Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Is "coke.ch" A Violation of Coca-Cola's (tm)? 486

Posted by Cliff from the yet-another-big-corp-vs-lil-domain-story dept.
Confused asks: "I own currently in another country a domain called coke.ch which I had registered about two years ago (ch is for the suisse country). I thought at the time of registering the site of doing a site relating to the affects and some information about helping addicted cocaine users since a friend of mine died from it. Right now, the Coca-Cola company is wanting that name from me and have asked some lawyers in Switzerland to take charge of the case. What can I do when I don't think that I did anything wrong? Is there a way to fight this? Any suggestions would be helpful and appreciated." I can understand Coca-Cola wanting to protect their trademark, but is this going too far? (Read More)

"The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine ... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland."

Let's face it folks...the word "coke" is slang. It's been a slang representation for both "Coca-Cola" and "cocaine" for as long as I can remember. Does a corporation have the right to trademark such slang? And if a word is trademarked before its inadvertent use in common language, what then? Must we all prefix a "(tm)" after using the word coke(tm) even if when we use the word coke(tm) we are not referring to what was trademarked, but the slang version?

This is yet another case that might call for third-party resolution. As near as I can tell, this domain was not registered or used in bad faith. Therefore, as I understand it, Coca-Cola shouldn't have any rights to the domain. Or have I missed something?

Thoughts?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is "coke.ch" A Violation of Coca-Cola's (tm)? More

Is "coke.ch" A Violation of Coca-Cola's (tm)?

Comments Filter:
  • Perhaps the best (maybe not moral though) is to fight the big corporations with FUD. Ask Coca-Cola(tm) if they really want to be known as a company that takes down web sites that help people with their addiction to cocaine. I'll bet they back off really quick. PR is really imporant, esp to soft drink companies.

  • Ask Us! (Score:2)

    by Kirth ( 183 )
    Go to http://www.siug.ch (all german, though),
    the Swiss Internet User Group. There's a paper
    on this: http://www.siug.ch/positionen/SIUG-Domain.shtml

    Furthermore, the SIUG might take a look at this,
    and can probably do something.

    Depending on the case, this is probably a blatant
    act of domain-piracy through law on Coca-Colas
    side or an act of cybersquatting on yours.

    Kirth
  • If I had to pick, out of the blue, a single word that to me was an example of the sort of word that might be a problem using commercially (say in a domain name for an unrelated purpose), "Coke" would be right at the top of the list. It has other meanings- but 99% means the sodapop, and everybody knows it, and the primary other meaning is illegal and even then the similarity with the sodapop name is a running gag (ever seen a 'Cocaine' T-Shirt done to appear like the Coke logo?) Hell, "Coke" even has its own logo on the Coca-Cola can! Look above where it says 'classic' in a square box above 'original formula'.

    That said, this still reduces to an absurd situation where you can't put 'Coke' in any domains, subdomains, etc etc without being hassled. What's needed is some good solid rulings in court saying "Grabbing and holding the .com is ENOUGH! You don't have to hassle everyone on the planet. If 'coke' means 'small purple fish' in Zabongahelian, well then "coke.zb" can go on meaning a fish restaraunt's web presence WITHOUT weakening Coca-Cola's trademark claim- because they hold the .com and are doing business using that as a trademark in many countries.

    It's the fear of the unknown: "Does coke.zb mean that we lose our trademark all over the world? *quake, tremble*" that causes the abuses. You have to immunize these big companies from their fears of losing what they're entitled to. They have a perfect right to own the name 'Coke' as applied to beverages. They've a right to be scared if they think they could end up losing that. They need some clear rules formally making them safe from the threat of losing all their trademark stuff just for not hassling domain holders in Zabongahelia. Without such assurance, they are compelled to really be destructive and draconian, because it's out of fear and nobody can tell them they _won't_ lose their important trademarks over such a thing.

  • If I open up a grocery store called Apple Produce, I'm not infriniging on Apple Computer Inc's trademark. But if I call it Apple Computer Supplies, then I may land in hot water.

    ``Apple'' is a common dictionary word, so unconditional trademark protection cannot reasonably be applied to it. Such is the case with ``coke'' as well.` Coke is a product derived from coal, which, I believe, is useful because it burns at higher temperatures than coal. More recently, the word is also slang for cocaine.

    I think that these crooked corporations are simply going too far when they oppress people for using common words in a way that is unrelated to their industry.
  • Why should it have to be active? As the owner he has the right do use or use it as he sees fit.

    If I own a piece of unused land in the middle of an area that some big corporation wants to build on, do they have a right to take that away from me?

    Bah!
  • They see a domain that isn't being squatted. I can't pull up anything under www.coke.ch... so why shouldn't they push to get it unregistered... Had our reader done something with it 2 years ago and not let it stagnate then I bet that the big boys at Coke would have said hey.. this kids doing some good with this site.. lets leave it alone.

    I disagree that coke is a slang word. Coke has been commercially associated with the drink longer then it turned into drug slang.

    What does Coke mean in Swedish? Or wherever the .ch domains come from? That may also have some relevance.

    Regardless of the readers good intentions (Don't get me wrong I fully agree that they are valid) the domain is being squatted.

    - Xabbu
  • "Ralph" is a registered trademark of Polo Ralph Lauren. "Barry" is a registered trademark of Lanman & Kemp-Barclay and others.

    Should those companies have the right to stop you from using those names to prevent confusion? ("There are better names for a person to use, anyway...")

    A "reasonable person" should make no assumptions about any trademark issues based solely on a domain name.

    --

  • They are an aggressive company that can't stand competition as if it would kill them. Coca Cola was nice enough to supply the breakroom where I work with a refrigerator, along with a big poster wire-tied to the front that stated "No competitor's products may be placed inside." (all caps removed here to prevent blindness!) In my mind, they are more arrogant than Microsoft (not by much.)

    Coca Cola is the American way. Its thier way of marking property, just as a dog would do.
  • What I'm getting sick of is people that think that just because someone owns a domain name means that they have to have a web site. How about confused@coke.ch? How about [ftp.]coke.ch? How about [irc.]coke.ch?
    Just because there's little/no HTML content on coke.ch, doesn't mean the domain isn't being used.
  • Another interesting point is that in the "real world" you can have a word that is trademarked multiple times to cover different spheres of product useage. For example, the same trademark could be used in plumbing supplies and in shoes without overlap. But now that everyone if fighting for their place on the web, you have trademarks collapsing into the same namespace.

    And the one with the most lawyers win. (Who cares who was there first.)
  • We are now seeing a net where some have greater rights than others. Where certain feudal lords are allowed dominion over the lesser peons. Ask yourself why a "trademark" should have more validity for a domain name than a slang term, a common name or some other usage? Yet that assumption is made in all of these cases.

    Programmers and techs built the net. Afterwards the marketing and corporate slime came in and said "thank you. We now own this." We are being treated as serfs in our own land. Creating value for the landowners and then kicked off the land when they find it has value.

    Maybe it is time to build something else...

    Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism.
  • I'm the CIO for GoatSe Communications Corp, based in Chicago, IL, and we've entered into a lawsuit with the controller of goatse.cx [goatse.cx]. I feel that it's important to protect our intellectual property, and I don't need any crack-smoking hippies abusing the good name of GoatSe Communications Corp.
    ------------
    a funny comment: 1 karma
    an insightful comment: 1 karma
    a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
  • It has been a trademark since the "New Coke" was introduced in 1984. The Coca-Cola company has already won a lawsuit in America, suing the publisher and author of a novel, for not capiltalizing their usage of it. The suit was victorious.
  • Recent US court cases have shown that the mere name isn't enough to cause a trademark infringement. tnn.com was owned by some folks whose initials were TNN. TNN the cable company tried to take them to court and they lost.

    Similarly, clue.com was registered by clue computing several years ago. Hasbro tried to abuse the NSI dispute policy to steal it from Eric Robison, owner of Clue Computing. Eric got a court injunction against NSI. Later Hasbro came back to Eric and sued him in a distant state based on some consultin work he did for a company that is based there. They lost that case as well.

    The main crux of both of these cases was that the domain name was registered in good faith and wasn't intended to trade on the trademark. Both the names were legitimately derived from the business that registered them.

    I don't know how much the TNN folks spent on their legal defense, but I do know that Clue Computing has put a pile of money down trying to defend clue.com.

    There's a lot of misinformation about this topic in the public today. Mostly because many "bad actors" got in and were swatted so the trade mark holders thought they could go after the "good actors" with domain names that matched their trademarks. They were wrong.

