Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Barbie Demands A Domain 241

Posted by jamie from the yet-another-trademark-dispute dept.
localman writes: "In an ongoing legacy of tormenting Web site owners, Mattel Inc. is threatening legal action against my wife and I for planning to make a non-business all-girl video game clan site entitled thebarbies.com. Apparently they have a long history of censoring people. I've put up a page about the dispute, but what else can an individual do against a corporation?" Write a story? Seriously -- this is a standard trademark domain dispute, it's happened many times and will continue to happen -- maybe someone should write an FAQ for legitimate domain holders who get The Letter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Barbie Demands A Domain More

Barbie Demands A Domain

Comments Filter:
  • www.thebarbies.god is sounding pretty good right about now eh? Time to see how .god's stand up? =)
    Bradford L.

  • Not quite as funny (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    as Andover.net's failed attempt to take over slashdot.net [slashdot.net].

    Oh wait, you never saw that on the front page, did you?
  • About that letter may I recommend you consider another registar?

    Pathetic attempt at a rhyme aside, I'd like to point out two things - first, different registar's have different policies. The .god domain, for example, says "first come, first serve".. and that is the registration policy. The second point is that "Barbie" and "The Barbies" are two distinct and seperate trademarks under US trademark law. This is why there can be "Engree Systems" and "Engreen Systems" and they can't sue each other. If you want to make maximum brownie points with the judge.. classify your trademark under another category that doesn't conflict with the existing Barbie trademark. I can register "Barbie Electronics" and they can't do a damn thing because it is a seperate category. Just my $0.02.

  • Ever hear of "Trademark Dilution"? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, if they DON'T sue, they will lose their ability to enforce the "Barbie" trademark. Result: millions of inferior Mexican dolls will flood the market, causing untold harm to consumers.

    They have to sue. Get over it. It's for the good of us all.

  • Bad choice of domain name on your part (Score:5)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @12:12PM (#1026234)
    I'm not saying that you choose a bad name for the clan; outside of web space, it's very hard to connect names and the like to trademarks (and I'd love to see anyone try to inforce that).

    However, nowadays, with trademarks entering the domain frey, a bit of research should have been done to find out what problems might have come from using that domain name. Your research would probably have pointed to the various mattle legal battles that you spotted already, and you may have wanted to change the name or done something different.

    Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.

    While I'm not sure that your joke content caused teh problem, you should also have a bit more on your page as it stands now as to avoid issues with cybersquatting. Explain that this will be a clan page for "Tribes", and also state that in no way the page is connected with the Barbie trademark or MAttle. That might have also calmed the lawyers and made your case stronger when ICANN reviews it.

  • Like your link at the bottom of the page, if this site were about something not related in any way with the Barbie, like barbecuing, I could be with ya. But come on, the Barbie has been around what, 50 or 60 years? So they'll have a good legal case against anyone who uses the name in relation to girly things.

    Think up a new word. Heck, invent one. I'll get ya started, how about theBrittneys.com. :)

  • Aqua (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sucky band, sucky music extraordinarie, but nevertheless, they won the case when Mattell took them to court, trying to 'ban' their Barbie girl song. Ofc. it's easier to threaten Joe Average to stop/remove something, than it is doing the same to a pop band with Sony or whoever behind it.
  • The way I understand it is the law protects the right to parody, but in this case a picture of an actual (although modified) Barbie doll. In addition the trademarked Barbie name is used. However, let us suppose someone took a picture of their child playing with a Barbie doll, posted the picture online with a comment stating what the image showed. Once again we have an actual picture online with use of the trademarked name in a situation where no one would consider the law to be broken. What we have here is a question of fair use, the Barbie I presume was properly paid for. I personally feel you are safe, but my opinion doesn't truly matter here. The real question is do you have both the means and the will to fight this. The nasty truth behind this and many other court cases that have received slashdot discussion in recent months is that a large corporation like Mattel can push and bully with little resistance from the man on the street. If (as seems the case) your wpp is prepared to fold under a little pressure their may be very little you can do about it apart from find a new hosting company. That said I was quite impressed that they wrote to you and asked instead of just taking the site down (which many seem to do these days).

  • This angers me greatly (Score:4)

    by Shaheen ( 313 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @12:15PM (#1026238) Homepage
    Okay, Slashdot has found a way to piss me off. The following domain name disputes have been covered on Slashdot (big idjut corporation vs. little community based site):

    eToys vs. eToys
    Digital Diva vs. Digital Divas
    Mattel vs. The Barbies

    However, the following domain dispute wasn't (even though to my knowledge, it was submitted many times to the Slashdot submission queue):

    Chunky Monkey [chunkymonkey.com] vs. ChunkyMunky [chunkymunky.com]

    ChunkyMunky gave up because a legal defense would have been way too expensive. But I have to wonder if a Slashdot editor had taken the 10 minutes it takes to post that story, the outcome might have been different.

  • Re:Ever hear of "Trademark Dilution"? (Score:5)

    by BlueUnderwear ( 73957 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @12:15PM (#1026239)
    You mean, the original barbie dolls are NOT made in some third world country sweatshop?
  • Why are you airing this on Slashdot? There should be a forum just for domain name disputes and the legal hassling over this. On a personal note I hope you win against Mattel but I don't give you much of a chance since they probably have millions to throw at this case.

    I would also make sure I read over the Domain Dispute Policy provided by ICANN before registering domains that are borderline legal messes.


    Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
    NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
    www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
  • I think they gave you some of the best advice in their correspondence with you, "we suggest that you have an attorney contact me on your behalf.
    "

    Really, a competant attorney will probably help MUCH more than a bunch of conjecture here.

