This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Yahoo threatens legal action against Yahooka.com
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?
How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?
Well Fuck Yahoo (Score:1)
confuse they're actually braindead. Shakespeare
was right: "First we should kill all lawyers".
This kind of shit should be outlawed... (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
well.. (Score:1)
Darn. (Score:1)
You could always call it Whoopee!
Lame (Score:1)
I don't get these cases, it's not like i can sue my friend for his house if i want it for no reason. They don't make sense. Just a stupid corporation thinking they can do anything.. bullshit.
heh KDE.com (Score:1)
anyone ever seen KDE.com?
heh: http://www.kde.com
The domain name kde.com is for sale
The pricing structure is as follows:
2 letter
3 letter
Holiday sale $2,000.00 USD
....
it just goes on...man this crap is disgusting.
I think there needs to be a new rule on domains.
Any domains found to be registered SOLELY for the
purpose of "placeholding" for the purpose
of sale at higher prices (hmm perhaps call it
scalping) should be revoked immediatly with
NO refund of fees.
(This would not stop a company from reserving
registering a domain they arn't using yet
if it is for their own use/ or their trade mark)
hmm you know...that does sound like a good idea.
Who is controlling domains these days (like
.COM)? I think I have a suggestion
The Corporation is not your friend. (Score:1)
Indeed. We may find a corporation useful, or want services it may provide.. but a corporation is only a friend to money. Never, *ever* make the mistake of assuming a corporation has your best interests at heart. It's very rarely so.
Umm.. (Score:1)
Can we say "prior art"?
NEVER MIND THE BIG HEMP LEAVES ON THE PAGE (Score:1)
And the banner that says "The Guide to Marijuana on the Internet".
Also.. how many ways are there to categorize that data? And.. if the format of the page were the *only* problem with it, they'd be going after snap.com, lycos.com, altavista.com, etc.
As did I (Score:1)
I've been using Yahoo since it's earliest days, and have a good friend who was one of their first employees. But they've gone off the deep end. YaHooka is an obvious parody, and the Supreme Court of the United States has clearly stated that parody has a special, protected place in a democracy. As of this moment, I am no longer using Yahoo...until the apologize to YaHooka.
Time for "loser pays" (Score:1)
Imagine yourself being wronged by some large company with deep pockets for lawyers. Let's say that for whatever reason, you know you are right, but you aren't 100% convinced you can prove it in court. Say for example, you are 90% convinced you would win. In a "loser pays" system, that small 10% chance that you might lose is going to scare you away from the case, because *you* can't afford to pay for *their* lawyers, while *they* would have no problem paying for *your* lawyers.
Cases would be decided out of court by FUD. If you have even a glimmer of doubt about the likelyhood of winning, you would never want to set foot in the courtroom.
How similar does a word have to be? (Score:1)
How close do two words have to be for it to be an infringement? Do they have to prove intent as well - so an accidentally similar name would not be a suitable cause for a case? These questions must be answered if the courts are going to allow this kind of thing to continue.
If these questions are inherently unanswerable, then the courts should not be taking these cases at all.
Darn. (Score:1)
yahootieandtheblowfish.com, the world's premier search engine for illegal Hootie And The Blowfish mp3's.
Double darn. I guess that idea to start a new condom company called Yahoo! is out too.
I think I once saw a DERRTY movie called "Yahooters" in college. But I was drunk and not in my room. I swear. It wasn't my idea.
Yahoo sucks. (Score:1)
SOP in case of real threat (Score:1)
It is a problem now.
I realise that Yahoo must defend their trademark, but they can very well do so without sending a gimmee gimmee or we squash you like a bug letter.
For example, they could try being POLITE and they could request that the party agree not to dilute the trademark (including defining what that means) WITHOUT threats.
Hey Yahoo! (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but "yahooka" has nothing whatsoever to do with search engines nor does it even come close to sounding like "yahoo" even phonetically or otherwise.
