slashdot.org
Open in
urlscan Pro
172.64.151.192
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://slashdot.org//yro//00//10//31//1719237.shtml
Effective URL: https://slashdot.org/story/00/10/31/1719237/guinness-beer-really-sucks
Submission: On June 20 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://slashdot.org/story/00/10/31/1719237/guinness-beer-really-sucks
Submission: On June 20 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
GET //slashdot.org/index2.pl
<form id="search" class="form-inline nav-search-form" method="get" action="//slashdot.org/index2.pl">
<!-- //slashdot.org/index2.pl" -->
<div class="form-group">
<label class="sr-only" for="sitesearch">Search Slashdot</label>
<div class="input-group">
<input type="text" id="" class="" name="fhfilter" value="" placeholder="Search">
</div>
</div>
<button type="submit" class="btn icon-search"></button>
</form>POST https://slashdot.org/my/login
<form action="https://slashdot.org/my/login" method="post" onsubmit="if (global_returnto) { this.returnto.value = global_returnto }" class="embedded">
<fieldset style="-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;-moz-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0">
<div style="height:25px;"> </div>
<input type="hidden" name="returnto" value="">
<input type="hidden" name="op" value="userlogin">
<p>
<label class="fleft" for="unickname">Nickname:</label>
<input type="text" name="unickname" value="">
</p>
<p>
<label class="fleft" for="upasswd">Password:</label>
<input type="password" name="upasswd">
</p>
<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" name="login_temp" value="yes"> Public Terminal</label>
<br>
<hr>
<input type="submit" name="userlogin" value="Log In" class="fno"> <a href="//slashdot.org/my/mailpassword" class="btn link" onclick="getModalPrefs('sendPasswdModal', 'Retrieve Password', 1); return false;">Forgot your password?</a>
</fieldset>
</form>POST https://slashdot.org/my/login
<form action="https://slashdot.org/my/login" method="post" onsubmit="if (global_returnto) { this.returnto.value = global_returnto }" class="embedded">
<fieldset style="-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;-moz-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0">
<div style="height:25px;"> </div>
<input type="hidden" name="returnto" value="//slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8578">
<input type="hidden" name="op" value="userlogin">
<p>
<label class="fleft" for="unickname">Nickname:</label>
<input type="text" name="unickname" value="">
</p>
<p>
<label class="fleft" for="upasswd">Password:</label>
<input type="password" name="upasswd">
</p>
<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" name="login_temp" value="yes"> Public Terminal</label>
<br>
<hr>
<input type="submit" name="userlogin" value="Log In" class="fno"> <a href="//slashdot.org/my/mailpassword" class="btn link" onclick="getModalPrefs('sendPasswdModal', 'Retrieve Password', 1); return false;">Forgot your password?</a>
</fieldset>
</form>Text Content
We value your privacy
Our site is supported by advertising and we and our partners use technology such
as cookies on our site to personalize content and ads, provide social media
features, and analyze our traffic. Click "I Accept" below to consent to the use
of this technology across the web. You can change your mind and change your
consent choices at any time by returning to this site and clicking the Privacy
Choices link.
By choosing I Accept below you are also helping to support our site and improve
your browsing experience.
Store and/or access information on a device
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different
sources
Precise geolocation data, and identification through device scanning
Personalised content
Content measurement and services development
Personalised advertising and advertising measurement
I DO NOT ACCEPT I ACCEPTSave + Exit
More Options | Privacy Policy
SLASHDOT
* Stories
* * Firehose
* All
* Popular
* Polls
* Software
* Thought Leadership
* Jobs
Submit
Search Slashdot
* Login
* or
* Sign up
* Topics:
* Devices
* Build
* Entertainment
* Technology
* Open Source
* Science
* YRO
* Follow us:
* RSS
* Facebook
* LinkedIn
* Twitter
* Youtube
* Mastodon
* Newsletter
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Nickname:
Password:
Public Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgot your password?
Close
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid
freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! OR check out the new Slashdot job board to
browse remote jobs or jobs in your area
Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your
GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your
projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's
nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users
downloading your project releases today!
×
1377463 story
GUINNESS BEER REALLY SUCKS 465
Posted by jamie on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @05:30PM from the
don't-say-revenge-don't-say-revenge dept.
I'm working on a story about WIPO and how it takes domains away from their
owners. But today's example is egregious enough that I'm just going ahead and
telling you about it now. Some guy who was annoyed with Guinness beer registered
a slew of domain names like guinness-really-sucks.com. Guinness paid WIPO their
$2000 and took them all away. Why? Because "guinness-really-sucks" is "identical
or confusingly similar to" their trademark on the word "Guinness." Excuse me?
Originally, the domain name system was first-come-first-served, and that worked
pretty well. But corporations got trademark powers extended by having them
formally built into the domain name arbitration process. Now, trademarks are a
minefield.
And the mines are getting more powerful. If you're wondering how anyone but a
blithering idiot could possibly confuse "Guinness Really Sucks" with Guinness
itself, you're not alone.
The precedent here is the case of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs. "Walsucks." In that
case, there were two things that led WIPO to determine that there was a
likelihood of confusion. First, "the strength of the WALMART trademark."
And second -- interestingly -- the "intent in selecting the domain names."
Proving trademark strength is simple, a corporation just trots out its list of
how many millions of dollars it's spent on ad campaigns, and how many devoted
customers it has.
And in this case, proving the owner's intent was easy too. He made the mistake
of getting mad at Guinness (ironically, about a previous domain case) and being
foolish enough to say so. He posted on an old website:
> I tell you, I was so upset when I got this STUPID ASS LETTER from the GOOFBALL
> JACKASS LAWYERS at guinness beer, that I went to register the domain name,
> GUINNESSSUCKS.COM, but guess what, that domain name is already owned by
> someone. Guess who. That's right. Guinness beer owns it themselves. I'm glad
> I'm not the only one who thinks they suck. THEY THINK THEY SUCK THEMSELVES!!
> ... So anyway I did go and register a few names about guinness beer and
> pillsbury. Tell me what you think....Coming Soon to a website near you!!
You may be saying, so what? Who cares whether he was angry or not? Doesn't he
have a right to protest a corporation regardless of his emotional state?
You might think so, but you'd be wrong. His thoughtcrime is a big part of why
these domains were taken away. The argument that Guiness put before WIPO was
that "the Respondent admitted ... that he registered the [domain names] because
he was angered."
Therefore, said Guinness, "the registration of the [domain names] was done in
bad faith" -- which is the main thing needed to take a domain away from someone
-- "and not for a legitimate purpose, rather Respondent's intent is to harass
the Complainant."
I wish I could tell you that WIPO told Guinness to shove this attitude where the
sun doesn't shine, and that even ordinary citizens have the right to say that
some precious corporation sucks.
They didn't, of course. In their decision, they reference the owner's anger and
then simply say that they "accept that the Complainant has made out a prima
facie case that the Respondent registered said domain names with the intention
of harassing the Complainant."
To them, anger means bad faith and no legitimate purpose, which are the key
phrases that WIPO needs to assert before they take a domain away.
There are some kinds of speech corporations don't want to allow on this little
thing we call the internet. In the new domain name system, it's not a
"legitimate purpose" to say that a company sucks. Especially if you are one of
those angry people who doesn't understand how great Guinness beer is. Sorry. Go
find another domain, loser.
WIPO went on to point out was that there may be some non-English-speaking
readers who may not be familiar with the word "sucks." These people might be
confused as to whether they were looking at the Guinness homepage or not.
Therefore the test of trademark confusion was met. I am not kidding.
Although Guinness "has not submitted any evidence of such confusion," they don't
even need to: "it is unrealistic to require such evidence."
Here's the list of really confusing domains. Someone tell me how these URLs
could be mistaken for the Guinness beer website:
> guinness-really-sucks.com
> guinness-really-really-sucks.com
> guinness-beer-really-sucks.com
> guinness-beer-really-really-sucks.com
> guinness-sucks.com
> guinnessreallysucks.com
> guinnessreallyreallysucks.com
> guinnessbeerreallysucks.com
> guinnessbeerreallyreallysucks.com
> guinness-beer-sucks.com
> guinnessbeersucks.com
It gets worse. I might search on Guinness and turn up a "-sucks" website, and
then I might actually be curious and click on it, thereby depriving the real
Guinness of my eyeballs. Again, I am not kidding. This is actually part of the
reason the domains were taken away from their owner.
I'll write some more about this later, maybe next month. If you know anyone who
feels like their domain name was unfairly taken away, please have them contact
me.
←
YOU MAY LIKE TO READ:
→
XXL: Linux Is 17 Million Lines Of Code Big (nope)
FROZEN EMBRYOS ARE 'CHILDREN,' ACCORDING TO ALABAMA'S SUPREME COURT
TEENAGERS HAVE BOUGHT 'GHOST GUNS' ONLINE, SOMETIMES WITH DEADLY CONSEQUENCES
IOWA SCHOOL DISTRICT IS USING AI TO BAN BOOKS
US SUPREME COURT REJECTS US STUDENT LOAN RELIEF. PRESIDENT BIDEN RESPONDS
SHOULD PUBLIC BUSES BE FREE?
Mars May Be Dry After All
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
GUINNESS BEER REALLY SUCKS 365 MORE LOGIN
GUINNESS BEER REALLY SUCKS
Archived Discussion Load All Comments
42 Full 58 Abbreviated 0 Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
365 More Login
Nickname:
Password:
Public Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Search 465 Comments Log In/Create an Account
Comments Filter:
* All
* Insightful
* Informative
* Interesting
* Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are
not responsible for them in any way.
*
›
BOYCOTT (SCORE:3)
by Zalgon 26 McGee ( 101431 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:34PM
(#659593)
Painful as it is for me (I'm a stout fan), the best way is to hit them in the
pocketbook. Let them know why you're rejecting their products as well - in a
calm, inteligent and intelligible manner.
No more Guiness... sigh...
Share
twitter facebook
*
* HE COULD HAVE REPLIED (SCORE:4)
by jms ( 11418 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:36PM (#659595)
Of course, the fact that he never even bothered to reply to ICANN might have
had something to do with this. Generally, if you want to preserve your
rights, you should make a minimal effort to do so.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* -1, FLAMEBAIT (SCORE:2)
by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) writes:
By the risk of getting Irish moderators on my back....honestly! It is *not*
confusing, it is just *true*: Guinness Beer Really Sucks!