  • Aqua (Score:1)

    by zrgn ( 169645 )
    If Aqua can write an entire song about barbie without getting into trouble, I don't see what's wrong with domain name for something that is totaly different. Mattel always seems to get her panties in a twist about nothing. :-)
  • On a side but related note, does anyone know what happened to that suit brought up against Aqua (the Denmark music band) by Mattel? Such information might be useful to other "victims" of the barbie company.

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

  • How about www.putanothershrimpon... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...thebarbie.com?
  • It's Deja Vu all over again. Remember when Archie Comics tried to shut down (and steal the domain) Veronica.org? ACP [archiecomics.com] backed down, but only after being nailed in the press [cnet.com] for trying to take a domain away from a toddler.

    The original /. story is here [slashdot.org]. The story generated over 1,300 letters to Archie Comics, causing them to back down. It'll take more than that to take Mattel on, I'm sure.

    Strangly enough, www.veronica.org [veronica.org] doesn't seem to be up anymore. Hmmm...black helicopters...

  • It's pretty obvious that the maker of "The Barbie's" is just trying to get some attention for his stupid little game by picking a fight with a large corporation. I mean, why the hell would anyone want to choose a name so close a trademark like that? What a loser.
  • Well, click on the link provided in this story and you'll see a link to "Aqua Triumphant in "Barbie Girl" Lawsuit"
  • Looks like you have a couple different options, like you can give up or you can fight it. Since you haven't given up yet, you should go ahead and do some other things.
    ----------
    1) Send emails to Wired.Com, NY Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post, and a bunch of other news agencies. Tell them what's going on, try not to use too many cuss words.

    2) Contact non-profits that protect personal freedom issues. See if they'd be willing to help yet with advice if nothing else.

    3) If it does turn into a trademark issue, there's some laws concerning fair use [cornell.edu]. Basically if you're using copyrighted materials in criticism, review, or parody, it's legal. So, start criticising. Although, you probably qualify as parady.

    - Good luck.
  • LOL!

    I hear they're coming out with a Chaty Kathy Lee sweatshop barbie"
    ___

  • "All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships." ..-George Bernard Shaw

    "Nothing's ever really changed. What difference does it make whether it's the Corporate state or the Nation state? In our struggle for freedom we still find ourselves fighting the state."
    -Jay Terpesta

    "The only corporate defense against rationality is bureaucracy." -Anon

  • You are entirely and utterly in the wrong. Trademarks need to be defended, as you probably know, or the owners risk losing them. Why should a company which has spent hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars building a trademark budge one inch when you or anyone else threatens to dilute it?

    If this were a parody site, I might be sympathetic, but this is a personal vanity site, and you will benefit from the "barbie" connection, in that you will be providing your visitors an ironic and memorable URL, which Mattel, and not you, imbued with the cultural and iconic associations that it has today.

    You are not being tormented, you are being reminded, rather politely, that you are diluting their trademark. As for claiming that your offer to sell the domain was merely a joke, I doubt it. Can you honestly say that if someone had sincerely met your price, that you would have declined?

    Further, your Australian colloquial argument is disingenuous to the extreme. Most of the world was unaware of the Oz slang until 1986, when Crocodile Dundee hit the cinemas. Even then, I would be willing to bet that the greater majority of people associate the word "barbie" with the Mattel product, and not with Paul Hogan.

    Remember that Linus adamantly defends "Linux," which he has not invested nearly as much energy building. What is fair for Linus is fair for Mattel.

  • You should have everyright to have this domain but a couple of noteable things here. 1. Mattel has to sue you to protect the trademark. They also have a chace of winning a good one. 2. This is a legal matter not a right vs. wrong matter, You need to get a lawyer promptly. 3.You should complete the construction of this website and what it was intended for. Redirecting it won't help much. Be prepared for the long ugly fight, Mattel will try to intimidate the company that hosts your webpage also. If decide not to hire a lawyer you better to be able to show them your judgement proof(you have no assests) and that you are prepared to spend all your spare time doing this because you have nothing better to do. I wish you luck and hope you win but realize that today in order to slay Goliath you don't do it with a sling, but the idea that your lawyer can beat up his lawyer.
  • That ignores the "dilution" problem. I don't think Mattel would have a hard time showing that "Barbie" is a famous mark (the kind of mark protected by dilution law). That's the kind of thing that keeps people from starting businesses that are like Coca-Cola brand porn. Even if nobody believes it is the same source as the soft drink, trust me, you get fried under dilution law.

    And registering the mark won't be easy either. If the trademark office doesn't kill it, you have to believe it will face one expensive opposition from Mattel.

    I have a hard time thinking that if the blond-haired dolls had never existed, that the web site's name would have been chosen to be what it is. Who do you think is supposed to be capturing the value of that name?

  • The holder of the domain should take heart from the speech Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations [goingware.com] which I quote from the Cluetrain Manifesto [cluetrain.com]

    I provide a link to the page from my homepage [goingware.com] named "words I live by".

    When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.

    As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well.

    I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.

    John J. Chapman
    Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

  • Last time I checked, Barbie wasn't exactly "intellectual" property.

    Besides, it's not theft if it is done as a parody, or in this case, using a derivative of the trademarked name in a totally different market.

    You could even make the "fair use" argument here..
    So, AC, what part of "superfluous lawsuit" don't you understand?


    _________________
    JavaScript Error: http://www.windows2000test.com/default.htm, line 91:
  • Oh my!
    I think it's pretty funny how the big, powerful, billion-dollar giant Mattel could be scared by something like thebarbies.com! Suppose this:
    1. thebarbies.com has nothing to do with the ugly stupid doll made by Mattel. Consequence: people visiting the site & hoping to find the ugly stupid doll gets depressed and go away. Mattel damaged? I don't think so.
    2. thebarbies.com is about the ugly stupid Mattel's doll. Consequence: the fame of the doll keeps spreading over the globe. Mattel damaged? Not really!!
    3. thebarbies.com is a site created to sell copies of the ugly stupid Mattel's doll at lower prices. Consequence: this is illegal, I presume. Mattel could proceed. (But who created that site is not so silly as to do these kind of things which mean only troubles for them!)