    The mere existance of a domain name that matches, partially, a trademark does not, in and of itself, constitute infringement.

    However, sometimes it costs lots of $$$ to fight.
  • Yes, my mistake.
  • Coke: 1: n coal from which most gases have been removed by heating; used as an industrial fuel
    2: n (slang) cocaine

    If there is a dictionary definition for the word "coke" then then Coca-Cola(tm) IMHO should never have been granted a trademark on it in the first place.
    Also, I thought trademark infringment had to be within the same industry i.e. there can be an acme toilet-paper company and an acme brick company co-existing without infringing on each other's trademarks. (I don't have a TM law book to back that up, though)
  • Don't you think that Coca-Cola'$ opinion just might be biased?

    This is hardly a matter of opinion. They either have a registered trademark or they don't. They apparently claim that they did register the trademark. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?

  • is a derevitive of coal used in the mfg of steel [newsteel.com].
  • yes, it sucks, but the bigger guy with the baseball bat usually wins.
    That's only in primitive countries with no rule of law.

    --

  • Simple: so you do a swap for another domain which is satisfactory to your use, having CocaCola pay all the fees for your trouble. Heck, even require them to leave a forwarding pointer at coke.ch to the new site.

    Of course, leave it up to them to aquire the "acceptable" name.
  • I have wondered for a while now why Slashdot/Andover.net doesn't just place an attorney on attainer to answer these questions as they come up. Law advice from someone in the profession would be most useful to us on the technical side of things and would help to stifle stupid and bad advice from people who slept through a Law 101 course.
  • I'd appreciate it if the person who owns coke.ch would contact me - I'd like to compare notes.

    jtl@molehill.org
    jtl@dietcoke.net, for the moment at least.

  • CH = (Score:2)

    by Pope ( 17780 )
    ...somthing Helvetica(?) (hence the font name)
    That's what the CH sticker on cars means: you either bought it in Switzerland or bought the sticker there :)
    GB = Great Britain, FR = France, IT = Italy (IIRC) etc...

    Pope
  • Okay, playing devil's advocate here, let's assume that the guy is domain squatting. Then no way does he have rights to the thing.

    But, there is a problem in this whole domain name mess. You can sell a product in a noncompeting industry and call it something that is trademarked in another industry. So, for example, I could make a new quadruple pane window frame for use in new house construction and call it Windows, and Microsoft, who owns the trademark Windows in the computing world, could do nothing to me since I am not competing with them in the computer industry. If I started to sell software to design quadruple pane windows, then I could not call it Windows. This all makes sense, and IMHO, it is the right thing to do.

    But, now we get into a problem here on the net.

    Say that I own a company called Slashdot Farm Implements and it is trademarked. We have been in business for 100 years, and back in 1998 we finally got an ISP in Podunk, Wyoming so we want to set us up a website. We find out that a bunch of geeks back in 1997 went and set up a website called Slashdot that deals in computer geek news. Since they are not in the farm implement industry, they too could get a trademark on their name, which they do. Who the hell has the right to the domain? They are not squatting, we are both in different industries, and neither of us are competing with one another.

    Granted, here in the states we have .com, .org, .net that we can use, which makes things a little easier to deal with. But other countries don't have this.

    Who would get the name slashdot in that case if things were pressed?

    Lately in the news there has been some stuff about Coke Industries doing a lot of polluting somewhere around the US. Does Coke have the right to go after them? What if Coke Industries wants to set up a domain? If they call it coke.net, is Coca-Cola going to go after them?

    I'm confused now.
  • Ahhhh.... that makes sense. :) Thanks for the correction.
  • It is clear that the word Coke has been used to refer to way too many things for way too long for it to be protected by a copyright or any other intellectual property law. Coke is a form of coal, too.

    Don't forget: Coca-Cola is named what it is because it originally contained cocaine. Did Coca-Cola copyright cocaine as well? I think not. I'm sure they would rather we didn't remember their origins in what is now an illegal drug.

  • Even if Coke is trademarked, they can't block the use in unrelated areas. You can have Coke softdrinks and Coke shoes for example.

    Sure, but what does that have to do with domain names? There isn't a set of domain names for softdrinks, and another set of domain names for shoes. Nor is there an internet for shoes, and a different, unrelated internet for softdrinks.

    There is just one, big internet. Everything is related.

    -- Abigail

  • Maybe you can argue that since it isn't capitalized in your domain name, it doesn't infringe upon their trademark.

    I bet Coca-Cola doesn't just hire stupid people. Someone overthere will now that host and domain names are case insensitive, and that Coke.ch will resolve as coke.ch.

    -- Abigail

  • Even if Coke is trademarked, they can't block the use in unrelated areas. You can have Coke softdrinks and Coke shoes for example.

    But there is coke.com and coke.ch - or should, as said before, we just ditch those TLD's, and go straight for www.coke?

    coke.com is for shoes and coke.ch is for softdrinks?

    No! There is a reason for TLD's!

    Ah, I get it. Only Switzerland has cocaine addicts, right?

    -- Abigail

  • I don't think this situation deserves the same outrage as the etoy/etoys fiasco. Coke.* could easily be assumed by a "reasonable person" to be a web site for the Coca Cola company and the person who registered the domain had to know that. There are probably better domain names to put the addiction web site under.

    -B
  • It is *so* unfortunate that this is true. Hardly any issue can be won on substance or common sense any more.

    The very twisted version of the Golden Rule now applies:
    "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

    I really wonder if we are seeing the decline of civilization as we know it? I know that sounds a little extremist, but we run a great risk of becoming a homogenized, bland and useless species if we let corporate interests win over human interaction.

    Russ
  • It's ironic, don't you think?

    Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine

    One could argue Coca-Cola is almost a trade name for something containing cocaine. It's obvious that coke is a synonym for cocaine, just like 'tater and potato.

    I hope I didn't give the Tater Tots people any ideas.

  • IANAL, but if you're not using the domain, and they want it, offer to sell it to them for reasonable costs ($50, or whatever it cost you to register it).

    Ask for more, and you're a no-good domain squatter. Try to fight, and you're toast.

    Tell them you'll take payment in kind. Hold out for at least 240 cans.
  • Hi,

    I can understand Coca-cola's position on this one. Now you try to keep in mind that you're dealing with Businessmen. So here's my recommendation (I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc) :-)

    If, as you say, your purpose was legitimate, ask them to negotiate - ask them to buy the "cocaine.ch" domain for you (or another domain you think would be appropriate) and tell them in exchange you will gladly relinquish the domain. Your site stays up, they get back their name. They might even agree to add a link to your site for your old users for a year or two.

    You are dealing with businessmen, not goons. Be polite and tell them your good faith reasoning, while allowing them a clean Win-win deal. Most businesspeople would rather spend the few bucks for the domain you want (and depending on the price, maybe even buying it off the original owner for you) and trade it with you (while making you sign a few papers relinquishing the "Coke" name forever) than pay for lawyers, media spin (so they don't look like the bad guys) and that kind of thing.

    Above all, be civil.

    Hope this helps,

    - David

  • UPDATE: Checked "User Info" and found out that, yes, this incredible fucknut created a username of "Malfeasence" [sic], thereby setting a new standard of imbecility (which, on Slashdot, should be cause for a national fucking holiday or something).

    And you sir, have topped him!

    Main Entry: malfeasance
    Pronunciation: "mal-'fE-z&n(t)s
    Function: noun
    Etymology: mal- + obsolete feasance doing, execution
    Date: 1696
    : wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

    You have done a brainwrong, my twisted friend.
  • It has to lose its distinctiveness AND there can't be an alternate word in order for it to lose its status as a trademark. People can call it xeroxing for all they want, but as long as "photocopying" still exists, Xerox Corp doesn't have to worry about losing its trademark. Needless to say, this sort of thing only rarely happens.
  • If 500 new TLD's were added, you can bet that Coke would want coke.sex coke.vacation coke.stock coke.servicebureau coke.doctor coke.art coke.singles

    Next thing you know, companies will complain about their names being used in subdomains.. Would coke mind if slashdot served all of it's images from coke.slashdot.org? Would Coca-cola mind if pepsi had a site called coke.pepsi.com. Would they have **LEGAL CLAIM** to the site or to stop it's usage?

    what about coke.addict.org ??? Could they sue for slander/libel?

    When is anyone going to realize that the current system just doesn't work anymore, and that "FAIR USE" and uniqueness on the internet need new definitions.