*
* HOW WILL THIS EFFECT THE PROPOSED .SUCKS DOMAIN? (SCORE:3)
by n3rd ( 111397 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:36PM (#659597)
I've been wondering about this issue since 2600 brought it up with the whole
verizonsucks.com thing. For those of you who don't know, 2600 found it
entertaining that Verizon purchased loads of "anti-Verizon" domains such as
verizonsucks.com. So, 2600 purchased verizonreallysucks.com and got hit with
a cease and disist.
Anyway, with these kinds of things going on, how can consumers and activists
make use of the .sucks top level domain that was proposed by ICANN? I don't
enjoy Microsoft, so I scoop up microsoft.sucks when the new domains come out,
and what happens? More than likely, Microsoft will sue me for trademake
infringment.
I guess my question is how can we (consumers) make use of the .sucks domain
(and domain names like the ones in this article) without getting in trouble?
Share
twitter facebook
*
* GUINESS & TRADEMARKS (SCORE:2)
by jpm242 ( 202316 ) writes:
Actually, Guiness has been rather protective of their trademarks for a very
long time. Useless factoid: Ireland had to reverse (horizontal flip) the harp
on their flag because Guiness already used a harp as their logo(*).
They suck, but damn, their beer is really good.
(*)"Marks of Excellence", Per Mollerup, Phaidon press.
*
* ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION (SCORE:2)
by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) writes:
So I'm here trying to figure out how the "Guinness Sucks" phrase could
possibly be confused as an actual Guinness trademark by any reasonable
person. At first I thought it was because the Guinness people were drinking
too much of their fine product, when it suddenly struck me....."Guinness
sucks" is going to be their new advertising slogan. Maybe they're looking to
produce a line of beer that sucks? Could they possibly be in the market for
one of the American brewers, such as Miller or Budweiser?
Any way you slice it, this complaint and subsequent decision belong in the
Guinness company's own Book of World Records for Stupidest Legal Complaint
Lobbied by a Multinational Corporation.
fearbush.com [fearbush.com]
*
* RE:HE COULD HAVE REPLIED (SCORE:3)
by jms ( 11418 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:37PM (#659602)
Ok, I'm an idiot. WIPO, not ICANN.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* NECTAR OF THE GODS (SCORE:3)
by BigEd ( 6405 ) writes: <togdon@thanatoid.net> on Tuesday October 31, 2000
@12:38PM (#659604) Homepage
As much as I despise censorship on the Internet, I find it blasphemous that
anyone would even suggest that Guinness could suck. Guinness is the nectar of
the gods. In fact, I think I'll go register
guinness-is-the-best-god-damn-beer-ever.com [guinness.com], oh wait, that'd
probably be "identical or confusingly similar to" their trademark on the word
"Guinness." Oh well. :)
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:FUCKGUINESS (.COM) (SCORE:5)
by Fat Rat Bastard ( 170520 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:39PM
(#659605) Homepage
Better yet, each person registers one domain name. I may be wrong here (and
please correct me if I am) but they'd have to pony up their $2000 for each
person, correct? Hell, make 'em spend a few hundred thousand to get "thier"
sites back
Sigh... and I do so love Guinness Beer.
Nathan
Share
twitter facebook
*
* WHAT ABOUT... (SCORE:4)
by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) writes: <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Tuesday October
31, 2000 @12:39PM (#659607)
guinness-really-sucks-and-this-isnt-their-website. com?
or...
guinness-really-sucks-and-i-am-not-angry-about-t his.com?
or...
guinness-never-learned-sticks-and-stones-may-bre
ak-my-bones-but-words-will-never-hurt-me.c om
Feh. I'm going out right now and registering guinness-tastes-like-sh*t.com
but then again, it might already be taken.
Might I suggest a massive registration rally in protest followed by massive
search engine submissions?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -
Share
twitter facebook
*
* NO RESPONSE FILED! (SCORE:4)
by Brian See ( 11276 ) writes: <bsee@spel l o u t m y r e a l name.com> on
Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:39PM (#659608)
If you read the decision, you'll notice that the domain owner never filed a
response to Guinness. This is the legal equivalent of rolling over and
playing dead. If you don't even bother to put up a fight, you'll lose.
Because the domain owner never responded, the panel had nothing to go on but
what Guinness told them. So, for instance, according to the panel:
There is no evidence before this Administrative Panel that the Respondent
intends to use the said domain names as the addresses or links to any sites
which could be described as "complaint sites". For this reason the issues
canvassed in any of the decisions relating to free speech are not relevant in
this case.
While this seems to go against common sense, that's what happens when the
panel only hears one side of the argument. Just another result of the
adversarial legal system, I suppose...
Share
twitter facebook
*
* IT'S THE INTENT! (SCORE:3)
by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) writes: <slashdot AT castlesteelstone DOT us> on
Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:40PM (#659612) Homepage Journal
He registered a slew of domain names just to annoy Guiness.
What he *should* have done is created an anti-guiness site, and directed URLs
to it. *then* he'd have a case.
Apparantly, he didn't. He didn't "make a web site to say that Guiness sucks",
he "registered a bunch of domian names just to needle Guiness."
Share
twitter facebook
*
* TRY ANOTHER STOUT (SCORE:2)
by dmatos ( 232892 ) writes:
I'm sure you can find a pub somewhere that will serve you a glass of
Murphy's. A fine alternative if you want to stick it to Guiness.
*
* MISSING EYEBALLS (SCORE:3)
by interiot ( 50685 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:42PM (#659618)
Homepage
I might search on Guinness and turn up a "-sucks" website, and then I might
actually be curious and click on it, thereby depriving the real Guinness of
my eyeballs. Again, I am not kidding. This is actually part of the reason the
domains were taken away from their owner.
If this argument were taken just a teeny bit further, they could argue that
when a user searches for "Guinness", the only pages that should show up are
Guinness's own pages. No Guinness fan pages should show up. No parody sites.
No fair use.
--
Share
twitter facebook
*
* THE ARBITERS (SCORE:2)
by jargon ( 75774 ) writes:
You know, the arbiters are not faceless people.
You want to see who they are?
You want to contact them?
http://arbiter.wipo.int/contact/index .ht ml [wipo.int]
cheers,
.j
*
* JUST LIKE GUINESSSUCKS.COM (SCORE:2)
by at0m ( 56249 ) writes:
Someone tell me how these URLs could be mistaken for the Guinness beer
website
As was stated in the original rant by the owner of the questionable domains,
Guiness owns guinesssucks.com. guinesssucks.com and guiness-really-sucks.com
are quite alike, so there's definitely confusion. If I were trying to go to
guinnesssucks.com, it's quite likely that I'd go to guinness-sucks.com by
accident.
But I doubt Guiness has a trademark on "guinesssucks[.com]"
*
* GET OVER YOURSELVES, YOU LAME-ASS CORPORATIONS! (SCORE:4)
by Accipiter ( 8228 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:43PM (#659626)
This reminds me of the Veronica.Org dispute.
A proud daddy registered a domain for his 2 year old daughter, Veronica. It
was a website where he had some pics of his little girl online. Pretty
simple.
Then Archie Comics deciced it was rightfully theirs, because one of their
characters is named "Veronica".
"We had Veronica.com registered, and these people didn't want to give up the
[Veronica.org] name for some reason," said Michael Silberkleit, publisher of
Archie Comics.
Well Gee! Maybe he wants to keep the domain "for some reason", perhaps for
his DAUGHTER?!
Interestingly enough, Veronica.Org doesn't exist, however the whois entry
still shows the father owns it. Good.
If you're interested in the details regarding this specific incident, head
here:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-100 5-2 00-337433.html [cnet.com]
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Share
twitter facebook
*
* GUINESS IS TRADEMARKING THEIR SUCKINESS (SCORE:2)
by TheKodiak ( 79167 ) writes:
They're not claiming that people will be confused and think that his site is
a Guinness site, they're worried about people thinking his site is a
"Guinness sucks" site, which they are obviously working on, since they
registered the domain.
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by FeeDBaCK ( 42286 ) writes:
This makes for a sad sad day, as Guinness(doesn't suck) is the only beer that
I actually buy. Oh well, they aren't getting my dollar anymore.
Fight for what you believe in... don't give money to corporations whom do
things you disapprove of...
*
* RE:TRY ANOTHER STOUT (SCORE:2)
by Anonymous Coward writes:
find a pub somewhere that will serve you a glass of Murphy's
good idea, but i'm boycotting murphy's too because i'm angry that transmeta
doesn't release an assembler with their code-murphing chip
*
* DAMN! (SCORE:3)
by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) writes: <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Tuesday October
31, 2000 @12:47PM (#659643)
Secaucus Group (WIPOSUCKS-DOM)
295 Greewich Street Suite 184
New York, New York 10007
USA
Domain Name: WIPOSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact:
Parisi, Dan (DP996) dparisi@GARDEN.NET
Dan Parisi
Post Office Box 1009
Secaucus, NJ 07094
973-503-1785
...how about wipo-really-sucks.com, anyone?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -
Share
twitter facebook
*
* IT'S NOT AS CLEAR-CUT AS IT SEEMS (SCORE:5)
by markhb ( 11721 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:47PM (#659646)
Journal
Yes, reverse-hijacking the domains if they were legit protest sites would be
abhorrent. However, those who read the original decision will find the
following:
1. The previous domain dispute the guy was upset about was over guinnes.com,
a typo domain;
2. He never had any sites up on the guinness-sucks domains he registered;
3. The Respondent (aka defendant) did not respond to the action he was
served with;
4. Quoting the decision (Complainant is Guinness, the Registrar is CORE):
> The Complainant submits that the Respondent is a wholesaler of Internet
> domain names (defined as someone who acquires multiple domain names
> with the intent to profit from them). The Respondent has registered
> approximately 3000 domain names, approximately 1400 of which are
> registered with the Registrar. In support of this statement, the
> Complainant has submitted a print-out, running to thirty one pages, of
> the results of a search which the Complainant caused to be carried out
> on the Registrar's WHOIS database for domain names with NIC handles
> allegedly associated with the Respondent.
5. Again quoting the decision:
> The Complainant submits that there have been at least five ICANN
> decisions against the Respondent in which it has been found that he
> registered and used domain names that are identical or confusingly
> similar to famous trademarks in bad faith and without a legitimate
> business purpose viz. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, NAF Case
> No. FA0002000093562; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini et
> al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0330; Hewlett-Packard Company v. John
> Zuccarini, NAF Case No. FA00040000994454; Bama Rags, Inc. v. John
> Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Confidential, NAF Case No. 0003000094380 and
> Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, NAF Case No. 0003000094381.