    I think that Mattel could spent its money in a better way, for example in creating better toys and prettier dolls.

    Greetings.
  • should begin with: So you too have been sued by Mattel.
  • No. She fakes it.

  • Access Logs... (Score:3)

    by Insanik ( 141027 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @12:45PM (#1026259)
    From http://tribesarena.com/thebarbies/:

    To give you an idea of how ridiculous their claim of "trademark dilusion" is, I have included our entire access log from April 16 2000 to May 31 2000. That's right, 4 unique visitors in 46 days, and that includes friends, family, and lawyers. Even if Mattel "wins", they will be getting a truly useless domain for which I can only imagine they are paying thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.

    I wonder what the logs are like now :) I they did not just make it a 'valuable' name now that it's on /.

  • Idiot (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This guy is an idiot.
     He buys these domains, and tries to sell them. Right, it was a joke...
    SQUATTER [networksolutions.com]
    This is not a case of good vs. evil...it is a case of a guy that takes trademarked words and creates lame excuses when caught selling them.
    Field, Jonathan (JF4991)
    un@UNPOSSIBLE.COM
    Binadopta
    3119 Lonee Court
    Concord, CA 94518
    510-825-8319
    HE IS NOT EVEN AUSTRALIAN!!!
    Let this one go guys, he isn't worth it. Next time, maybe it will be www.TheSlashDotters.com ...
  • .
    Ummm... you referenced a BBQ site in your correspondance with Mattel. Not that I'm a lawyer, but by placing a picture of a bunch of girls around a barbie (Austrialian for Barbeque grill, afaik), I imagine it would make your position appear much stronger.

    It would also fit in with the "Party Tribe for Girls" theme.

    And people, remember... there are some corporations [foxmovies.com] that recognize that fan sites and parody sites [timewarp.org] keep your fan base alive *way* past when you'd expect them to die. Not all corporations are evil.

    --
    Evan

  • Isn't the only reason the word Barbie is such a strong reference for women because of the poplularity of that stupid toy? Or maybe you're using the word Barbie as in the famous Nazi butcher? What are you planning on doing for HTML just lift it from the mattel site?

    Its one thing to have a legitimate trademark issue, its another to demand that so-and-so evil corporation is taking your rights, especially in a country where the trademark holder is obligated to defend every violation thats brought to its attention.

    Considering these facts, the best thing you could do is use a new non-sense word or simply words that aren't used by a big company who has had a history of defending their trademark.

    You're only setting yourself up for a fall and even if mattel didn't care, once its brought to their attention they have to do something about it. Blaming Mattel for the law isn't going to get you anywhere, well except slashdot.

  • Hi, I'm the fella being sued.

    Thanks for the advice - I will add some more informative content to thebarbies.com.

    According to the lawyer's letter, it is the joke page that triggered their interest. Apparently they don't have any claim unless we are seeking to profit from the domain, which we are not; under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125, where cases of dilution must establish "Blurring" and "Tarnishment".

    (4) "The following shall not be actionable under this section:
    (b) Noncommercial use of a mark.

    You are correct that perhaps we should have gone with .org instead, however Mattel is not a service provider yet they own barbie.net.

    I really believe that one should be able to name a hobby site whatever one likes, as long as there is no potential for customer confusion. The law seems to back this up. However, Mattel may win simply because I probably can't afford a lawyer - this is what upsets me.

  • Re:This angers me greatly (Score:3)

    by jamiemccarthy ( 4847 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:00PM (#1026266) Homepage Journal
    I wasn't aware of that domain dispute; its submission(s) presumably were rejected by someone else. (Readers often don't realize that Slashdot has something like a half-dozen editors and that any of us can reject a submission...so randomness does play a large factor.)

    I ran this Barbie story partly because Sunday is a slow news day and partly because I'm hoping someone really will have started an FAQ on domain-name disputes, or will be motivated to start one. The net could use one.

    For each of the disputes you name, there are many others we haven't run a story on. They're too numerous to list, which is part of the problem: the degree to which corporate trademark infringes on personal expression is being decided at this very moment by dozens of separate cases, and we nonlawyers are too disorganized to make a difference.

    Jamie McCarthy

  • Re:Ever hear of "Trademark Dilution"? (Score:3)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:03PM (#1026267) Homepage
    15 U.S.C. Section 1125(C)(4) states the following about cases of dilution: "The following shall not be actionable under this section: (b) Noncommercial use of a mark."

    Furthermore, trademarks (as I understand it IANAL) only apply in cases where I am causing customer confusion by either offering a similar product, or using their trademarked name as a common noun. We are doing neither of these things.

  • *sigh* (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    second point is that "Barbie" and "The Barbies" are two distinct and seperate trademarks under US trademark law.

    Sig11, you ever wonder why you bug people so much? It's when you make statement like this that is so ignorant and stupid. Let me sum it up for you: YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. But you state this as if it's a fact and it's complete bullshit. If you stated things in a little less overly positive manner, you would probably not get flamed as much.

    But on to your point: it's crap. I guarantee you that if I launched a company called "The International Business Machines", IBM would sue my ass and win before I knew what hit me.

    The key concept here is "marketplace confusion". If there is confusion created (as my l33t company name would obviously create), then there is a case.

  • Aqua wrote a song about Barbie. These people are calling themselves Barbie. The Barbies tribe has clearly (IMHO) named themselves after the doll from Mattel, and have adopted similar "little girlish" imagery. That's a trademark infraction.