    What about c0ke.ch ?? spelled with a zero, not O -- it's a unique ASCII string. Does their trademark cover that? What about cokes.ch? what about coke-soda.com what about cokefan.com what about betterthancoke.com, what about cokedexhaustvalve.com (referring to the carbon called "coke")

    see the problem???? even if you can have 60+ character domainnames, you're going to be including something/word that's someone's trademark and they're going to sue you to change your name!

    ... and by the way, what's wrong with domain squatting??? If someone staked out the prime real-esatate and bought it when it was cheap, people would call that person shrewd. I think everyone now just has sour grapes syndrome 'cause they didn't think of registering simple words.

    I think the slashdot crowd is pretty lame for condemning people who registered interesting domains. Slashdot users are usually for "free everything", "release your source", "too bad it's not free", "we need a free replacement". But on domainnames, they seem to just kowtow to big busienss and US law and say, "Shame on you for trying to cross big business!".

    Oh wait, I get it... Slashdot users are against anyone making a profit. If you register coke.ch and use it for opensource software, that's okay and we'll stand behind you, but if you try to sell it to Coca-cola, you're a slimy demon that we all hate?

    Yeah, right.
  • Regardless of what Coca-Cola says on this issue, the mark _has_ lost its distinctiveness. Even when used in the context of beverages, the word "coke" now typically means a cola beverage of some sort. This includes "Pepsi," "RC Cola," generic colas, etc. This situation is thus very similar to "kleenex" or "band-aid."

    As to distinctiveness in this particular context... Were I to head down to the States, purchase some Coca-Cola, and head back, I would be very hesitant to respond to the Customs Agents queries with the work "Coke."...

    Customs Agent: Have you anything to declare, Sir?

    Me: No, just picked up some Coke while I was down - it's pretty cheap down here.

    Customs Agent : Step out of the car, keep your hands in plain view!

    The confusion exists already. If anything, the fact that there is _not_ a website operating should work to this person's advantage, as there is clearly no potential for confusion here.
  • The fact is that coca cola the company has [a] more lawyers [b] a registered trademark [c] lots of money to litigate and [d] lots of time.
    Why not just register cocaine.ch or something which cant possibly be trademarked ? Its a helluva lot better than fighting coca cola forever.
    yes, it sucks, but the bigger guy with the baseball bat usually wins.
  • Why is a guy with a Thai name and address, studying abroad in Springfield (lives next to Homer I guess) reserving a Swiss domain name which only loosely refers to the proposed subject matter, and then only in certain countries (Thailand isn't one of them).

    Something smells here. You usually get that when someone has been "squatting" nearby. The result is squishy and steaming on that domain name.
  • Why in the name of sanity does Coca Cola want to coke.ch for anyway? As if someone was looking for Coke, and would think, "Hmm. I wonder what the URL of Coke's website is? I think I'll try cocacola.com. No! Wait! It's probably at coke.ch!"

    It might be different if it was an "I hate Coke" site or there was a site that looked like it was endorsed by Coca Cola, but this is madness.

  • Well, just food for thought... I don't have the energy to think it through right now.

    Why not limit the number of domains that a single company can own? Corporations can't pay off the USPS to give them thousands of different vanity mailing addresses; why should they be able to have unlimited domains?

    As a bonus, this would also increase public awareness of just who actually runs the sites they're visiting... i.e., people would notice that everything ends in aol.com.
  • "Kleenex" is a product of the Kimberly-Clark [kimberly-clark.com] company, and is still a trademark. So far as I know, "Band-Aid" is also still a registered trademark. Trademark protection is why (for those of you of a certain age, in the United States) you'll remember that the cutesy musical jingle went from "I am stuck on Band-Aids" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand". Check out this Johnson & Johnson site [jj.com] and this filing from 1924 [uspto.gov] for trademark details. {Jonathan Ezor, author of "Clicking Through: A Survival Guide for Bringing Your Company Online" [clickingthrough.com] (Bloomberg Press 1999)}

  • You might offer Coke's lawyers that in return for dropping the suit, you'd be glad to sign an agreement binding yourself not to associate the site in any way with Coca-cola or any other beverage products.

    [Or if that doesn't satisfy them, agree to only setup the site with material specifically oriented around cocaine, and/or setup tighter clauses about who you can sell the domain name to so they can't be burned that way.]

    Hiring a lawyer to do this negotiation wouldn't be a bad idea if you're serious; otherwise, they'll probably sue and you'll end up as little guy bug meat, hate to say it. Unless you can get the EFF or someone on your side.

    You didn't say whether you'd actually put up any material on the website dealing with cocaine; obviously actions of that sort would strengthen your argument and case, as would marketing/promoting your site as a source of knowledge about cocaine. It'd be much harder for Coke to convince a judge you are infringing when you have spent time and effort (and money) on meeting those goals that your motive is trademark infringing.

    --Greg
  • The word "Coke" Is already an English-language word describing a type of Coal used in Steel-manufacturing. Perhaps you remember Billy Joel mentioning it in ALLENTOWN: "But they've taken all the coke from the ground/and they're closin' all the factories down". How can they TM a word that already exists?
  • What the hell is wrong with you. This guy spent his money on the domain before Coca-Cola company did. It is his.... no matter what he intends to do with it. So if Coca-Cola steals it from him and doesnt use it for a while, can I steal it from them? Do I hvae to have a name that sounds like Coke? This is bull, its hims, let Coca-Cola buy it from him if they want it.
  • Nope. The only ones I saw in their "list" was for com, net, and org domains. As if those are the only three TLDs with any standing disputes?
  • So when somebody registers coke.ch, The Coca-Cola Company has to go after them. And besides, who is he kidding? coke.ch? Why not cocaineabuse.ch or something like that? "Coke" the mark is powerful because The Coca-Cola Company made it powerful. They are entitled to reap the benefits of the powerful mark and have an affirmative duty to protect the mark.

    Everyone wants a catchy domain name, for good reason. Would you choose thedangersofcocaineabuse.ch or coke.ch?

    The idea that you have to check trademarks in every spoken language incase your domain name infridges one of them is madness. Who knows, maybe cocaineabuse is a world tradmark of a famous toilet cleaner sold in every country in world, perhaps their sales are small in your own country, small enough for you to not have heard of them, but everywhere else they are a household name. They have a presence in your country, so they have to defend the name cocaineabuse.ch. I'm trying to show (and failing miserably) that thos whole concept does not work well across language and country borders.

    As an aside. Unlike The USA, in the UK coke = any brand of black fizzy stuff that rotes your teeth. Coca-cola = brand of drink. I.e. you walk into a pub and ask for a coke and you're just as likely to get Pepsi

    Of course, if ch had org.ch and co.ch then this problem would never of occured.

    cjk.

  • Looking at the recent problems with domain-names (eToy(s) comes to my mind) , I think it has become clear that the domainname-system of today doesn't work anymore. I think there should be an international and independend organisation which should solve these problems. I have some suggestions.
    1. There should be more domainnames for all kind of websites, like
      • .com for international commercial organisations
      • .org for non-profit organisations
      • .nws for news-sites
      • .sub for sites on certain subjects
      • .shp for shopping sites
      • .ser for sits which deliver online-service
    2. It should be made clear to the public that there are differences between these domains, most people nowadays don't know the difference between .com and .org
    3. There should be an equivalent of "What's Related", like "What's more" which contain websites which also have good reasons to own the domainname. These organanisations could get domainnames like .com2, .com3 . The organisation should of course carefully look before people get such a "sub-domain", and people who don't deserve it anymore should be kicked out.
    I realize that this way the organisation becomes very powerfull and this isn't a free-market-system, but if we keep going the way it is going now, withing 2 years it will be a totally chaotic system with absurd prices for domain-names.
  • This is (presumably) not a question of "benign" vs "evil" infringement. The question is wether it is a trademark infringement AT ALL.

    US IP law has absolutely nothing to do with domains outside .us

    Most words of any language are trademarked somewhere. Many of them are trademarked multiple times for different areas ("Linux" for example)
    A trademark on Coke as a beverage is not a generic right to the word "coke" anymore than Microsoft can prevent a glass manufacturer from selling "windows"

  • DO NOT DO THIS!!!!

    Offering to sell a domain to a company with a trademark similar to the domain is seen as prima facie evidence of "cybersquatting." Any offer of mayment must be made by the trademark-holding party first

    Offering to sell will strip you of all rights-- don't do it!
  • I could put that same statement on my web site, too. Don't you think that Coca-Cola'$ opinion just might be biased? I think that all their claim on their website tells us is that they claim it, not that they have any right to it in this particular instance. And we already knew that they claim it; that's what this whole thread is about.