Go pick on Lycos or something.
yes they do (Score:1)
If you don't show that you're taking steps to defend your trademark, you lose it.
I do agree that in this case, "Yahooka" and "Yahoo" are different enough that it's unlikely Yahoo will win a real court case, unless Yahooka simply relents under pressure.
Though I'm starting to get kind of annoyed by all of the lawyer bashing going on here. Most of the time, these lawyers are following instructions given to them by their boss. Something like: "Hey, this marijuana site is using a domain that looks like ours. Stop them." While an ethical lawyer might object and say there's no real case here, they're still employees of the company, serving "the company's" will. If all lawyers suddenly became compassionate, unwilling to hurt the "little guy", allowing anyone to have a field day with their company's trademarks, what do you think would happen? They would get taken advantage of. "Little guys" would step up, take advantage of that "kindness" and profit from The Company's work. Companies like this HAVE to be a little overprotective, because, let's face it, if they're winning every single case in their efforts to protect their trademarks, perhaps they could be doing a little more? The fact that they take on cases and lose a manageable percentage tells me that they're working right on the line, and doing everything they can to ensure their company's wellbeing. If they were to lose a significant number, then I would say they're being a bit overprotective and overzealous. That line between winning and losing is set by the judicial system and their interpretation of the legislation. If you have a complaint there, take it up with those branches of the government.
So when cases like this come up, and you think "damn they're picking on the Little Guy again," try and look at it from the company's point of view. Perhaps write them a letter or an e-mail and ask for their side of the story. Suggest to them any alternatives you can think of. If nothing else, tell them you hate them and will never use their product if they continue to push the issue. (This can work!) If, after they respond (assuming they do) you still think the whole situation sucks, don't be so quick to blame all of the Evil Lawyers and stick it where it belongs: The Company. Now, if the evil company actually WINS the case, and you STILL think it sucks despite the judge's reasoning behind his ruling, that's when you go complaining to your legislature.
Will you still think all lawyers suck when your child is hit by a car and you're forced to sue for damages? Lawyers are working for their clients. They aren't saying, "Hey, man, you can easily double the amount of money you're asking.. let's stick 'em where it hurts!"
perhaps -- but none that I've dealt with (Score:1)
Did the lawyer just volunteer that information, or did the client ask them how they could get the most possible money out of it?
The two lawyers I've dealt with were relatively honest and fair about things... If sickens me to think that this practice is considered normal procedure. If my lawyer started telling me all these ways to cheat my way into getting more money out of a case, I really don't think I would want to take advantage of that. In fact, I'm tempted to say now that I would fire a lawyer who behaved like that.
I just think that's very unethical.
To address this, the school instituted a program whereby if the student would sign a contract that said they would only do certain types of work (public defender, non-profit orgs, etc) and limit their income to $35,000 per year for the first x number of years after graduation (it was either 3 or 5), the school would give them their education for free. Note that this was all inclusive - tuition, board, etc. In the two years the program had been in effect (and all incoming students are made the offer) not one single person had signed on. Not one.
That just seems insane to me. I think I could live relatively comfortably on 35k/year. Free tuition? I would certainly want to take advantage of that.
Maybe there's something else in the plan that's making the offer less appealing?
Two problems... (Score:1)
- Why didn't they register the domain name themselves? If they really wanted to protect their interests, they should have registered every domain name which they thought could be seized--otherwise it's horribly unfair. "Oh, so you want it, eh? Well, too bad, I didn't want it before, but I want it now, and I get it. muhahahah!"
- I don't think they have a chance at a dilution argument. The services provided by Yahoo! and YaHooka aren't similar enough.
Of course, the problem is, Yahoo! doesn't have to be right. They just have to be more able to afford court costs than the little guy. This is where our legal system royally sucks.what about... (Score:1)
bastards
Domain Names (Score:1)
good deal about the whole domain name issue.
There is no trademark dilution here, as
someone mentioned. Yahoo has no need to 'defend'
their trademark rights in this case since there
is no dilution. They went after this company
since they didn't like what they were saying.