    I'm allowed writing anything I like about Ford without stepping on theit trademark rights. But if I start painting Ford logos on Ladas and reselling them, I might get in trouble! This is a similar situation -- Mattel is just protecting Barbie's good name.

    /peter

  • So who thinks that this site just might end up on the "Adult" list in Mattel's censorware product?

  • The problem is that most people think everything on the web starts with www and ends with .com. If you want them to see your site, that's where it has to be.

  • Here's the solution. (Score:3)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:26PM (#1026282)
    "Our corporation [andover.net] can beat up your corporation!"

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • I'm allowed writing anything I like about Ford without stepping on theit trademark rights. But if I start painting Ford logos on Ladas and reselling them, I might get in trouble! This is a similar situation -- Mattel is just protecting Barbie's good name.

    Unforunately you forgot one point. This tribes clan isn't selling anything...

    -- iCEBaLM
  • Actually- Two companies can have similar names as long as they are not in the same or similar industries. I refer to the Linux laundry soap company as an example.
    -----
    If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.

  • Re:hmmmm... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Localman, This is too incredibly ironic - I had considered, as a spoof, creating a Half-Life CounterStrike team using the name "Barbie" about a month ago. A group of net-based friends and I have had a Quake "clan" for over 4 1/2 years (The Seven) and decided to experiment with CounterStrike, while goofing a bit at the same time. Being a net consultant though, I knew the possibility for legal entanglement might arise. I visited Mattel's home page, and _carefully_ read their legal section. Needless to say, their policies on the usage of the "Barbie" name is Draconian, to say the least. As one of buddies owns the ISP we use to host our team website(s), I didn't wish to get him in hot water, so we simply created another "goof" team name. ( www.battleground.net/cuddly ) I suppose on one hand, you must understand why Mattel wishes to protect their cash co..er, doll - Yet on the other, they are using their corporate largesse to frighten off the little guys. Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and Conan O'Brien can make parodies using such themes as "Streetwalker Barbie" while comfortably shielded by NBC's billions & legal department, yet a fan page, or a site such as yours, which obviously contains no effort to degrade the Barbie 'image' or sell a copycat product is ruthlessly crushed by Mattel's jack-booted legal department. Perhaps the S.W.A.T. Barbie with HK-MP5 tactical submachine gun, night vision goggles and rapid-deployment legal team doll is already in production. And all this, so little girls can spend a lifetime feeling insecure about their weight. scot@iot.net =o)
  • Jamie writes:
    (Readers often don't realize that Slashdot has something like a half-dozen editors and that any of us can reject a submission...so randomness does play a large factor.)
    Perhaps Slashdot needs a story-submission FAQ?
  • Next Mattel will sue every girl named Barbie.

    The name Barbie has been around longer than the doll. The doll was named after a girl.

    Mattel is know for bring abusive lawsuits.

  • Unforunately you forgot one point. This tribes clan isn't selling anything...

    Except the domain name, for $350,000. He claims that was a joke, but it looks like that's what caught Mattel's attention in the first place.

    You're right, though. If the site is non-commercial then Mattel's case is weaker.

    /peter

  • What bull! (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:40PM (#1026295) Homepage
    You mean that everyone that does not bend over to be screwed by a large corporation is just a loser trying to get attention?

    Ever hear of principals?

    You lose rights inches at a time. If you don't fight for your rights you lose them?

    In my case [sorehands.com] when a judge asked Mattel what was libelous, Mattel asked to dismiss their countersuit.

  • I'm not a lawyer, but the topic of dilution is complex. In the end, a case like this is going to turn on the ability to fight. Look at: Trademark Dilution Summary [bitlaw.com]:
    The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 expanded the scope of rights granted to famous and distinctive trademarks under the Lanham Act. Dilution differs from normal trademark infringement in that there is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion to protect a mark. Instead, all that is required is that use of a "famous" mark by a third party causes the dilution of the "distinctive quality" of the mark. Further clarification of the federal dilution cause of action is found in the following subsections:
    BUT
    However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use
    (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.
    (emphasis added)

  • Mattel being abusive? (Score:4)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:46PM (#1026299) Homepage
    Mattel file an abusive lawsuit? Say it ain't so.

    Watch out, if you say anything negative about Mattel, they may sue you too.

  • Why is this moderated up so high? It is basically wrong.

    I'm not saying that you choose a bad name for the clan;

    fact is, they chose the name "barbie" because they are trying to associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company. How would Slashdotters like it if someone set up a "linux" site devoted to Microsoft Windows? Should anyone be allowed to "redefine" what trademarks mean, may the richest man win? If you answer this question "yes," great, go tell your congressman. Because trademark law says you can't.

    outside of web space, it's very hard to connect names and the like to trademarks (and I'd love to see anyone try to inforce that).

    This sentence is something less than understandable it is so inarticulate. However, trademark enforcement outside of web space goes back a long time. If anything, trademark enforcement on the web is less than in meatspace because there are some unique issues: TLDs do not map to trademark international classes, and the registry/"phone number" nature of DNS is not exactly like meatspace naming.

    Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.

    it would have made no difference to Mattel. And if it's your personal nit, why are you even posting to a profit-making .org?

    you should also have a bit more on your page as it stands now as to avoid issues with cybersquatting. Explain that this will be a clan page for "Tribes", and also state that in no way the page is connected with the Barbie trademark or MAttle. That might have also calmed the lawyers and made your case stronger when ICANN reviews it.

    That will barely make the defense stronger. You can't sell soda named Coca Cola and write on the can, "this is not real Coca Cola".

    ----

  • Explain this one... (Score:5)

    by Rilke ( 12096 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @01:53PM (#1026304)
    Let's see if I've got the SlashDot view on trademark correct.