    So, I'm afraid that link isn't very enlightening.
  • OK, on the one hand, I don't like predatory companies. On the other hand, it does tread fairly close.

    Who's right? Let's take a few arguements on both sides.

    1) Does Coca-Cola own the trademark to the name, "Coke" in Switzerland? If not, one point against Coke.

    2) Have you been using the address? Regardless of original intent, if you haven't been using it, it looks like cybersquatting. Half a point against the current owner.

    3) How much will you relinquish it to Coke for? Registration costs for a new domain? Some annoyance at having to switch? Or, the amount of money that it's going to make for Coke. If it's the latter, chalk it up as cybersquatting again, and half a point in favour of Coke.

    (aside: Naturally, if these all go in the opposite direction, then switch the points around appropriately)

    Maybe you could suggest to Coke that if they let you keep your domain name, you'll put a link to their real web site on your home page. (i.e.: "Looking for Coca-Cola? Click here!!!")

    And as someone else very astutely mentioned, remember that you're dealing with businessmen, not goons or a faceless corporate entity.


  • if your business/organization/company has the same name as one, but is durastically different than a company, you can use the name (ie. McDonalds Clothes Store). I know this is true in American and Russian law (consulted my lawyer/mom).
  • "coke" doesn't mean "Coca Cola" in either French or German.

    So what does it say on the side of the can? Or bottles or any promotional signs they give out? People have said that you order a Coke some other way, well, frankly, so what? You can order a "tonic" in some areas and get a coke. The question of trademark is whether they are using "Coke" in their advertising or packaging.

    Once we figure that out, we can argue about whether a domain being used to combat cocaine addiction has a common use that trumps the trademark, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows what a coke can looks like in the country in question before you flame people about if they have any right to the word or not.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • No. Read the post, genius. He didn't register coke.ch because it's "cool"; he registered it because coke (cocaine) is/was the subject matter of the pages on the site.

    Except that other people have observed that no pages are currently up. Were they taken down as part of a legal fight, hadn't gotten around to it yet, or we are being fed a line?

    What would you suggest? "cocaine-killed-my-friend-and-i-dont-want-it-to-ha ppen-to-anyone-else.ch"?

    "cokekills.ch"

    "cocaine.ch"

    "nocoke.ch"

    "killercoke.ch"

    "dont_do_it.ch"

    "getoutraged.ch" (used in a MA antismoking campaign as org or com, great url)

    There are tons of legitamate and just as usefull names that do not seem to be a corporate website. If he didn't think about the international use of the name as a trademark, he has my sympathy, but I'll wait to hear a little more before I throw in support. If he suspected that Coke could get pissy about the name and was serious about wanting to do something useful, he should have picked a different name.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • I'm wondering why so many countries, particularly European ones, haven't set up "com" and "net" etc. under their national TLD. In Australia, there would be no such thing as "coke.au", only "coke.com.au" or "coke.net.au"... this would help solve this problem... Coca-Cola could grab "coke.com.ch", and this dude could, because he is essentially creating a non-profit information website about cocaine, could grab "coke.org.ch".

    This method works great in Australia... Microsoft haven't even registered "microsoft.net.au" in Australia, because they are a COMpany, not a NETwork.
  • So you're saying that the ammount of time that you hold onto a domain without posting anything to it changes whether it is right or wrong?

    I don't see how this argument could have any validity. That's like a corporation asking you to give up a piece of land you own so they can make a mall. Would you say "Well, since I don't have anything on the property, take it. I'm not using it."? No. Coca Cola does not own the rights to the word coke. Why should they bully someone with a coke domain out of it?

    kwsNI

  • It's really sad to see the Internet becoming so much influenced by big corporations. I'm not talking about e-commerce, I'm pointing to the user experience. It seems that the wish of many is to spread the idea that the Internet should be "surfed" through portals with their own content and links to corporate websites. Someone referred to this change, IIRC, as the Internet becoming a shopping mall where we would be forced to live in the back load delivery areas. Corporations don't own the net, but they would love to.

    I don't see such a clear cause-effect relationship in owning a trademark and thus being entitled to own the domain name. Courts, OTOH, are easily fooleed into thinking so.

    Now, if this guy had set up his site he would have much more reason to complain. He should also put a clear link saying something like "if you want to go to the "Coca-Cola Company website...". Things would be much easier. Many companies don't rely in the country letters, they have pages like "www.acme.com/france", which I think is the best way to go.

    Coca-Cola has a history of strongly defending the trademark (their main asset). If you paint their logo in your business and the tone of red is not precisely the same, or if the tail of the third "C" in Coca-Cola does not pass through the "l" loop exactly as in their model, they force you to repaint it. That capitalization issue someone mentioned is another good example. This guy is having a though fight ahead.

  • I will walk and chew gum at the same time.
  • Assuming that the trademark laws are similar to the U.S.A., then most likely not.

    Even if Coke is trademarked, they can't block the use in unrelated areas. You can have Coke softdrinks and Coke shoes for example.

    Trademark dilution has changed that to an extent. The main issue is whether there would be confusion, or that uou are using "famousness" of their mark.

    Coke had referred to cocaine and also for by-products of coal product for years. Also, you are using it for a non-commercial purpose (unless you tried to sell it to them).

    I tend to think that they don't have the right.

    It could be a PR nightmare for Coca Cola, that they are preventing people who are fighting cocaine addiction.

    You might suggest that they hire you to run the site and reimburse you for your costs. Then Coca Cola can do something good and help people with and/or help prevent cocaine addiction.

  • I merely think the *tone* you take in describing your actions is overwhelming, breathless, way too detailed, and not likely to rally people to your cause. In other words, it's your medium that smacks of crackpot-ism, not your message.

    Ok, so how do I improve the message? How do I get the message out, without smacking of crackpot-ism?

  • Whether he's using the domain or not isn't really the issue here, the fact is that it was his first, and regardless of what he planned to use it for it's clear that it can't be used ONLY in relation to Coca-Cola the product.

    He paid for it, he holds it, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Are we now going to make a rule that unless you are using a domain you can't have it anymore? I shudder at the litigation that could come from that!

    It seems the smartest choice in this situation is to try and sell the domain to the company. With some slick talk, I'm sure he could convince them that they'd rather hand him a check than pursue a lengthy and unfavorable legal battle that would raise resistance all across the net.

    I worry for what happens when the new TLD's come along. Who will own coke.web?

    -Mad Dreamer
  • In Coca-Cola's beginning, all three names belonged together. Check out the history of Coca-Cola and some of the previous ingredients [sodafountain.com].
  • ************************************
    Coca-Cola hasn't a prayer as I see it
    ************************************

    Here is a guy that wants to use the name Coke as a derived term from cocaine, just like Coca-Cola did. He is using the accepted first derivative, while Coca-Cola wants to slide in the back door with a second derivative claim and claim first derivative rights!

    What do I mean?? Street slang for cocaine is coke ... has been since before Coca-Cola ever started using the name. That's the first (i.e. true) derivative. Now Coca-Cola, who derived their name from cocaine (the real "real thing") ... back when there was actual cocaine in the product., wants to claim they derived the word Coke from Coca-Cola .. which was derived from the name Cocaine .. A.K.A. Coke. I wouldn't give up a thing unless they forked over *HUGE* cash.

    ******************
    Or in other words:
    ******************

    Cocaine ---------------> Coke
    |
    |
    +-----> Coca-Cola ----> Coke ????????

    Coca-Cola is *NOT* the route of the term; Cocaine is. If the site in question was about something other than Cocaine all bets would be off, but here the case (no pun un-intended) is clear! (IMNSHO)
  • There are many companies who own the same trademark, just in different industries or different countries.

    It is unreasonable to say that only the one with the deepest pockets can own the web site with that trademarked name.

    I registered 'ajw.com' years ago, and have been using it for almost all that time. I'm sure that somewhere in the world is a company with a trademark on 'ajw' - should I have to give it up to them? If that's true, there's a whole boatload of domains that are gonna change hands!

    Or another example... My father was a magician; he went by the stage name "Mr. Fingers". When he died last year, I registered "mrfingers.org" and "mrfingers.com" (yeah, there's a weak page there right now... :) But there's a musician who goes by "Mr. Fingers" too. Should I lose my father's site because someone else uses the same adopted moniker?