There is also the situation that trademarks
are based by 'class' -- ie you can not
trademark a word (few exceptions, like made
up words) for EVERYTHING. LIke 'yahoocake.com'
which obviously is not in the same business
as 'yahoo.com'. Going down that argument,
yahooka.com is a different class than yahoo.com.
Legally, they are ok.
Of course, as others have pointed out, it's
all about money. Deeper pockets. I too, have
sent a letter to Yahoo, telling them that I've
been a user since akebono.cs.stanford.edu
days, and if they don't quit their stupid
lawsuit, they can be sure I will never visit
their site again.
Ugh. (Score:1)
some nameserver mess in the way, here's the IP: (Score:1)
% dig a www.yahooka.com @209.54.6.21
; > DiG 2.2 > a www.yahooka.com @209.54.6.21
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER;; flags: qr aa rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 0, Addit: 0
;; QUESTIONS:
;; www.yahooka.com, type = A, class = IN
;; ANSWERS:
www.yahooka.com. 3600 A 209.54.9.11
There's a simple way to "fix" Yahoo (Score:1)
I have no interest in marijuana but this kind of actions is ridicolous and has to be punished. Avoid Yahoo and ask your friends to do the same.
Time for "loser pays" (Score:1)
You think for a moment that lawyers would support the "little guy"???
If your paycheck depended on you getting 10% of $1,000,000 or 10% of nothin - what would you do?
The problem is the system. It rewards the folks who are most able to buy justice.
Damn, I should have gone to law school, I thought there was honor in learning a trade.
Here's a lnk to some legal opinion on domain names (Score:1)
Let YAHOO! Know How You Feel! (Score:1)
Suggestions [yahoo.com]
The Yahoo! Experience [yahoo.com]
Investor Relations: Directors & Officers [yahoo.com]
Street Address [yahoo.com]
Yahoo! Inc.
3420 Central Expressway, 2nd Floor
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Phone
(408) 731-3300
Fax
(408) 731-3301
Office Hours
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST
Jerry Yang - Chief Yahoo! and Director
David Filo - Chief Yahoo!
Tim Koogle - President and Chief Executive Officer
Jeffrey Mallett - Chief Operating Officer
John Place - General Counsel
Anil Singh - Senior Vice President of Sales
Karen Edwards - Vice President, Brand Marketing
Gary Valenzuela - Senior V.P. of Finance & Administration and Chief Financial Officer
Farzad Nazem - Senior V.P. of Product Development & Operations, Chief Technical Officer
James Nelson - Vice President, Finance
Timothy Brady - Vice President, Production
Heather Killen - Vice President, International
Geoff Ralston - Vice President, Development and Communciations
Ellen Siminoff - Vice President, Business Development
Srinija Srinivasan - Vice President, Editor in Chief
Arthur Kern - Director
Michael Moritz - Director
Eric Hippeau - Director
Happy Hunting!!
Vince V.
Big Scare Tactics (Score:1)
Yahoo the drink (Score:1)
Domain Squatting is bad. (Score:1)
There are motions in place now to stop this retarded practice:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.h
SOP in case of real threat (Score:1)
No court would ever force yahooka to give their domain to yahoo.. they might force them to stop using it.. but it in no way *belongs* to Yahoo. A simple 'Please put this disclaimer and acknowledge in your site that this is not associated with yahoo.com' would have been just fine.
But no, they have to sick the attack dogs on em... so much for me using yahoo.
Ma! I want that domain name, NOW! (Score:1)
I don't think this is so much a trademark issue as it is one to get something for next to nothing. I mean, sure it will cost them money for their lawyers, and the PR department will have to work overtime to make up for the scene they created. Oh well, that's big business for you...
By the way, how could they trademark a name that I use for my
Derivative names... (Score:1)
Yahooka (Score:1)
I don't think they should be required to turn over the domain name, but I would feel a lot better about them if they were a little more original.