    The DigitalDivas should be able to stop Microsoft from using the term Digital Diva, even though their usage is very different, it's a fairly generic term, and virtually nobody thought that 'Digital Diva' was a reference to the prior group.

    But Mattel is evil for objecting to the use of "TheBarbies" to refer to an online group for young girls, even though the reference to the doll is obvious to everybody.

    C'mon, get real. It's simple theft of trademark. This guy's using the popularity of the Barbie doll to push his own .com site, nobody here seriously thinks the name was just accidental, do they?

    Had TheBarbies.com been a site about barbecuing, then he'd have a point, but this is simple trademark theft. The nature of the original trademark has a direct connection to the new business.

    If I bought www.quake.com to create a site about earthquakes, that's my right. But if I put up a gaming site, id software has every right to object to the theft of their trademarked name. And that's the way it should be.
  • Why don't you and all the others reading this article who disagree with this (bullsh*t) lawsuit do what I intend to do? Write to the powers that be at Mattel.

    Robert Eckart
    Matthew Bousquette
    Pleasant T. Rowland
    Kevin Farr
    Neil Friedman


    Mattel Inc.
    333 Continental Blvd.
    El Segundo CA
    90245
  • Read the letters posted at that site!

    The ChunkyMunky boyz are a bunch of jerks, looks like to me. It says the woman who owns the "Chunky Monkey" trademark agreed to not stand in their way! She had no objection to them using their domain for non-profit purposes along the lines of what they were currently doing. But they refused to go along with it and posted their bitter bile instead. I don't get it.

    ----

  • With what company does the laundry soap share a name, exactly?

  • Re:Ever hear of "Trademark Dilution"? (Score:5)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @02:26PM (#1026317)

    Who moderated this drivel up? A few facts for your edification:

    1) Trademarks are valid only within certain well-defined areas - in other words, to conflict, the use of a trademark has to refer to something in the same or similar line of business.

    2) The guy in this case is using it non-commercially. That exempts him from any claims upon his use of that trademark. In other words, if I'm not making any money out of it, I can call my webpage "Microsoft" or "IBM" or "Apple" and nobody can touch me.

    3) Who says that the Barbie dolls on the market at the moment weren't made in Mexico? (Actually, they probably weren't - they're almost certainly made in China.)
  • fact is, they chose the name "barbie" because they are trying to associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company.

    Please, feel free to explain. Because I've looked over this story ten times and I have no idea whatsoever as to how these people are trying to "associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company."

    How would Slashdotters like it if someone set up a "linux" site devoted to Microsoft Windows?

    I'd imagine most of us would be pretty pissed off. But does this give us the right to censor them? Hardly. Free speech can be a pain sometimes, but it's the only fair way.

    Should anyone be allowed to "redefine" what trademarks mean, may the richest man win?

    Certainly not. But corporations try to do this all the time; witness the E-Toys vs. etoy fight.

    You can't sell soda named Coca Cola and write on the can, "this is not real Coca Cola".

    No. You could, however, make a drink called "NotCoke" or something along those lines.

    Incidentally, look at the end of any television show made by Worldvision. I'm not sure if they make anything anymore, but there's still quite a bit of their stuff in syndication. Anyway, they do a little thing on the end of all their shows. Take a look at the text on the bottom of the screen. It starts something like "Worldvision is not affiliated with World Vision International..." Just something to think about, since this is obviously legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it; either they simply would never have tried or they'd have been sued and stopped by the other World Vision (or, conversely, they'd have sued the other World Vision and forced them to change names).

    And before you say "but Worldvision and World Vision are clearly different..." note that Mattel has never made any product whatsoever that they called "The Barbies."

  • it would have made no difference to Mattel. And if it's your personal nit, why are you even posting to a profit-making .org?

    Well, /. started out as a non-profit .org and therefore were right in using the domain name slashdot.org. Now that they are making money they are also using a .com; slashdot.com. Which you can use to get to this site.

    forgey

  • A little refresher on trademark law (Score:3)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @02:31PM (#1026320) Homepage
    It amazes me how few rights people think they have. IANAL, but the following seems obvious when reading trademark law.

    It actually legal for you to start a company whose name included the word "barbie" as long as:

    1. the goods and services involved are not similar
    2. there is no evidence of actual confusion by consumers
    3. the intent in adopting its mark is not detrimental to the company
    There are other issues too, but those three are enough to make it clear that Mattel owning a trademark does _NOT_ remove a pre-existing word from the language.

    Furthermore, in this case: dilution does not apply to non-commercial use. The law seems to support that you have the right to use the word "barbie" (or other trademarked words) for your own non-commercial reasons.

    Hopefully this goes before a court of law - instead of the corporation getting what they want because most people won't or can't make it there.

  • ...maybe someone should write an FAQ...

    Dunno about a FAQ, but there's a mailing list/lobbying group at Ajax.org [ajax.org]. Good luck.
  • Why is this moderated up so high? It is basically wrong. We could apply the same question to sillysally.

    Exactly where does using slashdot.org make proper use of TLDs suddenly so wrong?

    Using .net .org. .com .edu properly is a great idea regardless of what sites you post to. Trying to create hypocrisy where there is none isn't very convincing even when you ignore that slashdot now owns both .org and .com and it started as a non-profit.

    Its also fitting to mention the grammer of the original poster when your post is little more than a collection of rhetorical questions and run on sentances. If you think the OP was inarticulate you should re-read your own posts.

    How about commenting on the issue instead of the poster and the moderators for a change.

  • Also, Slashdot never mentioned a word about how slashdot.com has magically started pointing to Slashdot, when it didn't before.

    --

  • Individuals can do plenty (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...what else can an individual do against a corporation?