    Personally, I don't care what the reason is for registering a domain, I think the domain name should go to the first person (or company) registering it. If Coca-Cola (tm, r, c, whatever) wants all the "coke.xyz" sites, then they can go register them. They're big enough to afford it. Domain squatting? Tough luck!! (or smart thinking, depending on your viewpoint!)

    As more and more companies worldwide get connected, there are going to be increasing conflicts. I think that the only reasonable way to handle domain names is first come, first owned.

    - ajw -
  • I agree that Coca Cola does not own the rights to the word Coke in much the same way that Band-Aid and Kleenex are no longer trademarks in this country. However, as the article points out, the word "coke" is not used to mean the beverage in the French speaking world.

    At that point, it is possible to trademark. Then there would need to be third party to settle the dispute. There are mitigating factors on either side. However intent and action are not the same thing. While it is possible that the current leasee of coke.ch wanted to make a site about cocaine addiction 2 years ago, he hasn't. Or if he has, he has stopped maintaining it. Since there has been little action or proof of action by the leasee, I would not tend to automatically assume he is not cyber squatting just because he has a good story or honorable sounding intentions.

    Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As far as I can see, if he does not put up a well researched, well designed site that appears to have taken 2 years to construct, then he is cyber squatting.

    And as for why Coke should "bully" someone with the domain out of it: suppose someone were to say use your name at a place of commerce. I think you may see how someone stealing your identity writing bad checks for easily pawnible goods may give you a bad day. Metaphor applies.. Coke is the name and the Internet (unfortunately) has become a place of commerce more so than information repository.

  • I would also point out that "The Coca-Cola Company" does not market their beverage name as "Coke" but as "Coca-Cola".

    The word "coke" is not used in french to mean their beverage only because the Coca-Cola company refused to call it as so.

  • You seem to forget that the "no domain squatting for resell" law adopted by the US Congress does not apply in Switzerland (remember, it's a .ch domain).

    Also you have to prove he want to sell his domain to the "Coca-Cola" company in order to this law to apply.

    Concerning the trademark law: since this domain name point to no computer, no site was done and no business transaction done under this name, there is no case.

    I can make a website on my computer called "Amazon.com" or a software called "Micro$oft Word". If I don't put the site online (at any URL), or market the software I can't be charged to use a trademark.

  • Here's the relevant legal docs [internic.net], assuming domains registered through Internic. The folks at GreatDomains.com (who probably know a thing or two about name squatting-- they're the ones who sold "loans.com" for US$3 million last month) say in their FAQ:

    "It very much depends on the specifics. For example, if IBM bought apple.com, legal precedent indicates that the court would likely require IBM to release apple.com to Apple Computer. If, however, an apple farmer bought apple.com to sell fruit over the Internet, Apple Computer would likely have less of a claim.

    Our coke.ch friend sounds more like a case of the latter, but since he's still just thinking about setting up the site, it seems to undercut any cred. Coca-Cola is one company that'll protect their trademark worldwide, whether they have the use for a site or not. I hate multinationals as much as the next free thinker, but this ain't a battle worth fighting.

    btw, I've heard that courts can make you stop using a domain name but can't force you to turn it over. true?

  • No website...must not be serious (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:22AM (#1186014)
    Well, I'm torn about this. On the one hand, I hate to see corporations going after people with good intentions. On the other hand, there's no website up right now. If there were really a website up already, it'd be a different story.

    If there's no website after two years, it's a little late to be crying about having to give up the domain. Give it up.

  • Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @02:06PM (#1186015)
    hrm "Since there is no website after two years, he must be a domain name squatter".

    Why does everyone try to second guess his intentions? What is the point?

    Case (1): He is a domain name squatter. When he tries to sell the domain to coke, then he is obviously a domain name squatter.

    Case (2): He really wants to make a page to help Coke addicts. When he finally puts up the page, then it is a good service and should be left alone.

    He currently has done thing. He is not using it to get hits from people who think they are going to see a web page about coca-cola, he is not using it as an anti-coca-cola page.

    The solution is to wait and see. Either he will

    (a) register it indefinately and do absolutely nothing with it. In which case it is certainly not hurting coca-cola (I highly doubt people looking for coca-colas web page try coke.ch first).

    (b) He makes a webpage for coke addicts. Which is a perfectly valid use of the domain and should be respected.

    (c) He tries to sell the domain to coke.ch. Regardless of what his original intentions are -- as soon as he decides he no longer wants the domain, but refuses to hand it over for free, he IS a domain squatter.

    (d) He decides not to do the web page and unregisters the domain.

    There is nothing wrong with owning the domain coke.ch and doing *nothing* with it. Perhaps he is a busy guy!

    Furthermore, what if he *DOES* put up a informative web page about coke (as in cocaine). Is that going to somehow make him serious? That would certainly make him look good wouldn't it? "I put up a page to help coke users, and the evil corporate coca-cola *MADE* me sell it to them." Meanwhile laughing all the way to the bank.

    The point is, website or not, you have no idea what his true intentions really are. But since he has to date, made no attempts to make money it from it, the "innocent until proven guilty" line of thought seems most approriate.

    Taking Cliff at face value and believing everything he says my answer is: If you are still interested in doing the webpage, then talk to someone at coke and see what you can work out. Has coke made their reasons clear? Perhaps you can cut a deal with them that says "If you leave me alone, I will either do nothing with coke.ch OR make a website to help coke users. I will not use it to profit from the coca-cola company". Do they want the domain just to protect their trademark or do they believe that they will profit more from owning the coke.ch domain. It will be nearly impossible for coca-cola to prove that you're intentions are not to create a webpage, especially because you have done nothing with the website. In addition, it should be relatively easy to prove that your friend died from coke abuse which would definately be in your favor.

    Now, if you *intended* to use the coke.ch domain to create a website for coke users, but have decided to abandon the idea, then in my opinion you should definately turn over the website to someone else who wants it. Since it has no value to you, and since only one person at a time can use it, it is just plain mean-spirited to sell it to someone just because you can. But at this level it is a moral issue. Its like finding someones lost wallet, calling them up and saying: "I got your wallet and I am not going to give it back unless you pay me a reward". If they offer are reward, by all means, accept it, but don't demand one.

    I think a similar situation would be if you checked out a book from the library. Week after week you kept renewing it, because you hadn't gotten around to reading it. As much as I might want to read that book, you are entitled to check it out too. Now, I am getting tired of waiting for you to return it, so I call you up and say "Hey, I would REALLY like to read that book". If you say "well, I am reading it, but I am just a really slow reader" then I am going to have to deal with it. But if you say "Well, I will return it to the library *IF* you pay me $20"... that is just wrong. Course, in most libraries you can only renew a book so many times. Wouldn't THAT make the interent interesting.

    Domain names are an awful mess. Personally I think we should ditch them, and implement something like a phone book. To a large degree that is what yahoo.com and similar sites are. Yahoo makes alot more sense, because there is no unique piece of information that only one company can hold. Domain names are rotten at the core because they do not scale well. When domain names were implemented it was never intended they everyone would own a couple.

    Think about, you want to look up a website. You go to a search engine similar to yahoo, look up the company, go to the site. For most companies you already have to do that anyway.

    Of course, there is more to the internet than the web, and while it might be easy to devise a better system for the world wide web, that same system would not necessarily be practical for all internet services.

  • Re:An Offtopic suggestion (Score:3)

    by whoop ( 194 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @07:59PM (#1186016) Homepage
    Not just that, but when was the last time you saw one of the editors post in the comments? I've seen Katz/Roblimo a few times recently, but it certainly seems to me that all these sort of suggestions to Slashdot go unnoticed by those in charge.

    Back in the olden days you could at least get a "no" from CmdrTaco when you suggested something here. ;) Sure each of them probably get 50,000 emails a day, every post now starts off with 100 posts when you reload every 2 seconds, but could it hurt all of them to read up on the high scoring posts like this one, and post a little blurb, explaining why they posted a story, whether they can/cannot fix things (Apache stories color scheme for one), etc? Better connections with your audience can't be bad.

    Oh, and yes, this is a place to get good advice on geek matters, what people think of such-and-such topic as it relates to free software, but let's not pretend this is a free lawyer service. I think it was when the judge released the paper on MS being a monopoly where the Slashdot editor went play-by-play with a lawyer on what the judge was saying in plain english. That was very nice, and it would be great to have more like that when issues of patents/copyrights/domain hijacking come up like this.