This guy is a squatter who didn't even bother to contest the charges. Why
should we cry for him?
Share
twitter facebook
*
* YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! (SCORE:2)
by ..... ( 133478 ) writes:
There are lots of comments -- and there will be lots more -- talking about
how guinness sucks and they'll never drink another. The problem is that you
are all confusing the actions of a person with the actions of a corporation.
If a person did this, maybe then they would be guilty of a serious lack of
humor. But businesses aren't people! They have to act in certain ways because
they are required to by law.
1. If Guinness isn't anal about the use of the word "Guinness" with
reference to beer, they will lose their trademark and it will be gone!
Arguably, if they allow these Joe Schmoe domains, then every two-bit
brewer in the world will be able to put "Guinness" on their beer too --
killing off one of the better-known brand names in beer.
2. Corporations must act to protect the interests of their owners! If you or
I had this problem, we could forgive and forget. A corporation cannot!
The directors of a business must do all they can to protect its assets
and profit flows or they will be sued for a breach of feduciary duty.
3. Yes, free speech and all that. Parody, etc. But even if it isn't cool, it
is perfectly understandable that the Guinness corp wouldn't want these
domains out there.
Stop bellyaching about Guinness. This is merely a sympton of a more generally
screwed up system.
*
* A DUMB QUESTION (SCORE:2)
by Prof_Dagoski ( 142697 ) writes:
For those tuning in late, like myself, would some mind making a brief post
explaining what WIPO stands and what they do, or at least claim to do?
Thanks. I feel like I'm tuning into an interesting TV show half way through.
*
* WIPO SUCKS :) (SCORE:2)
by dizee ( 143832 ) writes:
Ironically, wiposucks.(com|net|org) are all taken.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
*
* RE:JUST LIKE GUINESSSUCKS.COM (SCORE:2)
by rpozz ( 249652 ) writes:
Personally, I think the situation is a pathetic display from both sides.
Registering various domain names, just to annoy Guiness is pretty childish,
but I don't believe that Guiness have the right to remove every .com with the
word 'guiness' in it.
If he wanted to slag off Guiness, he could have just made an amusing website
on geocities or whatever.
This sort of behaviour is really starting to screw up the internet.
*
* BLAH, IT'S INFRINGEMENT. (SCORE:2)
by Xerithane ( 13482 ) writes:
I'm going against the grain here.. I know..
What the hell is this guys problem? Registering a slew of domain names
against a beer company? Not only does this ring of some weird anger
management problems but he is using their trademark, their name - and that
should be protected to an extent.
I don't think either party is in the right here, but Guiness is protecting
their name.. and c'mon - guinness-really-sucks.com could show up on a
Guinness receipe search hit or something, and that is misleading.. so I
really have no qualms against people losing their maliciously created domain
names. Domain names should not be used to get even at a company you feel has
wronged you..
Open up your mind a bit, understand that Guinness is not a big hungry evil
corporation bent on screwing the little guy but a corporation trying to make
money and protecting their trademark. Granted, I would have a different view
if it was say.. Colgate or something - but two separate companies..
*
* PISSING CONTEST, NOTHING ELSE (SCORE:2)
by ackthpt ( 218170 ) writes:
> blah blah blah blah blah blah WIPO takes away name because guy is angry
> when registering blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Whoa! Takes away a registered domain because a guy is angry, imagine that.
Ok, that's lame. But, how is this guy expecting to trap people into visiting
any of his websites, without generating lots of publicity?
Gosh, I sure do like Guinness! I should look them up on the web and see where
they are and if I can get a tour of the St. James Gate Brewery! Golly
jeekers, what could their URL be... uh.. www.guinnesssucks.com, sure that's
got to be it! Duh! Drool. Drool.
Gimme a break. This is a pissing contest and nothing else. Now if he created
a site like: www.BoycottGuinness.com and had a thoughtful editorial on his
grievance and Guinness and WIPO took it away, I think he would have a pretty
strong case. As it is he's nothing better than the cybersquatters who take a
celeb name and put some mindless hateful rant on there. What he is deprived
of should have some value, merely a domain name of guinnesssucks.com is
pathetic.
OTOH, if WIPO takes away his domain names, WIPO or Guinness should reimburse
him his fees.
--
*
* RE:TRY ANOTHER STOUT (SCORE:2)
by Cannonball ( 168099 ) writes:
A good Caffrey's will do me instead of Guinness.
*
* GUINNESS (SCORE:2)
by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) writes:
Well, I guess THESE& lt;/a> guys are next. [internic.net]
*
* MAYBE HE MEANS THIS ONE (SCORE:3)
by Cardinal ( 311 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:53PM (#659670)
Well, there's this flag [ireland-now.com], but it isn't the Irish flag
[ireland-now.com].
Share
twitter facebook
*
* OH, LORD... (SCORE:5)
by sachmet ( 10423 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:56PM (#659676)
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. No, not the decision. The 4k article on
the front of slashdot decrying the WIPO for taking away some domain names.
Let's look at the facts:
* The guy got pissed at Guinness and registered a bunch of domain names
that, in effect, stated Guinness sucks.
* Guinness got pissed and played hardball to have the domains removed.
* The guy never responded to the WIPO inquiry - and he had A MONTH to do so!
* The guy has registered (and had taken away) numerous other domain names he
registered in bad faith - the docket lists 5 other cases he's been
involved in
* Finally, instead of doing something - ANYTHING - with the domain names, he
posts that he took them from Guinness becasue he was pissed they took his
original domain to another site.
I'm sorry, but he DESERVED to have those domains taken away. I've been
working to get a domain for a group that I'm friends with, and they can't get
it because some squatter claims to be 'opening an email service with 3 letter
domains' but all he does is sell domains on it. And, it doesn't even point to
itself! Plus the DNS entries contain 'THIS-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE' in whois...
Slashdot needs to look a bit more carefully at the stories they run and
select, lest too many more things like this pop up that ruin their
credibility further.
Score: -1, Flamebait
Share
twitter facebook
*
* ONLY ONE WAY (SCORE:2)
by Tau Zero ( 75868 ) writes:
> I guess my question is how can we (consumers) make use of the .sucks domain
> (and domain names like the ones in this article) without getting in
> trouble?
I can only think of one way to do this, and that is to make any attempt to
harass critics, parodists, and other persons exercising free speech have a
cost that no company is willing to pay.
There is something like this in the public-participation arena, called SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Because of the abuses of
SLAPPs by companies trying to silence their opponents, many US states now
have anti-SLAPP laws. Not only are SLAPPs tossed out of court, but the
damages one can recover in the counter-suit against a SLAPP is enough to
really hurt. Bottom line: SLAPPs have essentially stopped where these laws
are in effect.
We need something like the SLAPP law to defend opinion and parody, including
and especially in all parts of the Internet. If Guinness wound up being on
the hook for some millions of dollars (and had to give the domains back),
they wouldn't be pulling this crap in front of the WIPO. They'd have to grin
and bear it. Somehow I don't see them suffering; of all the Guinness drinkers
in the world, how many of them are going to care that one person with a
domain thinks that they suck? Instead, they felt they had to be the bully.
They've lost my sympathy, totally. I shall never again buy any Guinness
product.
The real problem is implementation. Getting something like a SLAPP law
recognized by the [bought and paid for corporate lackies of the] WIPO is
going to take a lot of doing. It might be easier to declare geekdom a
religion and issue a fatwa against the execs of Guinness, Digital
Convergence, the RIAA, DVD-CCA and all the rest. Not necessarily more
productive, but easier (and certainly quicker).
--
*
* BUT LINUS LIKES IT! (SCORE:3)
by Mr. Flibble ( 12943 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:57PM
(#659682) Homepage
Linus Torvalds has spurred a love of beer amongst Linux users according to
Jargon.org [tuxedo.org], he really loves Guiness. Wierd, really given the
Guiness used to flavour their beer with dead horses in the early years IIRC.
Oh what is a Linux geek to do? Boycott Guinness? Offend the founding father,
Oh! Agony!
That's it. Im switching to BSD, Penguins like beer but Demons drink a mixture
of sulpur and brimstone, as far as I know no one has tried to register
sulphur-and-brimstone-really-sucks.com!
Share
twitter facebook
*
* HTTP://WIPO.REALLY.FUCKINGSUCKS.NET/ (SCORE:2)
by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) writes:
http://wipo.really.fuckingsucks.net/ [fuckingsucks.net]http://guiness
.really.fuckingsucks.net&l t;/a> [fuckingsucks.net]
________________________________________
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by Fat Lenny ( 150637 ) writes:
I won't drink Guinness, but not because of some altruistic boycott. I'm not
drinking it on the grounds that it sucks. The widget only does so much, and
Guinness refuses to put the Stout in straight-up brown bottles. Don't confuse
the Stout (cans) with the "Extra" Stout, which does come in bottles, and
sucks even more.
Then again, no export Guinness is going to taste the same as the Irish brew
-- my experience from local brewpubs tells me that stouts from hand pumped
casks with natural carbonation are MUCH better than the same beer from
force-carbonated kegs. It is just as much different as canned beer vs.
bottled beer of the same breed.
Unless you are Irish, at least one of these things is true:
1. You drink Guinness because of the name.
2. You drink Guinness because of the head.
3. You drink Guinness because of the can (see Foster's Lager).
4. You drink Guinness because it comes in a Black and Tan.
5. You drink Guinness because it's imported (see Heineken)
a. EXTENSION: you drink it because it is imported and NOT skunky.
There is nothing special about this beer, and I strongly recommend that you
try the stouts and porters from Sierra Nevada (pretty much US-wide) or your
local craft brweries. If you don't like them, you are guilty of several of
the charges above, and if you do like them, at least one of them will taste
better than export Guinness.
Thank you, and please mod me as flamebait if you are guilty as charged above.
--
*
* HTTP://WIPO.REALLY.FUCKINGSUCKS.NET/ (SCORE:2)
by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) writes:
http://wipo.really.fuckingsucks.net/ [fuckingsucks.net]
... and of course, so I stay on topic,
http://guiness.really.fuckingsucks.net [fuckingsucks.net]
________________________________________
*
* WIPO IN THE RIGHT, PLEASE DO MORE RESEARCH. (SCORE:3)
by Greg@RageNet ( 39860 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @12:59PM
(#659688) Homepage
The WIPO made the right decision in this case, given the evidence they had.