    Ever heard of McLibel [mcspotlight.org]? McDonald's tried to silence several protestors using British libel law, which as many of you know is weighted almost entirely in the plaintiff's favor. Most of them knuckled under, but two of them went to court. The case took years, but McDonald's eventually won a judgment.

    But, many of the points that the protestors had been making -- in pamphlets seen by a few hundred people -- had now been proven in a court case watched by millions. McDonald's lost big in the court of public opinion -- so big that, when the defendants refused to pay the judgment, McDonald's did not pursue the matter.

    Corporations don't threaten or sue because they have a solid case -- they do it because they know most people will be scared off without a fight. They've read their Sun Tzu -- Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

  • Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.


    The official Internic policy is that ANYONE can register .com, .net. or .org domains.

    In fact, Slashdot is clearly a money-making venture for VA/Andover. Should they change to Slashdot.com?
  • Quite similar (so this post is kind'a redundant, I guess)... Try telling people "gard.scriba.org" and when they read it back to me to make sure they spelled it right, they tell me "www.gard.scriba.org.com" AGH!!!

    I received in an eZine about web promotion, and article about "is your domain safe?" - and they mentioned that... well... you can't do much about the "http://www" bit, and you can't do anything about the ".com" bit... but what's in between... AAARRGGGHHH!!!

    Interestingly, this seems to be a problem only in the US. Everywhere else in the world, people are aware of other TLDs than .com. In Canada, for example, people are used to .ca domains, so they don't see ".com" as the only TLD, and therefore grasp the concept of ".org", ".net" and so forth.

    If it hadn't been for the international audience (myself included) of Slasdot, I'd suggest that slashdot moved to a ".us" domain, so that people who don't grasp the concept don't get to the site. Imagine... http://slashdot.holland.mi.us/ :^)

  • If, tomorrow, all domain names databases were erased, and NCI and other registars started reaccepting applications, WITH the stipulation that .coms were commercial and for-profit, .net were for network connectivity/ISP, and .org for non-profit, then yes, slashdot.org should. However, back when /. started, it was truly an org, but since then things have changed. The pollution of the TLD namespace is very deep; repairing *maybe* but over several years, but it's better not to try to contribute to the mess and stick with the best name possible for your site (and to strongly encourage the addition of 3 or 4 additional TLDs that adquetely describe something like /., a for-profit organization that sells nothing.
  • First, I just want to observe that people on both sides are -way- oversimplifying the case. On the one hand, it is a simple variant of a toy trademark on a site that is going to be about a game. On the other hand, Barbie -is- (or was, upon a time) a nickname for Barbara and saying you can't name any character 'Barbie' anymore is a little extreme - -and- it is a non-profit site. So. Whatever. Both sides have points, and this is nowhere near as obvious a case as etoy/eToys. As a non-lawyer I won't even speculate who has the better chance (though I'm inclined to side with the 'thebarbies' guy.)

    Beyond my idle observations, my actual constructive suggestion is that a general appeal to slashdotters that a faq would be nice is all very well, but creating some sort of advice center on this topic seems extremely well suited to the recently formed OpenLAW group, if they can spare time away from the DVD issue (or if those not interested in the DVD issue wanted to work in parallel on a different subject... volunteerism is about interest not allocating 'workers' as we are reminded in every 'is this the best use of programmers?' thread on the various open-source-software topics).

    Of course, it would be foolish to ignore the already existing efforts at ajax.org, and then there's my favorite organization, the EFF; but all in all, I think OpenLAW (maybe working with ajax.org's domanin name advocacy group) is the way to go on this particular issue, if anyone with OpenLAW is motivated by this case or ones like it.


    --Parity
  • Getting a trademark is now a simple process. You can apply for one online. [uspto.gov] The price is only $325. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office accepts credit cards online. If you need to submit a graphic, you can submit GIFs and JPEGs online too. You no longer have to submit a "drawing" for a text trademark. And it's hard to get an online filing wrong; the site server has good checking.

    You do have to show a "use in commmerce", but the requirements for that are fairly minimal. Read the Nolo Press [nolo.com] book on trademarks for the rules. A banner ad or an affiliate link to something probably qualifies, as long as there's potential income.

    Even if your trademark application is rejected for the "principal register", which means you can keep others from using it, you can usually then file to put it on the "secondary register", which means nobody can keep you from using it. You still get to use "tm", and it's a trademark for ICANN domain dispute purposes. [icann.org]

  • Re:Bad choice of domain name on your part (Score:3)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @04:49PM (#1026361)
    Regarding trademarks and webspace: Go to an IRC network. Go to a Q3/UT/HL game browser. Go to ICQ or any other instant messaging thing. If I was really anal I could go along and find thousands if not more 'abuses' of trademark, but it could be very hard to proof such was intended. First, the names are dynamic -- they only exist for hours at a time. Secondly, someone might use a name like "Sun", which one might argue as a trademark violation of Sun Systems, but without further examples of the use of the name "Sun", there's no intent for trademark infringement, especially since it's an english word. However, with webspace, there are generally pages attached to the trademark name in question, and intent can be conveyed easily (particularly in this case; the guy had posted joke pages on selling the domain). There's a big difference in these two areas.

    As for the TLD issue; /. *was* an .org to start, but as they moved on, they've become more of a .com (though they sell no product; there needs to be another TLD for this type of service). As /. was established, I would not ask them to change their name. But someone registering a domain in this day and age should try avoid polluting the namespace mess further.