  • Ordering a Coke in Switzerland (Score:3)

    by Octal ( 310 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @06:31PM (#1186017) Homepage Journal
    I was in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland over the summer last year, and attempted to order Coca-Cola by asking for a "Coke", and all I got were blank stares until I said "Coca-Cola" and then they understood that I was just a stupid American.

    The moral of this story, in switzerland, no-one refers to Coca-Cola as "Coke", so Coca-Cola should quit whining, especially since it's obviously not a case of domain squatting considering he intends to use it as an anti-drug site.

  • WHY should Coca Cola get the domain? (Score:3)

    by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @01:49PM (#1186018) Homepage
    Why should Coca Cola be entitled to all domains which contain one of their trademarks? Take a look through the US trademark database [uspto.gov] (or use this nicer UI to search [marksonline.com]) -- almost every word you can think of is a trademark. In fact, so is every letter of the alphabet, multiple times over. So's my first name [marksonline.com]!

    Trademarks were not designed to scale globally. They are made to work with geographical restrictions, and most importantly, within certain classes of goods and services. In the US, "Coke" is a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company within class 32 (Non-alcoholic maltless beverages...) and a few other classes in which they sell products. If you're not selling something in one of those classes, and you're not doing something that could confuse or dilute their trademark, there's no way you can be violating their trademark.

    The important thing about domain names is that there is no way to tell what class of goods/services a site belongs to simply by looking at the name. You can't even tell if they're even selling anything! The only way that a domain name might be a trademark violation is if it's being used in a bad way. It can't be in violation on its own.

    Unfortunately, a lot of large corporations don't like it this way, and it's possible we'll see the law changed so that any mention of any trademark anywhere has to be approved by the trademark holder. That's unfortunate for us as individuals (or even small businesses) -- we're literally having our language stolen from us.

    --

  • You're doing it wrong (Score:3)

    by Chang ( 2714 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:35AM (#1186019)
    When you want to extract money from a large corporation by cyber squatting, you're supposed to grab the domain name early, put up a token web site and establish yourself.

    Then when they come knocking you have a leg to stand on.

  • Spin doctor! (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:48AM (#1186020)
    You won't win in a court of law, regardless of how right you are. They have better ties.

    Instead, I suggest you spin-doctor it: "Coca Cola to remove website over drug addictions".. and then go on to say that Coca Cola is *really* going after you because it doesn't want it's name associated with drugs. Bring up the colorful history of how Coca Cola *REALLY DID* have narcotics in it.. maybe a few claims of revisionist history?

    I'm not joking here - you need to sensationalize it if you want to stand a chance. Good luck.

  • Do we really "own" domains???? (Score:3)

    by knick ( 19201 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @12:30PM (#1186021) Homepage
    I'm not sure if this has any bearing on this case or not, but it's a question that popped into my head.

    From a legal standpoint, do we really "own" domains? After all, if you own something, you don't have to continue to pay for it. We pay for domains on a year to year basis, and therefore, I would see our relationship with domains to be more of a lease, with the lease length being how long we've paid for.

    Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts view this? I started to do a little research, but frankly, I have a cisco test tomarrow, and can't get too sidetracked with this..

    --knick

  • Domain not being used? (Score:3)

    by abh ( 22332 ) <ahockley@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:24AM (#1186022) Homepage

    Well, coke is obviously a trademark.

    Is the domain being used for anything? It appears not to have a website, and whether or not it's being used for e-mail purposes is unknown.

    I would say that unless the owner of coke.ch is using it, the Coca-Cola company has a legitimate gripe. The submitter says that he at one point thought about doing a cocaine-support site. That's great, but that's not what's happening. I think the issue would be very different if www.coke.ch was an active site. As it is, it's pretty easy to make a case for "well if he's not using it, and it's our trademark, we should have it"

  • Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:3)

    by quarkoid ( 26884 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:29AM (#1186023) Homepage

    However, as the article points out, the word "coke" is not used to mean the beverage in the French speaking world.

    Only one tiny problem with that. French is one of three (four if you include Romanish (sp?)) spoken in Switzerland, the others being German and Italian. I've certainly ordered a coke by asking for "Ein mal Coke, bitte" here in Zuerich.

    Nick.

  • The first step... (Score:3)

    by anticypher ( 48312 ) <anticypher.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:22AM (#1186024) Homepage
    is to plead your case in front of the slashdot community. Ok, you've done that.

    The next step is for the slashdot community to check out your claim, flame Jon Katz, moderate down firstposters, discuss trivial unrelated details, and finally come to a rough consensus.

    If your claim seems just, we will rally to your defence, spreading the word of Coca-Cola Corporation's big bully tactics, mirroring your site on australian television, and attempting to correct clueless journalists on why you are right and why hacker!=cracker.

    If you are nothing more than a domain squatter looking for sympathy, then you are TSOL (except for a handful of hotgritters who will believe anything :-)

    -=0=-

    Jumping to the tools immediately at hand, we find the following facts to start a proper /. thread...

    DNS shows no current IP address for coke.ch or www.coke.ch, so you have no website up for us to take a look at. Thus all other tools like traceroute and netcraft are useless.

    WhoIs produces

    Domain name:
    coke.ch

    Holder of domain name:
    Somjad Puangngern
    S Spring APT- C 1142
    US-62704 Springfield, IL
    United States

    Technical contact:
    Somjad Puangngern
    S Spring APT- C 1142
    US-62704 Springfield, IL
    United States

    Date of last registration:
    07.05.1999

    I'll leave it to other /.ers to dig further into the registrar databases to see the other domains you have taken, and then we'll decide whether you are a squatter or a noble cause.

    the AC
  • Apparently Coke didn't read this part of ICANN's Dispute Policy.....
    A site about drugs is usually non profit and almost always fair use... It's not your fault that the product was named after its original ingredient (Cocaine)!!!!!!

    c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint.

    blah blah blah

    (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

    Available at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

  • I expect it depend on Swiss (tm)&(c) laws (Score:3)

    by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:39AM (#1186026) Homepage Journal
    In the US, it used to be the case that that trademarks applied to a specific type of product so that you could have an ACME brand of soap that didn't infringe on the trademark of ACME brand cars. With the web, this seems to have changed so that if you can pay your lawyers enough, you can own ACME.com and prevent all the other ACME's from even using the word ACME in the name of their websites.

    Swiss law might be more forgiving. The ETOY controversy I think was decided in part that ETOY was a Swiss company and the US company ETOYS wasn't able to enforce their US brand their. (Peter E. Wild in Zurich was their legal counsel)

    Also, I think Switzerland is one the few countries that upholds Pivo Budvar's right to the Budweiser brand for beer.

    Given that your site isn't selling another brand of cola, I think you have a good shot.

    PS I can't access your site due to a DNS error. Is it already up and running?

  • Re: No website...must not be serious (Score:3)

    by DGregory ( 74435 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:24AM (#1186027) Homepage
    He also hasn't done anything harmful on the domain name either. He hasn't put porn up. He hasn't put up a Coca Cola sucks page. He just doesn't have anything up. He also hasn't offered to sell it to Coca Cola for an exorbitant amount of money.

  • Just sell the domain name Coke for cost (Score:3)

    by yuriwho ( 103805 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @09:43PM (#1186028)
    Why dosen't the guy just sell the domain to Coke for his costs ~$100-200 US and get himself another name. I just checked and www.cokeabuser.com and www.cokeaddict.com are both available. I'm sure he could get a useful name. Hell mabey coke would reimburse him with some of waste byproducts they generate from their cocao leaf extract process. Just to help him attract some new customers to his site.

    If only he had a site up, we would all be championing him.

    I suspect this may be redundant with 400 posts already but I dont have time to read them all.

  • I'm glad I can entertain you. (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:21PM (#1186029) Homepage
    Some people consider Stallman a crackpot too.

    Some people don't mind being stopped by the police and questioned without reason. Well, if you are not doing anything wrong, what is the problem?

    In Germany, when the Jews were asked to wear identification people would respond, "what's the big deal?"

    Some people consider me a crackpot because I made my employment discrimination claim public. Other people responded, "hey, that's happening to me, what do I do?" or "hey, it's not just me!"

    Now it's a free speech issue. What if Clinton sued Paula Jones for libel? She did not prove sexual harassment. Mattel has not proven my statements false. They are mostly my opinion, though you may not agree with them, there is no such thing as a "wrong opinion." Maybe a crackpot opinion, but not wrong.

    Freedom is not free, it must be fought for.

