)
My letter is below.
Today on the slashdot website (www.slashdot.org) I learned that Toys R Us has decided to force the toysrgus website to shutdown. Im afraid I find this objectionable for many reasons.
1. The toysrgus website has been in use for approx 5 yrs. In this time Toys R Us never attempted to reach an agreement in regards to the domain name.
2. I find the velvet fist approach distasteful. It seems that in situations where corporate america wants something that may be legally questionable, the easiest answer is to loose the lawyers. The threat of a long and financially devastating legal battle makes it difficult for the normal guy to stand up for himself even if he is right. I find this to be frightening and I choose to oppose it whenever I can.
3. Although my grasp of trademark law is limited, it seems doubtful to me that your company can own a trademark that includes anything ending in us.com or starting with toysr.
4. There are obvious free speech issues here.
I have 2 children and in the recent past I have spent hundreds of dollars at Toys R Us stores to prepare for Christmas and birthdays.
Unfortunately, I will no longer shop at your stores. As a parent I can not support a buisness that shows such a lack of morality.
I sent this letter to cusomerassist@toyrus.com and to lpollard@darbylaw.com.
i have to agree (Score:1)
so in this instance, i can agree with toys r us defending their trademark. however, given the nature of gus's site and his intentions i sort of think that some degree of compensation is in order - perhaps in return for relenquishing the site name they help him register another domain name? i however, don't think toys r us should have to buy the rights back for some exhorbitant sum either. it should stop at a new registration and any legal costs incurred in initially defending himself.
just a quick note to other slashdotters, i don't think we should pound toys r us with our "powers" to reach a resolution like those with ajax.org and veronica.org (i would like to think we would show some conscience when i came to using our collective powers).
ps i thought lawyers were supposed to be well read, versed and eloquent people. lisa pollard's letter sort of lacks most of that. she also has also committed a few grammar errors as well - heh heh - go ahead show me mine - lol (there must be quite a few)
toysrgus.com / Toys "R" Us (Score:1)
Gus is a good friend of mine. The website was set up as an archive for Star Wars collectibles, of which there where hundreds, if not thousands. To the best of my knowledge, it was only an archive, not a store. The mere thought of that makes me laugh. If you knew Gus, you'd laugh, too.
Gus hasn't decided what he's going to do yet. He's considered complying, but sees that as only one option. He might fight it; he certainly has enough support. We'll see.
However, reading some of the comments above, I'm confused. It's okay to have a domain name that is the same as a trademarked name but having nothing to do with said trademark; but it's not okay to have one that sounds like a trademark? What kind of double standard is that? It sounds like something Microsoft would pull.
If that's the case, we'd better start shutting down sites like YaHooka [yahooka.com] (sounds too much like Yahoo! [yahoo.com]) and anonimizer.com [anonimizer.com] (sounds too much like Anonymizer.com [anonymizer.com])!!
No more freedom of expression! Close the Internet! Last one off, please turn off the router.
Misleading fact #1 (Score:1)
Uh, no. He wasn't.
Please get your facts straight before posting misleading nonsense. Gus' site was an archive of pictures of Star Wars collectibles. It wasn't selling anything.
It is trademark infringement, but... (Score:1)
He might have gone for this if he had been approached this way. However, he wasn't so I doubt it'll happen.
I'm still trying to figure out how it's trademark infringement...
OK, what about this site??? (Score:2)
After discovering that the "Customer service page" returned some error or another, I tried going to www.toysrus.com [toysrus.com], but typed a little to fast and got to www.toyrus.com. Now, www.toyrus.com [toyrus.com] is owned by a company called '37' or somesuch, which points the browser directly at 37.com [37.com], which is "the worlds fastest, most complete search engine".
Obviously 37.com [37.com] is not a toy company, or in any way related to toys, but at the very least it's not exactly the most honest way to get hits. And if I were Toys 'R' Us, I'd take offense just at the claim they make of being the fastest/'completest' engine out there, which is a blatantly false claim.
If I could actually get to the Toys 'R' Us Customer Service page, I would make myself very clear that when it comes time to shop for toys (no kids, no plans, but one of these days...), this little incident will most definitely impact whether or not I go to Toys 'R' Us.
I would urge Gus to not back down, as I see no legal reason for him to give up his domain. Specifically, the letter from Darby & Darby (rather lame name, don't you think?) mentions that Toys 'R' Us has a series of "'R' Us marks". Am I the only one noticing that Gus is using "'R' Gus"??? And what if his last name were Argus???? (yeah, dumb, but possible)
It's hard to hide my disgust at these kind of tactics, and I'm rather annoyed that Gus is backing down. Perhaps we can convince him not to back down so easily, and write to Toys 'R' Us in quantity sufficient to get their attention...
No Subject Given (Score:1)
Next, some company named EZ(easy)this-or-that will demand the hundreds of companies and products with those two letters in their name to cease use of them. They should start going after zoos. I don't know about you, but I always mistake my local zoo for Toys'R'Us... Those damned giraffes and all.
Am I the only SAD who got this form letter ? (Score:1)
I think Veronica's parents should show their appreciation for /.'s help by changing her name to Veronica Slashdot Sams.
It even sounds good.