    IIRC, trademark law defines 17 or so different types of businesses; within a given judisidiction, you can have one business of each type using the same name, since it's hard to compare "Mike's Hardware" with "Mike's Flowers" and "Mike's Food Store". The internet makes this part harder as the judistiction is the entire nation; so far, I've not seen any strong cases dealing with such issues and if anything, we're mostly talking small businesses and first come, first served in their domain names. I had a friend with a domain name, which for purposes of anomyosity, I'll call "XYZ Multimedia" - which was exactly how you read; he was into video editing, audio editing, and web page design. Another company, "XYZ Networks" came along and asked him to *NOT* give up the name, but to instead at least place a link predominately on the main page to indicate that his page was not associated with XYZ Networks. Those two companies are in different businesses, so the two businesses could theorhetically interact without trademakr confliction. However, this was about 4 years ago; in today's world of trademark names, I would how the second company would have acted.

    We need a major legal ruling on trademarks; not out of ICANN's, but from something like the Supreme Court. Trademarks are important, but they should not be as predominate on the net, and loosen the control that copyright owners have. As it stands, the cybersquatting law has yet to be used unfairly but the wording is vague enough that something will be coming soon that will challenge it, at least terms like "in good faith" and such.

  • On a positive note, you may recall the bitter and expensive lawsuit over Aqua's c. 1997 pop song "Barbie Girl" Mattel actually wanted the song removed from the album Aquarium. I don't know the details, but in that case Aqua and the record label won. (But I am pretty sure at one point during the case CD single copies of the song were withdrawn pending further progress of the case.) Of course, you probably don't have the perhaps millions of dollars the huge record company may have spent to win that one! Too bad Klaus Barbi died before Mattel could sue him! :) TWR
  • Am I the only one a wee bit suspicious about this? Sounds to me like he thought he could get them to rollover for a big wad and is now trying to re-direct the damage. If you're going to take a name which includes a name that's heavily trademarked and protected you're asking for it. Even if this is all true where do you think his wife got the idea for "Mondo Barbie"? From Barbie her hairdresser or Barbie the dolls they all played with when they were kids?

    Maybe I'm just too cynical.... nah.
  • Please read my letters at my own site here [pimpin.net]. You will see what that woman is trying to do. After I got the company to the point where they saw they would lose, they decided to send the site that letter stating that "we will *allow you* to use the domain". The point is - it was never hers to allow CM to use it.

    I should have included that link in my original post as well. Sorry that the whole story isn't told on CM's front page.
  • Do you believe that a non-profit organization that sells T-shirts is a commercial organization? It's the same deal really. ChunkyMunky uses the money (as far as I know - I'm not the owner or anything) for its hosting service. I know that the owner of the site does not use it as a profit in any way.
  • If you look at my site [pimpin.net], you'll see that Chunkey Monkey licenses the name of their company/character to Ben and Jerry's to use as their ice-cream flavor.

    So, no dice there :(
  • 1 "an initial confusion on the part of web browsers using the [incorrect] domain name ... is not cognizable under the trademark laws"
    2 "unlike a patent or copyright, a trademark does not confer on its owner any rights in gross or at large"
    3 "The use of an Internet domain name as a mere directional reference, similar to use of a telephone number or business address ... is not use of the name as a source identifier" and therefore not considered as trademark use by the PTO.
    quoted from Timemag [timemag.com]
  • If you don't want to read about it, then don't. Are you just a Mattel shill? Are you hired to tell people to shut up, when Mattel can't scare them?

    This case is another example of Mattel's abuse. Once Mattel stops acting like this, then I don't need to fight! But until then, I will keep fighting and try to get everyone together to coordinate the fight.

  • It's all how you look at it. (Score:3)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Sunday June 04, 2000 @06:18PM (#1026378)
    See, it is our corp, in a round-about sort of way. We view slashdot in large numbers, and generally in mass quantities. This produces a croud which produces an advertising market for Andover/Slashdot (And whatever company baught Andover - wasn't there one? - I forget). They then have advertisers place adds on their site. (Basically) Andover gets money for having the ads on their site, which woudln't be there without us - the customers. A corporation isn't a corporation without customers.

    Or something like that. If we ceased to exist, so would Slashdot. (Andover even? Who knows.) My point was, anyway, that the /. community could possibly do something about it.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • So, if my name was Barbie, it would be illegal for me to use it? Please explain. Oh, yes, of course, the name is trademarked, which essentially means that there is only one Barbie allowed on the web - a plastic doll worth billions of dollars. All other instances of Barbie are invalid, even punishable. Even if my name is Barbie and I put my resume on that page, or a picture of my dog.

    Tell me this isn't crazy.

    Probelm is, these large corporations have colonized and are now in the process of domesticating the Internet. It's a huge digital shopping mall they want, and it is a huge digital shopping mall they will get - be it by hook, crook, or legal team.

    If my name is Jim McDonalds and I registered mcdonalds.com back in 1994, why should it be determined that I must give up my domain name to a corporation? Or, in the case of thebarbies.com, simply hand it over? (By the way, I don't know who the first McDonalds was, or if he/she were engaged in cybersquatting, or if the name was registered, I simply use this as another obvious example).

    Problem is, when the rule changed and business was allowed to populate the Internet, there were no parameters in place to prevent this kind of nonsense. If I register Sears.com because my name is Hans Sears, and I did this before Sears the corporation, and my site has nothing to do with Sears the corporation, well then I should be able to keep that name. It is completely irrelevant if somebody ends up on my website believing they are going to Sears.com the retail corporation. It is up to the consumer to find Sears the corporation on the Web. That's what search engines are for.

  • I really believe that one should be able to name a hobby site whatever one likes, as long as there is no potential for customer confusion. The law seems to back this up. However, Mattel may win simply because I probably can't afford a lawyer - this is what upsets me.

    Well, you can't really present yourself as a comercial entity (by using the .comercial TLD), and then complain about the "big bad corporation" coming at you with their lawyers for trademark infringement. You forced their hand by not using the proper TLD, if they don't go after you, they could lose their trademark.