  • You win, but you lose. (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:48AM (#1186030) Homepage
    When dealing with a bully like this, they may try to litigate you into bankruptcy (like Mattel [sorehands.com])or into giving up.

    BUT, if people always give in, then companies will keep bullying people! Sometimes, you have to fight!

    I'm bigger than that little guy with the slingshot..Goliath

  • Re:.co.ke (Score:4)

    by HP LoveJet ( 8592 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @03:08PM (#1186031)
    Excellent!!

    So what we really need is some organization like RTMARK [rtmark.com] or the now-defunct McDonalds.Org to snap up a few tasty domains (and subdomains) such as:

    • everyone-hates.co.ke
    • there-are-toxic.chemicals-in.co.ke
    • q-what-causes-brain.tumors-a.co.ke
    • co.ke.co.ke
    • snort.co.ke
    • another-word-for.burnt-coal.residue-is.co.ke
    I like it already.

  • Odd, Regged by someone from .us (Score:4)

    by zyklone ( 8959 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:40AM (#1186032) Homepage
    Well, I did a whois and noticed that the coke.ch domains is owned by someone living in the US. Isn't that pretty odd ?
    Coca-Coal company probably sell coke in .ch and then they should have the domain. The domain has not really been registered that long either.
    So this guy is probably a squatter trying to turn people against Coca Cola Company.

    Domain name:
    coke.ch

    Holder of domain name:
    Somjad Puangngern
    S Spring APT- C 1142
    US-62704 Springfield, IL
    United States

    Technical contact:
    Somjad Puangngern
    S Spring APT- C 1142
    US-62704 Springfield, IL
    United States

    Date of last registration:
    07.05.1999
    Date of last modification:
    24.11.1999

  • "Coke" IS a common term (Score:4)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:39AM (#1186033) Homepage
    Coke is a product of a process called coking, in which a coal is heated in a coking oven, out of contact with air, in order to drive off moisture an volatile matter.

    Coke is the fused solid residue left when certain coals, pertoleum, or tar pitch are heated in an atmosphere excluding oxygen, so as to expel their volatile content. The process of thus decomposing these fuels into their gaseous and solid fractions is known as destructive distillation or carbonization.

    Coke is, and has for a very long time been, used in metallurgical processes such as the preparation of steel from iron, and the creation of various alloys.

    Add to this 'alternative' connotation the fact that the Original Coca-Cola was so named precisely because it was infused with the addictive essence of the coca plant, and you have the a very sad situation.

    Coke is an engineering and fossil chemistry term. Coke is street slang for cocaine. Coca Cola was made with cocaine due to it's taste, mind altering effect and resultant 'captive market' of addicts. Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.

    That Coca Cola is going after a site named (arguably) after the substance to which Coca Cola owes it's very existance, is laughable. The fact that Coca Cola is trying to leverage it's 'trademark' above the importance of a scientific and engineering term, is down-right scary!

    It's like Nabisco trying to sue Apple (or better yet, NASA) over the word Newton.

    "It's not a cookie Mother, Newtons are fruit and cake."

    WRONG junior executive, Newtons are a unit of force!

    Common sense people, that's all we ask.

  • Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)

    by seebs ( 15766 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:40AM (#1186034) Homepage
    But is it a trademark for cocaine, or for addiction resources? If not, no conflict exists; it is possible for the same name to be used by multiple entities without infringement.

  • Oxford says... (Score:4)

    by Tower ( 37395 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:45AM (#1186035)
    coke(1) n. & v. --n. 1 a solid substance left after the gases have been extracted from coal. 2 a residue left after the incomplete combustion of petrol etc. --v.tr. convert (coal) into coke. [prob. f. N.Engl. dial. colk core, of unkn. orig.]

    coke(2) n. sl. cocaine. [abbr.]

    Trademarks are only really effective against items in the same genre, or other things that are trying to profit from use of an established name... If I had a kids show, and trademarked the characters names (say Ham Sandwich (ham is an uncommon but real first name, and Sandwich is a valid surname), then tried to enforce my copyright on Oscar Meyer for use of 'Ham Sandwich' on little lunchpacks, I should be drug out into the street and shot. Similarly, if this isn't just a case of domain squatting to gain money, and there is a historical non-soda related use for it, Coca-cola's lawyers (or all lawyers) should be drug out into the street and shot (maybe with a snurf gun).

    And I mean that is the kindest way.

  • Re:absolutely not (Score:4)

    by cetan ( 61150 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:26AM (#1186036) Journal
    For what it's worth, the Coca-Cola website states that they do own the trademark for "Coke": http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/sitemap/frames.a sp?cate gory=http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/tccc/tradem ark.html [thecocacolacompany.com]

  • Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)

    by jdcook ( 96434 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @01:44PM (#1186037)
    Conflicts are not the issue with trademarks. Confusion is. The Coca-Cola Company owns a great many properties, real and intelectual, and does a great many things. One of the things The Coca-Cola Company does is manufacture a soft drink they brand Coca-Cola. This soft drink is also branded as Coke. The Coca-Cola Company owns trademarks to protect these brands. These include "Coca-Cola" (tm) and "Coke" (tm).

    The Coca-Cola Company is probably the best commercial branding enterprise ever created. By spending untold millions (billions?) over the years marketing Coca-Cola the soft drink, The Coca-Cola Company has created a very strong association in the public between the trademark brands and the products. Be honest now: when someone says "coke" do you think soda or coal? In truth, it doesn't matter what you (or any specific individual) think. It matters what the hypothetical "average person" thinks. If you market a product branded Coke (e.g. Coke-brand cedar shoe inserts) and the "average person" would think that your product was manufactured by The Coca-Cola Company, then you have created Confusion over the mark and the courts will slap you down (remedies available to owners of trademarks whose marks are violated are extremely far reaching). It doesn't matter that The Coca-Cola Company doesn't (I presume) manufacture or market any cedar shoe products. If people are confused you are violating The Coca-Cola Company's mark.

    Trademarks are unique in US IP law. Unlike patents and copyrights, a trademark need never expire. The protections offered by the law are far reaching. However, the protections are not automatic.

    A copyright lasts until it expires, no matter what the "author" does (short of explicitly transfering the work to the public domain). A patent is still a patent whether or not the patent holder enforces it. But trademarks are different. They need to be regularly renewed. The owner of the mark must proactively police the mark. If they do, they can develop very strong trademarks that mae their brands powerful money making machines. See "Coke" for a good example. If they don't the mark "loses distinctiveness" and becomes generic. This means the mark dies. See "aspirin" which used to be "Aspirin" and owned by the original Bayer.

    Trademarks holders that don't police their marks lose their marks. And a mark holder cannot decide to let certrain "benign" infringements pass. If they do they risk losing the mark entirely. The only available options are licensing the mark or forbiding its use. And if you decide to license it you create a huge number of potential headaches for yourself. What if the licensed product maims somebody? After all, they trusted your mark as an indicator of quality. Blah blah blah.

    So when somebody registers coke.ch, The Coca-Cola Company has to go after them. And besides, who is he kidding? coke.ch? Why not cocaineabuse.ch or something like that? "Coke" the mark is powerful because The Coca-Cola Company made it powerful. They are entitled to reap the benefits of the powerful mark and have an affirmative duty to protect the mark.

  • Trademarks vs Domain Registrations, Again (Score:4)

    by Nopaca ( 98621 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @12:20PM (#1186038)
    Okay, I've posted this a couple of times before, but I never get to new /. stories quickly enough to have anyone much read it. If I'm wrong, and people just don't like this rant, please moderate it as "Redundant" and at least let me know that someone sees it.

    There has been a lot of noise about how to reconcile domain names with trademarks over the last while. Personally, I can't see why we've let this happen. I am against all of the recent anti-"squatting" regulations that have been introduced to try to solve a non-problem. Public administrators are just being lazy and derelict in their duty regarding this issue. (As usual, IANAL.)

    First, note that domain names were not originally constructed with the intent that they would be proxies for trade name ownership. There is nothing that necessarily says that this has to change. This is very important to understand. For example, I can put "Coca-Cola" on a sign in my property, even if I sell things publicly from that property, and not violate any trademark. Further, Slashdot can forward this comment to you and make money off of advertising without violating Coca-Cola's rights.

    Now, if I try to sell you something and I specifically state in the course of this business that I, in some way, represent a holder of a specific trade name or their goods, then by all means the trade name holder should sue my pants off.