D
My involvement in a very similar situation (Score:1)
I own the domain amazing.com [amazing.com].
A company called Metro Global owns the domain amazingsex.com [amazingsex.com]. They have also used the name "amazing" in their pornography production for some time.
They gave me a ring, suggesting that my name interfered with their trademark, and suggesting that some kind of arrangement be made. I took a look at their web site, and was appalled - it's just a horrible, crummy place. So naturally I was in no mood to sell them amazing.com . They threatened to sic lawyers on me, and they proposed to meet me for a bite to eat to negotiate.
I eventually agreed, and after some thought sent them a lengthly memo regarding my feelings about their web site. Now, understand, I have nothing against sex sites, but I have plenty against awful sex sites like the aforementioned amazingsex. I also visited their LA headquarters and quite visibly took some digital photographs with my Canon XL1. Finally, I bought a couple of their videos, which are not nearly as bad as their web site, but still below the standards I'd like to see if I sold my domain. I quite loudly mentioned within the stores that I was buying the videos because of their attempt to grab my domain name. I got nothing but befuddled sympathy from the video store owners.
In the end, they melted away. I don't think they appreciated my suggestions about the quality of their web site!
I don't think these tactics would work with Yahoo, but they might help others involved in a similar dispute.
D
They may have changed their site.... (Score:1)
It wasn't the tameness that bothered me - it was the horrible quality and tacky feel of what was on offer.
D
Yahoo! (tm) Sucks (tm) (Score:1)
I guess yahooka.com could always get the source for slashdot, change their domain name, and launch
slashpot.org.....as long as rob doesn't sue them that is
SlashPot
News for heads. Hemp that matters.
Re: Lame (Score:1)
Funny... (Score:1)
Personal Boycott of Yahoo (Score:1)
Ding-Dong - wake up call (Score:1)
This action goes way beyond "defending" their trademark -- they are using the American justice system, and indirectly my tax dollars, to intimidate a small site for the inexcusable crime of making a parody of their name. They don't have a case, and if this site were owned by an entity with significant capital, they would not be persuing this. This is intimidation under the guise of justice, pure and simple. And yes, if this becomes more and more common, I will be changing links more and more often. As often as is necessary to avoid supporting, even indirectly, corporations which feel this kind of behavior is appropriate. And BTW, I do not limit my displeasure to removing links. I also remove any business relationship of any kind to companies which I deem unethical. In other words, I put my money where my mouth is. If more of us did so, this kind of thing would be growing less, rather than more, common.
Grow up (Score:1)
Maybe these domains should be registered: (Score:1)
some more... (Score:1)
Have Hooters restaurants register yahoots.com
Then there's yapoo.com, yatoo.com, yafoo.com...
Another look and feel lawsuit (Score:1)
slashdot effect for Yahoo! (Score:1)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
Too many lawyers (Score:1)
I'm not saying that YaHooka has done anything like poison water (which neither they nor W. R. Grace did) or Yahoo! has either. But there are ways to handle things without rushing straight to court. Yahoo! could put up a website that explains their non-relationship with YaHooka.
I'm probably just a hopeless idealist though!
They may have changed their site.... (Score:1)
Papa
whitehouse.com (Score:1)
"Another site using the name of the residence of the President of the United States provided pornographic material." Why couldn't they just say whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com]? They don't have to link it or anything, but trying to 'hide' the name like that makes it seem like they think their readers are stupid.
Force Recon Half-Life TC: Check it out [cass.net]
yoohoo? (Score:1)
yahoo vs yahooka (Score:1)
trademark != domain name (Score:1)
As I understand trademark law, "yahoo" is a standard english word which shouldn't be trademark able. "Yahoo!" may be trademarkable, and the Yahoo logo is certainly trademarkable. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be for YaHooka to drop the "!" from their logo.
Personally, I think anybody that would actually confuse the two sites would most likely be more interested in visiting YaHooka anyway. I never visit either anyway...