www.templeofthejediorder.com
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
27 Jul 2007 17:11 #4791
by
Replied by on topic Re:www.templeofthejediorder.com
Lizzy, you can take my word for this: I want peace.
Let's all take a step back and remember that I signed a contract that we had not issues and there could not be any lawsuits for anything that happened before June 22, 2007 in return for our .com.
The offer is still good.
Do not take my word for this. You're a business person ask an attorney so we don't have legal arguments with folks that do not understand the law.
My dark side wanted to say nothing, let a site go up at our .com and then it's a legal dream come true.
In a cybersquatting complaint we do not have to have our trademark registered ($350 ouch) but only prove that we used it in interstate commerce first and have been continuing to use it to render a service (imaging a church having a service - that's funny).
Yes someone owned the URL before but they abandoned it.
Gentle Readers, I'm not picking a fight and I'm not making threats. I cannot allow anything to come up on TEMPLEOFTHEJEDIORDER.COM and I can't imagine why ... Are you saying that you're members of The Order and this is to be a congregation of TOTJO?
I know Todd owns TempleOfTheJediForce.com.
Not a single post is lost and your site is coming back in a week anyway as Todd filed a counter-notice.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 1255 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1255
To protect consumers and promote electronic commerce by amending certain trademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 21, 1999
Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To protect consumers and promote electronic commerce by amending certain trademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that the unauthorized registration or use of trademarks as Internet domain names or other identifiers of online locations (commonly known as `cybersquatting')--
(1) results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of products and services;
(2) impairs electronic commerce, which is important to the economy of the United States; and
(3) deprives owners of trademarks of substantial revenues and consumer goodwill.
SEC. 3. TRADEMARK REMEDIES.
(a) RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS- Section 35 of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d)(1) In this subsection, the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).
`(2)(A) In a case involving the registration or use of an identifier described in subparagraph (
, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a)--
`(i) an award of statutory damages in the amount of--
`(I) not less than $1,000 or more than $100,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; or
`(II) if the court finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful, not less than $3,000 or more than $300,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; and
`(ii) full costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
`( An identifier referred to in subparagraph (A) is an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location that is--
`(i) the trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier; or
`(ii) sufficiently similar to a trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier as to be likely to--
`(I) cause confusion or mistake;
`(II) deceive; or
`(III) cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark.'.
(b) REMEDIES FOR DILUTION OF FAMOUS MARKS- Section 43(c)(2) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)) is amended by striking `35(a)' and inserting `35 (a) and (d)'.
So what Todd's doing will:
Cause a federal lawsuit;
Our attorney is free;
He has a federal judgment of at least $3,000.
GoDaddy can have the site back up in an hour if I withdraw the DMCA complaint.
JHP
Let's all take a step back and remember that I signed a contract that we had not issues and there could not be any lawsuits for anything that happened before June 22, 2007 in return for our .com.
The offer is still good.
Do not take my word for this. You're a business person ask an attorney so we don't have legal arguments with folks that do not understand the law.
My dark side wanted to say nothing, let a site go up at our .com and then it's a legal dream come true.
In a cybersquatting complaint we do not have to have our trademark registered ($350 ouch) but only prove that we used it in interstate commerce first and have been continuing to use it to render a service (imaging a church having a service - that's funny).
Yes someone owned the URL before but they abandoned it.
Gentle Readers, I'm not picking a fight and I'm not making threats. I cannot allow anything to come up on TEMPLEOFTHEJEDIORDER.COM and I can't imagine why ... Are you saying that you're members of The Order and this is to be a congregation of TOTJO?
I know Todd owns TempleOfTheJediForce.com.
Not a single post is lost and your site is coming back in a week anyway as Todd filed a counter-notice.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 1255 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1255
To protect consumers and promote electronic commerce by amending certain trademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 21, 1999
Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To protect consumers and promote electronic commerce by amending certain trademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that the unauthorized registration or use of trademarks as Internet domain names or other identifiers of online locations (commonly known as `cybersquatting')--
(1) results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of products and services;
(2) impairs electronic commerce, which is important to the economy of the United States; and
(3) deprives owners of trademarks of substantial revenues and consumer goodwill.
SEC. 3. TRADEMARK REMEDIES.
(a) RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS- Section 35 of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d)(1) In this subsection, the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).
`(2)(A) In a case involving the registration or use of an identifier described in subparagraph (
, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a)--`(i) an award of statutory damages in the amount of--
`(I) not less than $1,000 or more than $100,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; or
`(II) if the court finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful, not less than $3,000 or more than $300,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; and
`(ii) full costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
`(
An identifier referred to in subparagraph (A) is an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location that is--`(i) the trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier; or
`(ii) sufficiently similar to a trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier as to be likely to--
`(I) cause confusion or mistake;
`(II) deceive; or
`(III) cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark.'.
(b) REMEDIES FOR DILUTION OF FAMOUS MARKS- Section 43(c)(2) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)) is amended by striking `35(a)' and inserting `35 (a) and (d)'.
So what Todd's doing will:
Cause a federal lawsuit;
Our attorney is free;
He has a federal judgment of at least $3,000.
GoDaddy can have the site back up in an hour if I withdraw the DMCA complaint.
JHP
-
- Visitor
-
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