The domain holder chose not to send a response to the dispute arbitrators and
so they only had evidence provided by the complaintants (guiness).
If you are sued and you choose not to show up in court and defend yourself,
the judge will decide the case based only on the evidence presented by the
complaintant and likely judge against you. If you get a sommons to appear in
court for trial and decide not to show up you will likely be hauled off to
jail. Likewise if you recieve a notice from a domain dispute arbitration
board requesting a response to a domain being disputed you had best defend
yourself or accept the fact that you will lose your domain.
The WIPO board had no evidence to go on except that presented by guiness and
ruled accordingly because the domain holder chose not to respond. Guiness
could have gone on to accuse the domain holder of serving the guiness laywers
scalding hot coffee which the laywers spilled into their laps causing second
degree burns and if the domain holder chooses not to defend themselves
against these accusations than the WIPO has no option but to accept them as
fact.
So, its a bummer that this dude loses his domains but thats what will happen
if you don't bother responding to defend yourself.
-- Greg
Share
twitter facebook
*
* WHY I GOT WIPO.ORG.UK AND SWIPO.ORG (SCORE:2)
by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) writes:
The Apple in 'American Apple Pie' is now a computer, not a fruit.
The authorities restrict our language on the Internet. They have taken all
words away from us and make them fit for only one use - only as trademark
system. It is a very bad trademark system at that, used by only one supplier
of each name, out of thousands worldwide.
WIPO is big part of this. I have protest sites, WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] and
SWIPO.org [swipo.org].
I have been communicating with the United States Patent and Trademark
Organization and the Department of Commerce. I make the main problem clear to
them. This is extract of latest email:
"Here is an analogy, just for a moment imagine, if you will:
You go to your dictionary and look up definition for the word 'apple'. It
says the following:
Apple - a maker of computers. This is the sole meaning; any other use will be
a criminal offence.
Nothing at all about them being a fruit used in the world famous 'American
Apple Pie'. All words have had their description changed. You find
dictionaries have been bastardised, for use as a trademark system. Would you
not be outraged that all the words in your vocabulary for everyday speech
have been perverted this way?"
Perhaps you have more sense - do you understand? Can you see - words
belonging to everybody, have been given to big business? As I say, the Apple
in the world famous 'American Apple Pie' is now a computer, not a fruit.
I have solution to trademark problems at www.WIPO.org.uk, which authorities
already knew.
WIPO.org.uk and SWIPO.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally
disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above
is my considered and informed opinion.
*
* BANKRUPTING GUINNESS (SCORE:2)
by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) writes:
Let's see, domain names have, what, 27 significant characters? If so, then
names of form guinness*.com have 19 characters available. Just using the
alphabetic and numeric ones, that would yield 10^46 combinations (and that's
even ignoring names shorter than 27 chars). At $35 a crack, I think Guinness
would run out of money before it could stomp all of them out. Might be fun if
a bunch of SlashDotters got together and tried this.
(Anyone know if the original registrant gets his/her money back if the WIPO
rules against them?)
*
* RE:WHAT ABOUT... (SCORE:4)
by L-Train8 ( 70991 ) writes: <Matthew_Hawk@nOSPAM.hotmail.com> on Tuesday
October 31, 2000 @01:04PM (#659706) Homepage Journal
I heartily agree. We cant have customers of companies getting pissed off and
expressing their opinion. Especially if the company in question has spent a
lot of money on advertising that says the company is great. A website saying
that the company's product sucked would contradict all that advertising, and
the end result would be customer confusion. Fortunately, we don't live in
that kind of world. We have the WIPO to protect us from the evils of
non-corporate entities expressing opinions on websites.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:HMMM... (SCORE:2)
by mindstrm ( 20013 ) writes:
Well.. you have to understand. As another poster said.. if this was against a
person, not a corporation, that person could simply decide to 'forgive &
forget', or perhaps nto get worked up in the first place.
Now... consider that the directors of a public company have a LEGAL DUTY to
protect the assetts of the company. They *MUST* or THEY can get sued, by the
shareholders, for not doing their job. They don't have the choice of simply
saying 'do we care'. The question for them is 'Do our shareholders care, and
will they take it out on us if we don't act'.
*
* RE:HE COULD HAVE REPLIED (SCORE:3)
by fcd ( 89027 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:05PM (#659709)
For more detail see from the article:
No Response was received by the Center from the Respondent and on September
25, 2000, the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default to the
Respondent by post/courier and by e-mail.(emphais added)
and from the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
[domainmagistrate.com]:
This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to
submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. (emphais added)
Included in this paragraph is:
iii. your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
I think the point here is that we don't know how the rulling would have went
if the Respondent had done what is required of him as part of the contract he
enters apon buying a domain. We cannot claim his rights were trappled when he
himself will not assert them.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:WHAT'S THE EQUIVALENT? (SCORE:2)
by Mad Hughagi ( 193374 ) writes:
I guess when it comes down to it the whole point of the matter is whether or
not one can draw these parallels between conventional media equivalents.
I totally agree that your examples would draw this type of response, however
one of the key things is that this is the internet - and with the internet we
have a situation where there are many different groups attempting to gain
control of how it evolves.
The true importance of this current debate is really in determining whether
or not the internet will soon succumb to corporations (kind of like t.v... I
have pity for the public access stations) or whether it will still remain by
and large under public governing.
I guess if you view the internet as being the same as any other kind of media
then you will definately have to side with the corporations, but for many
people it means quite a bit more than an advertising and ecommerce tool - in
which case the property of the internet shouldn't be distributed based on old
conventions but rather on a level basis.
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by Xerithane ( 13482 ) writes:
How about giving then money for many more things that are beneficial.
Take a look at the Ireland economy, where apartheid is still in existence
(yes, think South Africa)
Jobs are hard to come by, but Guiness is one more company that supplies
them.. but hey boycott them for protecting their trademark - maybe because of
your actions you can even lay off a few dozen workers that go back to
poverty.
Why don't you send them a letter saying, "I don't approve of this" and
explain why instead of trying to damage their revenue. It's not like they
didn't have a good leg to stand on here, it is a clear-cut case here.. I
support the decision, try not to be a slashdot sheep and realize the little
guy was just being a prick in this case.
*
* SUCKS.COM GUYS NOT CAPITALIZING ON THEIR NAME (SCORE:3)
by Greyfox ( 87712 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:07PM (#659715)
Homepage Journal
It seems like the sucks.com guys could clean up with a whole slew of second
level domains like:
guiness.sucks.com
microsoft.sucks.com
verision.sucks.com
digitalconvergence.sucks.com
wipo.sucks.com
icann.sucks.com
To name a few.
Personally, I think we just need a DNS revolt. Or better yet, an entire
network revolt. It wouldn't be too hard to put an infrastructure on top of
the current net and wall off the corporate world from it. As I've suggested
in the past, an invitation only VPN would work great. Couple that with a
distributed naming system of some sort, and leave the current corporations
out to rot. We built this network and we don't want them and we don't need
them.
Hell reverting back to store and forward would be better than what they've
given us.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* WELL, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BOTHER.... (SCORE:2)
by Auckerman ( 223266 ) writes:
If you are going to bother paying money for registered domain names, because
you are angry, you should be a bit more creative like this is [internic.net].
At least then, when they get the domain names back, their InterNIC lookup
still looks funny.
*
* REGISTERING A TRADEMARK TO DEFEND AGAINST WIPO (SCORE:2)
by jms ( 11418 ) writes:
This discussion leads to the question, how best to defend a domain name
against hijack attempts.
I have a domain name in mind. It is currently unregistered. It's a coined
word, and I don't think anyone else is going to think of it anytime soon. My
proposed course of action is:
1) Register the domain name.
2) Register a service mark on the domain name, listing the service as
"providing information, products, and services via the internet." (cribbed
from the slashdot trademark entry) That should cover just about anything I
can imagine doing on a web site. "Using the trademark in commerce" would
involve putting up the site and maybe a banner ad.
Registering a trademark is fairly expensive -- there is a $325.00 filing fee
and a ten year renewal fee of $400.00.
I can't decide if this is overkill, or if extraordinary measures are now
required to protect a web site against WIPO-based attack. I know that one
must take measures to defend trademarks, which I doubt I could afford to do.
Has anyone gone this route?
*
* THAT IS TOTALLY NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. (SCORE:2)
by kootch ( 81702 ) writes:
Guiness used WIPO to protect their trademarked name, Guiness, which is within
their right. Clearly, they have owned that name for centuries. Is anyone here
going to dispute the fact that when you hear the word Guiness, you don't
think of a dark lager?
By using the word Guiness in those URLs, they were in essence using the
trademark name without the permission of Guiness. That is illegal.
I agree, I don't like the situation. But at the same time, while the logic of
the lawsuit was convoluted, it was unsanctioned use of a trademark which is
within the rights of the owner to protect. And protect it they did by what
they thought would be the easiest way and they were rewarded. Not like any of
us will boycott the frosty beverage any time soon. Atleast "Sting" wasn't
given the ability to claim his nickname is a true trademark. But Guiness?
Come on people. You can't use a trademark without their permission. Just like
you can't use someone's logo without their permission.
*
* RE:A DUMB QUESTION (SCORE:3)
by L-Train8 ( 70991 ) writes: <Matthew_Hawk@nOSPAM.hotmail.com> on Tuesday
October 31, 2000 @01:12PM (#659726) Homepage Journal
from the wipo website [wipo.org]:
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international
organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the
human spirit. These works - intellectual property - are expanding the bounds
of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its
work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of
life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.
With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized
agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 21
international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual
property protection. The Organization counts 175 nations as member states.
Please visit the links below for more information - both general and specific
- on WIPO.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:3)
by humanasset ( 206242 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:12PM
(#659728)
Make your own. It's so easy even an MCSE can do it!
Cat's Meow III [brewery.org]
The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing, by Papazian [amazon.com]
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:WHAT ABOUT... (SCORE:3)
by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) writes: <tms@infa[ ]s.net ['mou' in gap]> on
Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:13PM (#659729) Homepage
> Then they start a rally against your company, but because of your devotion
> you cannot protect your trademark from unauthorized use that you don't
> agree with.
Bullshit. You don't get to protect your trademark agaist use you don't agree
with, you only get to protect it against confusing commercial use.