Buy a toy and return it (Score:1)
stating your cause for returning it to be due to their bully like attitude towards domain names...
This is for a good cause!
--
Infrigement???? (Score:1)
Toys R us (Score:1)
www.janus.com/
www.novus.com/
www.jesus.com/
www.rous.com/ - Linux server! Show them how stupid they are.
www.populus.com/
This fun stuff. (Score:1)
including dicksrus.com - its a porn site. (Score:1)
Bring the site back as a PARODY of TOYS'R US (Score:1)
Bring it back as a parody of the official site, then embarras them with it.
Parodies have withstood suits before.
Besides they (Toys) need to get real, apparently they only have the balls to pick on individuals who don't have money to fight. (proof lawyers have no balls). They seem content to leave some "r-us" porn sites alone, and trademarksrus
http://www.toysrussucks.com (Score:1)
Toys R US Lied (Score:1)
Check out http://www.rru.com/ [rru.com] for a log what TRU has attempted to do to that site. As far as I know, TRU hasn't prevailed yet!
How often do you shop there anyway? (Score:1)
Toys 'R Us (Score:1)
Now... as for the domain name problem.. this trademark infridgement problem is getting totally out of hand here. Toys R Us should back down from it since the website have been running for past 5 years so they should have "grandfather clause" part since they registered their domain name before Toys R Us did from my check with InterNIC. So... Toys R Us should get the f*ck off their ass and learn to understand that when it comes to the domain names... the trademarks should not apply since it is global... not US based. Frankly.. it is getting nutty here.
Anyone want to register Winblowznuts.com?
Isn't there a store called tots r'us? (Score:1)
The trademark is in the uniqueness of the "R Us" and especially the reversed R. But the similarity of a name like "toys R gus" is obvious. Even if he wasn't making money off the name, it wasn't a parody, and it's doubtful this would stand up in a court of law.
Very unlike the ajax & veronica cases. I sympathize with Mr. Lopez, but he trod on thin ice.
Only play with people who won't hit back (Score:2)
What really annoyed me recently was to find thousands of surnames grabbed by a bunch in Canada.
My surname is Underwood. I did a check for underwood.com - that was taken by a Jenny Underwood. Fair enough, she got there first. Then I tries underwood.org, and found it registered to the "Underwood E-mail" service in Vancouver. I tried underwood.net, and they had that one too. Then I tried some other surnames, and found every one taken by ".... E-mail Service", with the same address, administrator, name server, etc. If you go to their web site they are trying to sell you a third level doamin, based on your surname for $4.95 a year.
Now in some ways they are helping to share out these domains amongst a lot of people with the same surname. It seems too much like a scam, though. I feel content that I lost out on underwood.com to a real Underwood. I feel these other people are just trying to exploit me, though. If they were genuinely trying to run a business providing a service for people of the same name they wouldn't have registered all the
Why don't companies purchase these domains? (Score:1)
Its just stupid, there should be some obligation on the companies part to compensate those they are treading on, at least for the cost of the domain name and a proper transfer.
The "R" Us family of trademarks? (Score:1)
Small businesses that would not be given a second glance in the setting of a single city are, via the internet, competing on even ground with the big boys and are considered threats. If trademark dilution is truly a valid argument for restricting satire, puns and cutesy names then we'll be reduced to identifying ourselves by serial numbers. What's the point of knocking down the geography barrier only to be squashed by the pieces?
Previously, the only Ma and Pop shops that had to worry about trademark infringment were those named with any variation of "McDonald".
This is a sad day for the internet (Score:1)
www.toysrgus.com was "The Star Wars Collector's Archive" and yes it was just what it sounds like, an archive of photos of rare star wars memorabilia. NONE of it was for sale, and in fact most of it didn't even belong to Gus.
Gus is the kind of guy that lends out rare pieces of his collection to be duplicated his site wasn't about making money off a catchy name that sounds like a major toy store chain, it was about sharing the magic of rare Star Wars collectibles with those who might otherwise never have a chance to see them.
I see no reason that Toys R Us should win this one, this is further from copyright infringement than veronica.org was... At least veronica was the name that was copyrighted. Gus' site just sounds similar. Whether or not he would have come up with the name on his own should be irrelevant, it isn't the toysrus trademark, he isn't running a business, nothing more has to be said.
Boycott schmoycott. (Score:1)
If Gus hadn't been using the site to sell products, then the situation might be different. But, IMHO, Gus stepped over the line. But that's just me.
-Ash
Why can't they understand? (Score:1)
I think it is trademark infringement--not (Score:1)
It's worth making noise over. "First they went after the ______, and I said nothing."
Boycott? (Score:1)
Not to mention lego, lego and more lego.(tm, tm and more tm).
And I don't think this case has any legal merit.
Hmm. Looks like their server is down. I guess too many people offered their opinion...
Toys R Us vs. Toys R Gus. (Score:1)
As long as the domain name is registered under his own name and he is paying an ammount of money and works with it they have absolutely no right to make changes. Sure , its like a name copy but its harmless and cannot be considered as a threat to such a big company as Toys R Us.
I personally beleive that they should drop the case and get of his back.
There are millions of variations of names on the net. This is just another one and surely not the last one.
8t88 protocol droid over and out...
Cats'R'Us (Score:1)