    There are two key problems with the concept of equating trade name law and internet domain names. The first, and less troublesome to some people, is that there is some implied prior right to the name as an internet resource locator simply by registering the domain. If someone comes along later and trademarks it, the domain registrant should be able to retain all rights to the use of the internet domain if that domain's registration occured before the filing of the trademark. I believe that this is the current wording of, for example, American anti-"squatting" law, but I would go further and propose that even if the trade name registration occured first, the domain registration should be allowed to stand. The owner of the domain name should not, of course, contravene the original restrictions imposed by trade name law. For example, they can't pretend to be the company that sells goods under the auspices of that trade name. But the precise nature of these original restrictions, and a better reason to be leary of allowing trade names to "trump" domain names, is best analysed by discussing the second fundamental problem with such a system.

    Again, IANAL, but my understanding of trade name law goes something like this. (Note that I'm sluffing over the difference between trademarks and trade names; if I remember correctly it's not crucial. Also, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html ) I can apply for protection of a particular word or term used in the sale of products. I can only make this application if I currently sell products using this name in the jurisdiction of the registering administration, and as long as no one else has already registered the name for this particular purpose in that jurisdiction. The particular purpose part is essential; the legal protections offered me by such registration will only restrict others from using the name if they are selling a similar product to the one that I sell, such that there could be a reasonable customer confusion (in a legal sense) brought about by the conflicting use of the name.

    You might doubt that last bit about similar products. But note that there's nothing wrong with trademarking "Yankee Coke" to sell charcoal, despite Coca-Cola's trademark on the word "Coke". (You could even sell "African Cola Coke"; check a good dictionary!) Coca-Cola Inc. (or whatever their official designation) owns the Coke trade name only in relation to soft drinks. (For the third time, I invoke thee: IANAL.)

    This is the second key problem with any scheme that equates trade names with domain names on the internet. First, note the dreaded "J" word: "jurisdiction". If it's only legal for one entity to own the trademark to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in Canada, and only legal for a different entity to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in the US, who gets the ".com" domain name? What if there are legal "PowerTool" registrants for an identical product category in different states? Will it be illegal (or at least fiscally hazardous) for anyone to register a ".com" domain name for business use unless they have international registration for the trade name and sell into multiple countries? If so, we better tell people fast!

    You can't even fix the problem by forcing everyone to work off of a nested domain naming system, such as "powertool.orange_county.ca.us". What if someone in Orange County sells specialty lego pieces using the PowerTool name? Who gets the domain now?

    These two essential contradictions look like a double death blow to the viability of any scheme that equates trade names with domain names. However, the suggestion of nested domains does point the way to a possible way around this difficulty. Note that this is simply a political difficulty, NOT a problem - it's just an opportunity for current trade name owners to extend their reach. Of course, we'd all like to have some way to find Coca-Cola Inc.'s "Coke" site if we're looking for it, and search engines are not enough to placate the needs of the legally anal around us, since these people reason that the public could still be fooled by accidentally visiting a site with an implied link to Coke. (Whew! IANAL.)

    The solution is too sensible to be undertaken by most governments. It also doesn't allow them to scapegoat anyone, it doesn't allow them to stomp all over the previous custom of a minority, it doesn't pander to corporate interests, and of course it requires them to actually get off their duffs and be constructive. Don't expect to see it anytime soon.

    However, it would be perfectly simple for any administration that oversees trade names within its jurisdiction to simply set up a web site that references those legal names to the holders' internet addresses. Uh, they're called links. If more than one business type owns the rights to a particular name, list both links under the name and include some identifying information about each owner, such as a brief description of their class of goods. Link to sites that contain higher-level jurisdictional data, as a state might defer to national registrations - or better yet, put together the technical means to include those registrants automatically in your lower-level searches. It's actually fairly straightforward.

    So, why do domain names have to equal trade names? Why did we all allow this to slip toward a standard assumption? Why can't I register any domain name that I might please, and expect to have actually done so? Why do those who protect trade names feel that they must convince the public that domain names necessarily connote legal trade name ownership? Why don't they see the obvious problems with that system? Hey, hire some programmers and the "problem" disappears. And there are plenty of coders around, you just have to be prepared to pay them and have a clue!

    That our governments are too lazy to hire competent programmers to put together systems that effectively manage their jurisdictions' registration programs is an abrogation of their duty, but it's exactly what we should expect. Who's surprised that they're also blaming domain registrants (aka "squatters") for the "problem"?

  • "Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)

    by acfoo ( 98832 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @10:29AM (#1186039)
    Word Mark: COKE
    Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: footwear.
    FIRST USE: 19880311.
    FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19880311
    Mark Drawing Code: (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number: 75114281
    Filing Date: May 17, 1996
    Published for Opposition: January 21, 1997
    Registration Number: 2052760
    Registration Date: April 15, 1997
    Owner (REGISTRANT): Coca-Cola Company, The CORPORATION DELAWARE One Coca-Cola
    Plaza Atlanta GEORGIA 30313
    Type of Mark: TRADEMARK
  • Well, to be accurate, it was registered by someone who is now living in the US, and the "The domain has not really been registered that long either" comment isn't necessarily true either.

    The date listed is the "date of last registration", which means that the domain name owner was last registed on July 5, 1999 -- which could have been a renewal. (Not sure, my own domains aren't up for renewal yet.)

  • An Offtopic suggestion (Score:5)

    by DonkPunch ( 30957 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @12:29PM (#1186041) Homepage Journal
    Several (most?) of the "Ask Slashdot" questions I've seen lately involve legal issues better suited for attorneys and legal scholars.

    This site is targeted at "nerds" -- apparently the technical/computer kind. What good are legal questions in such a forum? I can count on one hand the number of real attorneys I've seen posting on this site in the past. Of those, I only see a few still posting these days (where did you go, Hawk? :)

    Questions like this tend to elicit a lot of knee-jerk emotionalism, a lot of "IANAL, but I think my Business Law I professor once said....", and a frightening amount of uninformed or just bad advice. Worse yet, some of the bad advice gets moderated up, perhaps giving an impression of credibility. As proof, I offer a recent copyright-related story in which a highly-scored post suggested a "poor man's copyright" -- mailing yourself a registered letter with the song inside. Five minutes of research will show that this is a popular legal myth.

    I often find a lot of good technical information in "Ask Slashdot", but I consider these diversions into legal matters to be somewhat pointless at best. At worst, they are dangerous. Woe be to the person who follows a course of action based on what they read on Slashdot. They may well find themselves on the losing end of a lawsuit. I don't think, "The guy on Slashdot said it was ok," is a defense most judges would honor.

    For this reason, I ask the Slashdot editors to please reconsider the number of law-related "Ask Slashdot" articles. Technical questions may not generate as many comments, but they may provide more useful information. You have an audience of technical professionals, not lawyers (although I'm sure some of them are honest-to-goodness attorneys).

    For those who are considering posting to "Ask Slashdot" for legal advice, I urge you to find a real attorney instead.

    Thanks for your time. Now back to the peanut gallery.

  • Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:5)

    by Selivanow ( 82869 ) <selivanow@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:01AM (#1186042)
    Ok, now I know this may be news to a lot of people, but there were things such as "The Internet" and "Domains" before "The Web". Just because someone owns a domain and doesn't have a web site on it doesn't mean that the person isn't using it for other reasons. I can register "kt.com" and use it for telnet, ftp or whatever. If there is a company called "Kt, inc." they shouldn't be able to take away my domain JUST because there isn't a web site up on it. (Sure they MAY have other rights to it, if of course they don't do something like registering kt-inc.com after I registered my domain)

    ------------------------------------------------ ------------

  • all the more reason for TLD enforcement (Score:5)

    by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2000 @11:31AM (#1186043)

    All the more reason to move to national TLD's across the board. Duke it out in your own country if you want. Coca-Cola is an America company, and as such, couldn't say diddly squat about something in the Swiss TLD.

    Either that, or open up those new seven TLD's that have been talked about forever. Heck even they could be under a national 2-letter TLD. Big corporations are bullying the web too much.

    There are only so many reasonable domain names available, and LOTS of people that want to use them. There is going to be name collision across TLD's. Face it. If every trademark owner has to buy up their trademark names in every TLD, there'll be nothing left for anyone else to use! You might as well eliminate the current TLD's then and go to www.coke, or www.pepsi, or www.nike! Having various TLD's is supposed to allow for exactly the kind of thing they are trying to squelch!

    Trademark law needs to be updated to handle this exact situation. And big corporations need to get their hands off domain registration policy-making.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close