I can, for example, say that Guinness® is a fine brew made by a bunch of
corporate bastards who suck Satan's cock. That's a fine exercise of my right
of free speech, and no trademark law can oppose it.
I could even say that, in light of that, I will be foregoing Guinness® and
Harp®, in favor of the Blue Ridge® and Wild Goose® lines from the Frederick
Brewing Company (of which I happen to own a few shares), and recommend that
you do the same. That's commerical speech, using Guinness trademarks in a way
that Guinness certainly doesn't like, but it's not in any way an attempt to
engage in fraud, so it too is perfectly valid.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* HOPE THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY FOR LEGAL FEES.... (SCORE:2)
by MattW ( 97290 ) writes:
Because it must take a lot of lawyer dollars to go and file with WIPO and get
the domains. And there are nearly endless variations on the suckiness
experienced.
Someone mentioned a boycott. Never mind a boycott -- how about a protest.
Everyone go spend $12 on registering a related suck domain, make it its own
authoritative name server, and point it at the original IP for the domain.
They'll have to file hundreds and hundreds of WIPO complaints, since each
domain with have a separate Respondent. Heck, you could do it yourself just
by inventing aliases the WIPO would have to 'contact' for a response.
On a related note, there's another way to handle this entirely -- alternate
domain name systems. No one ever said you had to use ICANN/internic/etc's
infrastructure. It would be fairly easy to put some alternate servers first
in root zone files, and only let stuff fall back to icann servers after
failing. Owners of appropriated domains could register with the alternate
service, and people who wanted to see alternate non-corrupted registrations
could view them.
*
* AVERTING TRAGEDY (SCORE:2)
by Mignon ( 34109 ) writes:
This tragedy could have been averted if only Congress would pass a seven-day
waiting period for registering domains.
*
* NEW LAWSUITS ON THE WAY (SCORE:2)
by BlueLines ( 24753 ) writes:
Respondent took Complaint?s famous trademark and tacked on other words, such
as "beer," "really," and "sucks" to form the said domain names.
In other news, x.com is suing multiple domain owners over the abuse of "X", a
registered trademark.
"Companies are obviously trying to steal our customers from us by adding such
words as "se", "hotse", "hotdonkeyse", and "youngvirginwithagoatse" before
our "x.com". We've already filed our complaint, and expect to recieve all
domains ending with a "x" by the end of the week."
*
* RE:BOYCOTT - HEH (SCORE:2)
by ackthpt ( 218170 ) writes:
I'm not Irish and I drink Guinness on tap by the pint, particularly on cold
or rainy days, the best days, IMHO, for a stout. Other good stouts are
Anderson Valley - Barney Flats Oatmeal, Young's Double Chocolate and in the
bottle Samuel Smith's.
Can't get into that elitist thing, particularly when all I have so far is
that some guy is pissed and trying to harm the image of a company. Whatever
happened to innocent until proven guilty, eh? Just because Guinness is a
large company doesn't automatically mean they are evil. How about writing to
their customer relations and giving equal time.
If they have done something evil, then at the very least include a
bibliographical reference or URL.
--
*
* MICROSOFT.REALLY.SUCKS DOMAIN (SCORE:3)
by Delirium Tremens ( 214596 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:17PM
(#659738) Journal
> I don't enjoy Microsoft, so I scoop up microsoft.sucks when the new domains
> come out, and what happens? More than likely, Microsoft will sue me for
> trademake infringment.
Just buy really.sucks, and you're done.
Then you can play with microsoft.really.sucks, guiness.really.sucks, ... and
of course WIPO.really.sucks!
Share
twitter facebook
*
* PHUCK.THE.MPAA.ORG.LU (SCORE:2)
by BlueUnderwear ( 73957 ) writes:
Great, so now the MPAA can sick the WIPO on phuck.the.mpaa.org.lu
[mpaa.org.lu] too!
*
* SLASHDOT YELLOW JOURNALISM (SCORE:2)
by Colloquy ( 29948 ) writes:
Let's see, we have a tough choice here. We can either read the inaccurate,
ill-reasoned synopsis of the decision posted by jamie (who at the outset
mentions that he has an axe to grind with WIPO) or we can read the decision
itself and decide whether it is well founded. Since I can't drag you to the
WIPO site itself and make you read the decision, let me just point out a few
of the facts jamie conviently glosses over:
The guy Guinness filed the complaint against did not respond. If you're not
going to bother to argue your case, you shouldn't be surprised when the other
side wins the argument. It is apparent from the decision that he has the
financial means to respond (i.e., he's not some poor slob, see below).
The guy is not simply some little guy who got a bad pint from some mega-corp
and is trying to let the world know about it. He registered these domains
because Guinness originally won "guinnes.com" from him through earlier WIPO
proceedings. That's right, he's a cybersquatter in the worst sense: 3000+
domains registered to himself, many making use of other people's trademarks.
His sites didn't even voice complaints (so no free-speech issues), except in
one case where he put up some protest text hours after served with a
complaint. He uses them for commerce by filling them with ads (for other
sites and credit cards) to generate himself almost $1 million in revenue per
year.
This is not his first time around the block. He has lost at least five other
ICANN proceedings (vs HP and Encyclopedia Britannica, among others) and one
US civil suit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. All found
that he had registered the names in question in bad faith and without
legitimate business purpose.
Look, I get as pissed off as the next guy about situations like gumby.org and
etoy.com, but this case in particular is an example of the system working
like it should.
*
* PRECEDENT: MAD MAGAZINE (SCORE:4)
by Eric Seppanen ( 79060 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:22PM
(#659750)
Hey, doesn't anybody value parody anymore? I bet you could go and poll all of
the bureaucrats that make and support overbroad trademark protection and
you'd find a significant percentage that once read and enjoyed Mad Magazine
[madmag.com].
I mean, at one point in time, it was actually funny when a comic spoofed
movies and gave the spoofs confusingly similar names to the real,
(trademarked) thing.
Oh, wait a minute! Mad Magazine is now owned by none other than our friends
at Time Warner! Guess for them it's OK!
--
Share
twitter facebook
*
* FYI, THE GUINESS RECORD PEOPLE. . . (SCORE:3)
by kfg ( 145172 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:25PM (#659758)
ARE the Guiness beer people. The whole Guiness Book of World Records was
started as a reference to settle * bar bets * and the Guiness beer people
thought it was a natural promotional item as well.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:RIGHT DECISION (SCORE:3)
by double_h ( 21284 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:25PM (#659760)
Homepage
I have no idea what Zuccarini's complaint was with Guinness but it is more
than apparent that he registered these domains with the intent to harrass
them. Why would I want to support this kind of childish behavior?
Because free speech (espescially critical speech) is an important principle,
and is one of the few effective tactics individual people have in
counterbalancing the vast amounts of money and lawyers that corporations use
to gain more and more power.
What's next? Will "Consumer Reports" magazine get shut down for publishing
critical reviews of (trademarked) products? Plenty of software licenses
already stipulate that one can't publish benchmarks without explicit
permission -- it's not hard to imagine this trend extending to other
products.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:5)
by Timmy1138 ( 247577 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:32PM
(#659768)
First, they are a international corporation. You can say anything to them.
You can insult their mothers and their religion. It won't matter if you still
give them your money.
Second, yes, the guy was being a prick. But he has the right to be a prick.
He has the right to tell the world his problems with Guinness Stout and the
company that makes it. He doesn't have the right to tell people that he makes
Guinness and you should give him money in exchange for beer; but he wasn't.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:IT'S NOT AS CLEAR-CUT AS IT SEEMS (SCORE:2)
by AllegroCEO ( 153431 ) writes:
So, the respondent is a contact of some kind on lots of domains. So am I. So
there have been other decisions against him. I really don't see that as any
kind of supporting evidence for Guinesses claims and the ruling that the
registrations met the 3 infrigment rules.
As for him being a squatter, he may well be, but so is most everybody with a
purely net presence as far as the brick and mortars are concerned. But, I
really don't think Guiness is the bad guy here either. So OK, Guiness is
acting like a corporation. Big suprise. That is the nature of the beast. It
is not too much different in that respect from most other corporations. Most
of them could care less about the what is right or the rights of human
beings. The real problem here is ICANN and their hired henchmen the WIPO.
It's their house - their rules - their aribitrators. These people have
virtually no oversight, and they probably are operating way outside of their
legal authority. The also seem to be completely biased towards corporations.
Are there any recent cases brought to arbitration where the little guy won?
JB
never had a sig, never will
*
* AND ADDITIONALLY, YOU'LL READ THIS... (SCORE:5)
by Elminst ( 53259 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:32PM (#659770)
Homepage
6. He misdirects potential Guinness customers. Quote:
> The Complainant further submits that it would be likely that such consumers
> would choose to visit the such sites established by the Respondent, if only
> to satisfy their curiosity as to the content of such sites. Respondent
> would thus divert potential consumers of Complainant to his www sites by
> the use of said domain names.
7. But worse than that, he TRAPS THEM in endless clickloops, thereby
generating money for himself and preventing the consumer from getting to any
legitimate site. Quote:
> many of his sites featured advertisements for other sites and credit card
> companies where "visitors were trapped or 'mousetrapped' in the sites,
> unable to exit without clicking on a succession of ads. Zuccarini received
> between ten and twenty-five cents from the advertisers for every click."
> Id. at 635, 641. The Respondent's "click-based revenue now approaches $1
> million per year." Id. at 640 n.7.
8. And further on that topic, he WILFULLY ADMITTED that he registers the
domains BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMILAR. Quote:
> that the Respondent "admitted that he registered [the domain names] because
> they are confusingly similar to others' famous marks or personal names --
> and thus are likely misspellings of those names -- in an effort to divert
> Internet traffic to his sites." Id. at 639-640.
I have no sympathy for this guy. The ONLY way he could have venerated himself
was to actually publish a website that contained LEGITIMATE complaints
against the company. He didn't.
And then when confronted with it, he could have responded with evidence or
argument in his favor, thus using the system. He didn't.
Looks like he dug his own grave to me.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:TOO DARK (SCORE:2)
by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) writes:
I strongly recommend that you try some other US beers than Sam Adams (their
stuff is alright (much better than Bud), but they do have some better
seasonal beers)
Try:
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale [sierranevada.com] It's a dark golden color that has a
great bitter taste to it. (In fact, most beers from the Sierra Nevada brewing
company are really good, and can be found across the USA.
Portland Brewing Company [portlandbrew.com] has two great beers...McTarnahan
Ale (a lighter ale that's much better than Sam) or Haystack Black
[portlandbrew.com], which is one of the greatest dark beers on Earth. The
flavor and aroma of Haystack Black is amazing!
Also, you should give Anchor Steam a try, as it's very good too, and is made
with a very unique brewing style...
*
* WHY BOTHER WITH GUINNESS??? (SCORE:2)
by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) writes:
> At the World Beer Championship in 1994, St-Ambroise Oatmeal Stout
> [mcauslan.com] received the second highest rating of the over 200 beers in
> the competition and won one of only nine platinum medals awarded.
In that same competition, Guinness Stout got the 57th place.
'Nuff said.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
*
* RE:BOYCOTT - HEH (SCORE:2)
by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) writes:
Don't forget Haystack Black [portlandbrew.com] as a list of the best
stouts...
*
* STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE (SCORE:3)
by Malc ( 1751 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:37PM (#659778)
"my experience from local brewpubs tells me that stouts from hand pumped
casks with natural carbonation are MUCH better than the same beer from
force-carbonated kegs. "
Errr, Guinness has below normal carbonation, whether on tap or from a can. A
small amount of liquid N2 is inserted into Guinness cans before they are
sealed. When it boils, the pressure in the can is increased forcing Guinness
into the widget. When the can is opened, the release in pressure results in
the Guinness squirting through small hole(s) in the widget creating the head.
It's nothing to do with carbonation.
I grew up in England. Most of the local brews have below "normal" CO2 levels.
I hate carbonated drinks. Disgusting things. That's one of the reasons why
you won't catch me drinking the bad (IMNHO) brews from Sierra Nevada (besides
the bad taste).
"There is nothing special about this beer, and I strongly recommend that you
try the stouts and porters from Sierra Nevada (pretty much US-wide) or your
local craft brweries. If you don't like them, you are guilty of several of
the charges above, and if you do like them, at least one of them will taste
better than export Guinness. "
I think you're guilty of the stereotypical traditional American isolationism.
(I known the stereotype doesn't hold true for the majority of intelligent
Americans as I lived there for a while, and have a number of good friends
there.)
The racial implications of your other statements are just utter bollocks. I'm
not Irish (far from it!), I don't drink Guinness for any of the reasons you
state... I drink because it *IS* the tastiest of all beers.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:MISSING EYEBALLS (SCORE:2)
by The_Messenger ( 110966 ) writes:
True. And the Internet is supposed to be (last I heard, anyway) a network for
expressing ideas of all kinds, not just advertising. Are we going to let the
WWW become the next Television, a slave to the major corporations?
This whole story is almost more frightening than it is absurd.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
*
* THE REAL REASON GUINESS WON... (SCORE:2)
by UncleRoger ( 9456 ) writes:
From the decision:
> The Complainant has furnished details of a sample number of these
> registrations in Europe and North America and in each case the trademarks
> are registered for use in connection with "Light beverages including stout,
> porter, ale and lager beer".
It would appear that providing a "sample" of "Light beverages including
stout, porter, ale and lager beer" is beneficial to your case, especially if
you happen to be Guiness.
Can you blame the WIPO? I can't think of too much I wouldn't do if you put a
case of Guiness in front of me... (Of course, there wouldn't be much I could
do by the time I got done.)
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by billcopc ( 196330 ) writes:
Quick solution : Buy a truckload of Guinness (everyone stockpile it for years
ahead), then quit buying for a few years. They'll stop acting so cocky after
they realize the plunge they've taken..
*
* IT'S OBVIOUS WHY THIS HAPPENED.. (SCORE:2)
by djrogers ( 153854 ) writes:
> B. Respondent
>
> The Respondent did not file any Response
Taken directly from the proceedings.
Hmm, big nasty corporation wants you to bend over. You keep your mouth shut,
don't tell the arbiter why you should be allowed to remain vertical, and
don't tell the arbiter how making you bend over is 'a bad thing'. Next thing
you know, you're bending over. Shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone.
*
* WELL... (SCORE:2)
by BluedemonX ( 198949 ) writes:
when the Web first came out, it was seen as an exciting new medium, because
hey, you didn't need a multimillion dollars and you didn't have regulations
awarding the bandwidth to the same conglomerates over and over again. There's
no reason why http://www.myvanitysite.com (just made that up, if it's a real
site, I'm sorry) wouldn't get as much traffic as
http://www.monolithic-bastard-corporation.com.
I guess the corporations didn't like being in control, and given that they
couldn't take over TCP/IP to make it centrally managed and therefore all
content on the Web would come from/be controlled by them, just hijacked
ICANN.
Whoever told these people the way to make free speech a corporate right only
has some serious negative karma coming. Ditto whatever moron told a certain
set of CEOs that clicking on an item to buy it can and should be patented.
*
* RE:HE COULD HAVE REPLIED (SCORE:2)
by vsync64 ( 155958 ) writes:
Yeah, and this loser [salemwitchtrials.com] didn't plead not guilty either,
so he deserved what he got? There is something to be said for "not dignifying
the charges with a response".
*
* WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES (SCORE:3)
by Andrew Dvorak ( 95538 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:54PM
(#659802)
Some people might be interested in reading WIPO [wipo.org]'s WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center [wipo.int] page. I won't go too in depth, because then
I'd be reciting their page, but it's worth looking at because it does pertain
to Internet Domain Names.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* FAIR USE OF A TRADEMARK (SCORE:3)
by kootch ( 81702 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @01:54PM (#659804)
Homepage
for the record, right from the USPTO.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html
(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark,
including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section,
if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal
name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of
the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration
of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of
that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of
title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States
Code.
(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under
subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if
any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the
person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with
the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site
accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online
location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the
goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the
intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain
name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having
used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering
of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern
of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact
information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the
person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the
person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names
which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of
others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names,
or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of
registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of
the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name
registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of
subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in
any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had
reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use
or otherwise lawful.
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a
domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or
cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the
owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A)
only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's
authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions
that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges,
licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or
receipt in exchange for consideration.
(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain
name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name
registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the
domain name is located if--
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in
the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or (c);
and
(ii) the court finds that the owner--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would
have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been
a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under
this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail
address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after
filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of
process.
(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed
to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that
registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the
disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with
the court.
(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited
to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the
transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written
notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a
mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name
registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall--
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish
the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the
registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the
pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority
shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph
except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a
willful failure to comply with any such court order.
(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action
established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such
action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise
applicable.
(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in
addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or
in personam.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:JUST LIKE GUINESSSUCKS.COM (SCORE:2)
by ichimunki ( 194887 ) writes:
I agree. I'm exhausted just trying to separate the real injustices from the
whining. This guy didn't defend himself. I still don't have a clue what his
problem with Guiness was in the first place. And the whole fiasco says more
about the nonsense that is the domain name system (not just the arbitrary
arbitration-- witness the Sting and Madonna cases-- the fact is this whole
TLD notion is broken, not just the decisioning process), than it does about
trademark law and its use or abuse.
*
* SET A SCARY PRECEDENT? (SCORE:2)
by e_lehman ( 143896 ) writes:
My worry is that this case will become a precedent cited in the next
xyz-really-sucks.com dispute. The fact that the guy made no response may have
been the deciding factor, but I wonder if that detail will be overlooked in
the future? That is, I wonder if this guy's failure to defend himself cause
the screws to tighten on us all.
*
* RE:OH, LORD... (SCORE:5)
by jamiemccarthy ( 4847 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @02:13PM
(#659819) Homepage Journal
In email, the guy told me that he didn't bother replying to WIPO because he
knew that, whatever he said, he was going to lose anyway. He'd guessed that
WIPO would decide his case before the facts were presented, and that, because
he had lost some cybersquatting cases before, he was going to lose this one
regardless of its merits.
And he was right. This was clearly a case of criticism of a corporation,
whether he'd gotten around to putting critical content on the domains'
website or not. You can't get more fairly critical than "-sucks.com". But
they threw the book at him.
And in the decision (read it [wipo.int]!) a large part of their reason for
taking away his domain was that he had squatted on other domains before. They
talked about a lot of those other cases.
In other words, it was something like:
> Prosecutor: "Your Honor, we can't find any proof that the defendant
> actually stole the case of beer. But he admits to being an angry young man,
> and he was convicted last year of stealing two magazines, a toothbrush and
> a pit bull."
>
> Judge: "Lock him up!"
I find this just as offensive as their other specious reasons (anger,
eyeball-stealing) but didn't get into it in the story because it's a lot of
background that would take a while to explain and this was just supposed to
be a short story. The long versions are coming sometime in November (I hope)
and will go into detail about more cases.
The fundamental issue is, was this guy treated fairly in this case? And it
seems clear to me that the answer is no.
Frankly, I can't think of any good reason why any individual should under any
circumstances have their "XYZsucks.com" domain taken away and given to
corporation XYZ, ever.
Jamie McCarthy
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:NO RESPONSE FILED! (SCORE:3)
by _xen ( 79742 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @02:16PM (#659821)
Because the domain owner never responded, the panel had nothing to go on but
what Guinness told them.
Nonetheless, the complaint still has to satisfy the requirement that the said
domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and this is what is
unsatisfactory about the decision.
Look, Guinness could probably have succeeded under business defamation in any
number of jurisdictions (including the one in which Guinness plc is
registered), though perhaps not in the US. Arguably this is not a bad thing.
Remember the name Guinness is valuable property, into which a lot has been
invested, the creation of these domain names is equivalent to someone coming
along and scratching EAT THE RICH along the side of your new BMW (though this
arguably is not a bad thing either).
That the Panel should hold that a different standard applies to the
deceptively similar test, merely because such a site might be discovered by a
search engine is disturbing. It reflects a growing tendency for the Law (both
at curial and legislative levels) to wet its pants whenever a matter in some
way involves the internet. The argument is often put that the Law cannot keep
pace with technological change, IMHO the opposite is the case. While some
adjustment is doubtless necessary (such as recognising that domain names do
have to be brought into step with trade mark law), the Law is particularly
adapted to dealing with novel situations. Thus cybersquatting, which the US
legislature felt it necessary to criminalise by statute, was simply dealt
with under equity in Australia (in the Melbourne-IT case). If established
legal principles were applied fairly, irrespective of whether the issue was
one involving the net (ooh, it cyberspace ... better be really draconian
here!), I believe we would not be seeing findings as aburd as
'guinnessbeerreallysucks' being confusingly similar to 'guinness' (in a way
which 'guiness' clearly is btw.)
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! (SCORE:4)
by Hacker Cracker ( 204131 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @02:16PM
(#659822)
Quoth the poster:
> The problem is that you are all confusing the actions of a person with the
> actions of a corporation. If a person did this, maybe then they would be
> guilty of a serious lack of humor. But businesses aren't people! They have
> to act in certain ways because they are required to by law.
Err, sorry, but you're wrong--in the eyes of the law, corporations are
persons. As such, they have a disproportionate amount of power
[adbusters.org] compared to ordinary folks like you and me. As such, I won't
be shedding a tear for any of 'em.
The guy may have screwed up, but apologizing for the corporations (by way of
saying he deserved this treatment) is sickening.
-- Shamus
This space for rent
Share
twitter facebook
*
* DNS HAS FORKED. SEE ALSO .PARODY (SCORE:3)
by yerricde ( 125198 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @02:45PM (#659840)
Homepage Journal
OpenNIC [unrated.net] has the .parody TLD:
> The important piece of this domain is that a dedicated parody TLD will
> remove any legitimacy from parody targets' to claims that a parody site
> could be mistaken for the business site and thus be an infringement on
> their trademarks.
But the guinness-beer-sucks owner was a typosquatter [slashdot.org].
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by Xerithane ( 13482 ) writes:
He was assaulting Guinness - sticks and stones yes, but he was doing damage.
Granted, maybe it was hypothetical damage that hadn't surfaced, maybe there
was already damage. You have the right of free speech, that is fine.. but
there is a line where freedom of speech shackles who you are speaking
against. This is that case. Guiness has a right to do what they are doing.
Both legally, and morally I think. Boycotting them for protecting their
business is stupid. Why don't they just start giving their beer away for free
then?
Think about the poor employee's this will trickle down too..Think about their
children. If you are American, chances are you wouldn't understand what it's
like to see 6 year olds starving and begging for food because you are
American and are rich. Ireland has a lot of economic problems and Guiness
gives them jobs. You boycotting Guiness isn't going to hurt the company. It's
going to hurt those people. Guinness is a company.. don't get mad at a
company for being a company. If you've ever seen Natural Born Killers..
remember the story..
A woman found a wounded rattle snake, and took it in and nursed it back to
health. When the snake was healthy it bit the lady. As she died of the poison
she asked the snake why. The snake replied, "Look bitch, you knew I was a
snake."
A company is a company, they have obligations in business. In a perfect world
they wouldn't have them - but if people are going to be pricks and they can
stop it, it seems pretty stupid to not stop it?
*
* THERE ALREADY IS A .PARODY TLD. (SCORE:3)
by yerricde ( 125198 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @02:54PM (#659846)
Homepage Journal
OpenNIC [unrated.net] proudly lists .parody as one of its approved TLDs. Once
you add a Tier 2 OpenNIC nameserver [unrated.net] to your DNS configuration
(in /etc/resolv.conf on Linux), you can access the .parody registration page
[www.parody].
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:OH, LORD... (SCORE:2)
by sachmet ( 10423 ) writes:
By your logic, if I'm innocent of murdering a child, I shouldn't have to show
up in court because I didn't do it.
Thankfully, most legal systems do not work that way. You must be able to
prove that you are in fact innocent, or someone else has to prove that you
are in fact guilty. And while it can be a hassle, indeed, the alternative of
just letting people go because 'hey, they're innocent' is too great of a risk
to just banter about.
If you sue me and send me a letter, and I say 'oh well' and throw it away,
you *should* win and be able to collect damages. Otherwise, people could just
throw away lawsuits they didn't like and only God knows what would happen
then...
*
* ONLY WAY TO TEST THIS..... (SCORE:2)
by edibleplastic ( 98111 ) writes:
is to register:
wipo-really-sucks.com
wipo-really-really-sucks.com
wipo-can-wipe-my-.com
and so on. I definately think this guy should have had his domain taken away
(using it for ads, didn't represent himself, etc etc) but this needs to be
decided once and for all. These domains would be registered and web pages
would be put up decrying wipo's unfair "arbitration" processes.
I find it interesting that http://wipo-sucks.com [wipo-sucks.com] hasn't been
disputed.
*
* RE:HOW LONG UNTIL... (SCORE:2)
by jamiemccarthy ( 4847 ) writes:
> How long until everybody starts running off and registering
> slashdotsucks.org, slashdotreallysucks.org, etc. Will Slashdot go out of
> their way to protect their name?
Hell no. Go ahead and register them. I think I can safely say that none of us
is going to sue you over "slashdotsucks."
We're not even suing this guy [ebay.com], and frankly if we wanted to take
those domains, under the existing WIPO rules it'd take us about 2 seconds.
(If our legal dept. ever does decide to go after him, I'll (a) try to talk
them out of it, (b) post a story about how lame they're being and encourage
you all to send them persuasive email.)
Jamie McCarthy
*
* COOL! (SCORE:2)
by SUWAIN ( 223234 ) writes:
My "real" name is Matt. Sounds kinda like Microsoft, doesn't it? I'm worried
that people will think I'm Microsoft and try to sabotage my house. Maybe I
can shut down Microsoft.com, net, and org?
...............
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name
*
* RE:WHAT ABOUT... (SCORE:2)
by shepd ( 155729 ) writes:
>That is confusion
Based on not understanding something (there must be a better, non-insulting,
way to say this). If, for example, I have no clue about electrical
installations, and I wire a power plug with two male ends, and electrocute
myself by using it, my "confusion" is my own and is not legally binding
against the company, even though labelling said "power plugs", which could be
confusing (if you don't know English).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying non-English speakers are under educated.
I'm just saying that the lack of understanding about something doesn't give
you an automatic legal right to change it. If I don't understand English, I
have _no right_ to pass judgement on an English webpage; Most especially no
right to pass judgement based on a title.
If I were to beleive that, I would have equated your post with Swahili
information about Urethane Sealant and would have contacted Thompson's to
make the necessary lawsuits immediately. But I think that the name/titling of
a post doesn't mean its contents are the same.
In other words, you can't sue a book by its cover. It's what's inside that
counts. And if I saw a webpage titled "Sucking Guinness" written in Swahili,
I wouldn't assume they mean anything about beer, or sucking.
If I were to follow your logic, for example, this would happen: I don't speak
Swedish. But hey, this site should be shut down: kändis-Guinness 2000,
http://stockholm-just.nu/skvaller/guinness.htm because they use the word
Guinness in their title. The rest of the title, and page, as a non-Swedish
speaking person, leads me to believe that Guinness sells Candies, only
started business in the year 2000, and likes to put supermodels on TV.
But I don't think like that because I know that I don't speak Swedish and
therefore should assume nothing.
And I hope to God no one in Sweden sells a product "shepd" that automatically
deletes slashdot posts. Because in that case the WIPO would toast me too.
But hey, no one says anyone has to agree with me... Unless I was
international organization. :-)
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:2)
by Golias ( 176380 ) writes:
I'm an American, and have been drinking Guinness since long before the
buy-out that led to it being a "trendy" beer. I drink it because:
6. I tried it and found that it tastes better than most beers, and is more
readilly available than other stouts (like Schmalt's Alt).
As for the "forced carbonation" issue, any pub worthy of their liquer license
knows that Guiness taps use Nitrogen taps, not the CO2 taps used by other
beers. Maybe where you live they draft it from the same taps is all the other
beers... if so, all I can say is that you need to move.
Also, many american pubs serve Guiness at the wrong temperature. German beers
(and the American beers, most of which use German-derived formulae) are
brewed and drafted from the bottom of the keg, and are best served cold...
the colder it is, the better it tastes. Irish beers like Guinness (and many
English beers) are traditionally drawn from the top of the keg, and should be
no colder than wine-cellar temperature in order to get the best possible
flavor. If a bar serves you an ice-cold Guiness, complain.
(The sad part is that many "Irish" and "English" pubs in the US still chill
the hell out of their GB imports, even when the owner knows better, because
so many Americans, weaned on pisswater like Budweiser, are conditioned to
think that beer should be cold. If you complain in places like this, you
often get a sympathetic shrug and little else, but some bar owners have their
own unadvertised means of serving their more discriminating customers.)
*
* THIS IS NOT SO CLEAR CUT, ACTUALLY. (SCORE:2)
by ignorant_newbie ( 104175 ) writes:
the whole thing started over his typo-squating at guinnes.com. this is
important, because of something that a certain mr malda said yesterday:
> Typo sites are odd: I'm cool with most of them (parodies or ones that
> simply have an ad and a redirector to the real deal) but some really piss
> me off... like the Slashdot typo sites that frame slashdot with extra
> banner ads. They do confuse and mislead people: the flame mail in my inbox
> over the years proves it. I've been called an awful lot of nasty things
> over a few transposed letters. [slashdot.org]
so he got a letter from guinness about his typo site, freaked, and regestered
a bunch more urls cause he was pissed off. then, when he got another letter
from the wipo he did... nothing.
> On August 25, 2000 the Center sent a Notification of Complaint and
> Commencement of Administrative Proceedings to the Respondent. Said
> Notification was sent to the Respondent by Post/Courier, by facsimile and
> by e-mail. No Response was received by the Center from the Respondent and
> on September 25, 2000... [wipo.int]
(sorry about the inelegant links, i just dont want to be flamed by people
thinking i made this up) the rest of the wipo link goes on to basically say
that since he gave no evidence to the contrary, they had no choice but to
find for guinness. I'm not saying that it's always right to take away
someone's domain over a protest, but that there should be a standard, and if
he doesn't even care enough to reply to the complaint, wtf? why shouldn't
they take it away? i think that part of the problem is that big companies are
used to dealing in a certain way, with other big companies. 10 years ago,
there wasn't a way for a little guy to make a reall big, loud stink about
something. he could stand out in front of their business with a sign, but
that was about it. Now, if i don't like a beer company for some reason (why
was he doing this, again?) i can buy a bunch of domain names and make a loud
noise, audible to anyone with more that $1 a day and a computer. The response
was strongly worded, by a lawyer. this is how companies are used to treating
the only people they're used to dealing with like this... other big
companies, who are used to getting threatening lawyer letters. I"m just
confused as to why jamie would pick this particular example, when there are
many much better ones out there...
*
* THEY REALLY WON BECAUSE OF NON-REPLY (SCORE:2)
by Misch ( 158807 ) writes:
Just like in real court, it doesn't look good if you don't show up...
Said Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
inter alia advised the Respondent that the Administrative Proceeding had
commenced on August 25, 2000 and that the Respondent was required to submit a
Response to the Center on or before September 13, 2000.
No Response was received by the Center from the Respondent and on September
25, 2000, the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default to the
Respondent by post/courier and by e-mail. A copy of said Notification of
Respondent Default was on the same date sent to the authorised representative
of the Complainant by e-mail. Said Notification inter alia advised the
Respondent that the Respondent was in default and that in accordance with the
Rules, and the Supplemental Rules, the Center would proceed to appoint a
single member Administrative Panel as designated by the Complainant, that the
said Administrative Panel would be informed of the said default, and that the
Center would continue to send all case-related communications to the
Respondent.
If the guy had bothered to show up, or at least respond to the e-mails, he
would have had a better chance. It's the very same as not showing up in court
in the US... if you don't show, you're probably going to lose. (This happens
in Small Claims Court all the time.)
*
* RE:OH, LORD... (SCORE:2)
by sachmet ( 10423 ) writes:
Jamie: I did read it. That's why I made my comment. Because I read it and it
said what I noted and that was that. If I *hadn't* read it, I would have made
comments like the other 400 on this story relating to 'OH, GUINES SUCKS LETZ
BOYCOTT' but the fact that I actually bothered to follow the link before
replying should say something.
Personally, I have a belief that domain squatters should be wiped off the
face of the earth. That's just my belief. Perhaps he is in the right here.
But past history (and if you don't respond, that's all they have to go on)
indicates that he would just sell these domains, or use them for some
'bad-faith' purpose (god only knows what that is.)
That said, if he *had* responded and they said, 'We're going to ignore you',
then I would be up in arms over it. But if you don't say anything, you have
no right to complain when things go south.
In your example, that's the prosecutor speaking to the judge, I agree that
situation would be outrageous -- if the defendant is sitting in the
courtroom! But by waiving appearences, you waive all rights. Maybe, just
maybe, if he had sent something in explaining 'I registered these and I'm
going to be putting up a page with my claims on it, etc...' then I'd agree
with him here.
Last point: I agree that XYZsucks.whatever should be freely available. But
the point where it should consider being taken away is when it gets
slanderous and libelous. 'XYZ puts dead babies in their product!' That's the
only time I see it's appropriate. If the claim can be substantiated, it is
neither slanderous nor libelous.
*
* RE:THEY REALLY WON BECAUSE OF NON-REPLY (SCORE:2)
by Misch ( 158807 ) writes:
Continuing on...
As no Response has been filed, there is little information relating to the
Respondent. The said domain names were registered in the name of Cupcake
Patrol and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary this Administrative
Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that this is a trading name of the
Respondent.
AND this guy is a cyber squatter too...
The Complainant submits that there have been at least five ICANN decisions
against the Respondent in which it has been found that he registered and used
domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to famous trademarks
in bad faith and without a legitimate business purpose viz. Hewlett-Packard
Company v. Cupcake City, NAF Case No. FA0002000093562; Encyclopedia
Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0330;
Hewlett-Packard Company v. John Zuccarini, NAF Case No. FA00040000994454;
Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Confidential, NAF Case No.
0003000094380 and Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, NAF Case No.
0003000094381.
*
* HANG ON A MINUTE... (SCORE:3)
by perky ( 106880 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @04:04PM (#659883)
Has anyone here actually read the submission, which I acknowledge was written
by Guiness Lawyers, but still tells the actual tale of this dispute.
Was this guy a cybersquatter or did he actually have a dispute with Guiness?
The Complainant submits that the Shields case is analogous to the facts at
hand in that the Respondent changed the content of his www sites from
commercial uses to purported "protest sites" after being served with a
complaint by the owner of the trademark that he was infringing.
Well that seems to say that he was using the perfectly correct argument that
a protest site is a valid reason to use a trademark as an excuse. lets keep
going.
The Court found that "the vast majority of Zuccarini's many websites are not
political fora but are merely vehicles for him to make money. . . .It strains
credulity to believe that he uses 99.9% of his domain names for profit but
reserves his Joe Cartoon domains for fair and lawful political speech."
"...the Respondent admitted that he "put up the protest pages . . . just
hours after being served with [the plaintiff's] complaint.""
So again it seems like this might actually be a reasonable case unlike some
of the shit that we have seen WIPO get away with.
The Court found that the Respondent was a wholesaler of Internet domain names
(defined as someone who acquires multiple domain names with the intent to
profit from them), who owns approximately 3000 domain names, and that many of
his sites featured advertisements for other sites and credit card companies
where "visitors were trapped or 'mousetrapped' in the sites, unable to exit
without clicking on a succession of ads."
So where does the geek stand? Does [s]he go with the eminently sensible
argument proposed by the defendant in this case, or do they listen to the
other side and realise that perhaps this is actually reasonable and the
possible cybersquatter is just hijacking a reasonable argument for nefarious
ends.
Have a look at the whole story before you post, and believe me, I don't think
that this is open and shut either way.
-Tom
Share
twitter facebook
*
* MAIN POINT -- HE DEFAULTED!!!! (SCORE:3)
by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) writes: on Tuesday October 31, 2000 @04:28PM
(#659893) Homepage
In general, if you don't respond to a complaint in a lawsuit, you lose by
default.
This is what happened here.
You may or may not agree with the rights of Guiness to the domain name, but
this person did not want to be heard on the facts.
WIPO had actually looked beyond the complaint, and did at least a minimal
analysis. In court, the judge would just issue a default and then just look
at damages.
Share
twitter facebook
*
* RE:BOYCOTT (SCORE:4)
by TheCarp ( 96830 ) writes: <sjc&carpanet,net> on Tuesday October 31, 2000
@05:02PM (#659904) Homepage
I disagree...
He had a problem with guiness beer - he has EVERY RIGHT to tell other people
what he thinks about it. If it hurts guiness - then too bad.
Free Speech is a right - profit is not. If someone causes you to lose money
because they are going around saying that your product sucks - then you
should have 2 choices:
1) make a better product
2) lose money
A consumer has every right (no matter what any law says) to tell other
consumers about products. As long as they do not lie - they have every right
to give their honest opinion.
He wasn't diluting their trademark - he was using their trademark in a
perfectly correct manner - he was using it to refer to THEIR PRODUCT.
> You boycotting Guiness isn't going to hurt the
> company
Boycotts of popular beer makers in the US back in the 80s got them to stop
funding the contras.
...and for the record... guiness DOES suck. I like my beers dark - almost
bread like. However I can't stand guiness - it just has this nasty flavor to
it - not that its bitter (I like bitter) its just nasty - I can't even
describe it. Maybe its the type of hops they use for dry hopping (I am
assuming it is dry hopped from the flavor)
-Steve
Share
twitter facebook
*
* POETIC JUSTICE (SCORE:3)
by s390 ( 33540 ) writes: on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @01:39AM (#659975)
Homepage
There's another story about this particular Internet-parasite here
[wired.com].
Share
twitter facebook
*
* THE GUY DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND (SCORE:3)
by OneElement ( 137580 ) writes: on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @03:50AM
(#659979)
I grant you that this is a sensitive case pitting freedom of speech against
commercial interest (which is not always the bogie man). But c'mon...the
respondent didn't even answer. He just wanted to throw a tantrum and get us
all shouting epithets against the Big Bad Corporation. It would have been a
far more difficult case, in my opinion, had he actually used a single "sucks"
site to detail all of the failings and problems of Guinness, then fought it
out on the grounds of freedom of thought and speech. But as it is, he just
registered sites, made a few snide comments, then didn't bother to write
anything for the record. Bad case, bad law. It's just too bad that this
tar-covered case will be precedent now.
Share
twitter facebook
*
*
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you
might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
RELATED LINKS TOP OF THE: DAY, WEEK, MONTH.
* 557 commentsFrozen Embryos Are 'Children,' According To Alabama's Supreme
Court
* 462 commentsTeenagers Have Bought 'Ghost Guns' Online, Sometimes with Deadly
Consequences
* 394 commentsIowa School District Is Using AI To Ban Books
* 365 commentsUS Supreme Court Rejects US Student Loan Relief. President Biden
Responds
* 362 commentsShould Public Buses Be Free?
NEXT
Mars May Be Dry After All
105 comments
PREVIOUS
XXL: Linux Is 17 Million Lines Of Code Big (nope)
183 comments
SLASHDOT TOP DEALS
Slashdot
Archived Discussion Moderate Moderator Help Delete
* Get 365 More Comments
* 100 of 465 loaded
* Submit Story
> You will be successful in your work.
* FAQ
* Story Archive
* Hall of Fame
* Advertising
* Terms
* Privacy Statement
* About
* Feedback
* Mobile View
* Blog
* Privacy Choices
* Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2024 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
YOUR PRIVACY CHOICES (DO NOT SELL/SHARE/TARGET)
Under some U.S. Privacy Laws, consumers have the right to opt-out of processing
of personal info for "targeted advertising," and activities that are classified
as "sale" and/or "sharing." To submit an opt-out request that will apply to
personal information collected by cookies and other tracking technologies
("cookie PI"), move the toggle below to the left and click "Confirm My Cookie PI
Choice."
We will apply the opt-out to cookies that may implicate "sale", "sharing," or
"targeted advertising." There are other cookies, such as essential cookies and
other cookies operated by "service providers" or "processors" to which we do not
apply the opt-out. You must exercise your preferences on each of our websites
you visit, from each browser you use, and on each device that you use. If you
clear or block cookies, your preferences will no longer be effective, and you
will need to enable them again via this tool. In addition, this tool only has
the capability of applying your opt-out to cookies.
To submit an opt-out request as to non-cookie PI (such as email address):
* If you are logged into your account, we will also apply your cookie PI
opt-out request to non-cookie PI such as email address. You do not need to
take further action to apply your opt-out to non-cookie PI.
* If you are not logged into an account, you must opt-out separately. Please
click on the "Non-Cookie PI Opt-Out" button below to access our webform.
For more information regarding our privacy practices, please visit our Privacy
Policy and U.S. State Privacy Policy.
To submit an information request or to request deletion, use this form.
NON-COOKIE PI OPT-OUT FORM
Opted-out Opted-in (default)
CONFIRM MY COOKIE-PI CHOICE
Close
Close
SLASHDOT
Working...