    This is crying wolf. There are real abuses by corporations happening, this isn't one of them.
    Cheers,

    Rick Kirkland
  • Explain how the reference to thebarbies "obviously" is a reference to the doll?????

    From the description provided:
    a non-business all-girl video game clan site,
    and the graphics on the site itself are highly suggestive of the Barbie doll image.

    This is pretty clearcut trademark infringement. Nobody's fooled by it. And, more importantly to Mattel, there is a great chance of erroneous attribution. At a quick glance, I had no idea if that was a Mattel site. It looked like it might be.

    I'm not going to defend the digitaldivas theft of trademark, but Microsoft didn't build on the audience that the original divas had, they just stole the name. The grand majority of MS's audience had never heard of the divas. Frankly, I've only barely heard of them.

    TheBarbies site though is clearly using the name of Barbie as a eye-catcher. Virtually every young girl who comes to the site (and that's their intended audience) will think of the Barbie doll. It's set up that way. That may sound harmless to you, but it's illegal.

  • The TLD system is a joke at this point. It's probably misused more than it's used properly. Corps buy up their trademarks under the .org TLD even though those couldn't infringe because they are non-profit. They also tend to buy up the .net domains as well. Of the TLDs we have, only .edu is usually used properly. The rest are basically fair game for anyone.

  • About that letter may I recommend you consider another registar?
    This is not necessary, nor will it help in any way.

    ICANN has long since adopted a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy [icann.org], which is adhered to by all ICANN-accredited registrars. The policy is quite fair to you. There is no danger of Mattel bullying you or ICANN into giving up your domain name, simply because: ICANN (or a registrar) will not transfer/cancel a domain name unless it receives a court order or your written approval (as part of a settlement or whatever). In rare cases (such as cybersquatting or cyberpiracy), ICANN could cancel/transfer the domain name on advice from a neutral Administrative Panel, but only after the complainant shows that you have violated all three of their stringent criteria (see the link for more details). It is quite clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to ICANN.

    It is also clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to court. You are clearly protected under the "non-commercial use" clause. This itself should save your goat. On top of it, the trademark dilution claim is tenuous at best. I would bet that a court will throw out the claim that "The Barbies" sounds confusingly similar to "Barbie" so much so that it dilutes their trademark. Alas, I have no money to offer on the bet, though. If you can live through a suit (if Mattel brings one against you), you will have achieved sweet victory.

    On my part, I am writing to Mattel to complain.

    By the way, IANAL.

    Sreeram.
    ----------------------------------
    Observation is the essence of art.

  • Out of curiosity, what led you to choose the name for the site as a gaming site for women except for the association created by the Barbie toy line? I've never heard of Barbies as a description for anything other than Mattel's toys and Australian barbeque grills.
  • That is what I have been saying. Not only do you have to fight for your battle, but for others!

    Every time the little guy wins, it encourages others to fight for their rights!

  • They own a trademark for a lifelike rubber doll called "Barbie".

    I know this is offtopic, but ... damn , what are you smoking? LIFELIKE? Sure.


    The Slashdot Sig Virus
    Hey, baby, infect me [3rdrockwarez.com]!
  • The public's opinion often has a lot more sway than a corporation's influence. Take for instance MS. If (or when) ppl started to migrate to linux, it would have more of an effect than the current legal battle is on their power realm.

    And the slashdot effect can be devistating.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • I think somebody should put up the "barbievote.com" web site. It would be one page which posed the following question with counters for each of the answers:

    What do you think the term "Barbie Doll" most likely refers to:

    1. An air-headed good looking blonde.

    2. A image designed to repress women.

    3. A plastic doll.

    Needless to say, it shouldn't accept more than one vote from the same IP address....

    It would be really interesting to see what Mattel's lawyers would do with such a site (especially if it had been up long enough to collect a lot of votes :-).
  • Barbie is a girls name.
    Matels clame to the name should be restricted to Matels action figure type doll.

    This dilution would effect Matels ability to create a Barbie first person shoter... Something that isn't likely to happen any time soon.

    If Matels doll was named "Lora" then the group might be included to call themselfs "The Loras" or they may stuble accrost the name at random.

    Or if Matel had named the doll "Sue" there are a number of soungs they could be suing. "A guy named sue" is one song that comes to mind.

    The dilution exists becouse the name predates Matels product as the name of a person. Not in incredably commen name however that may be a matter of parents not wanting there children to be confused with a plastic toy.

    Again... Matel should own the names rights compared to the product they allready make.

    Also Trademark dose not give them ownership of the name like copyrights and patents.
    The trademark only grants controll.
    I can not use the name "Barbie" to produce my own action figures (in the United States, Mexico or the Moon.. it makes no diffrence.. I can not call it Barbie anyplace that recognises the trademark).

    But "TheBarbies" are refering to the doll.. This is allowed... or they are refering to the fact that it's a girls name... also allowed due to pre-existing delusion.

    Trade Mark dose not grant the right to control the context the name is used. Only what the name refers to. That is allready weak due to the fact that it is a girls name....

    It is true they must fight dilution as they can not turn back the clock and undo the damage once it is done.
    However... the damage was done... and turnning back the clock is exactly what they are trying to do.
    The use of the name in this way dose not violate the trademark. It may strigthen it..... But the trademark holder would rather build up to a day when they can sue parents for naming there kids Barbie...

  • The .god domain, for example, says "first come, first serve".. and that is the registration policy.

    bash$ host -t ns god.
    god does not exist, try again
  • Heh, well computers don't have souls you know:

    *** mwwdnssvr1.mww.bt.com can't find god: Non-existent domain

    Maybe i have a Buddhist computer...
  • Actually, FWIW, Andover also has registered Slashdot.com for this site as well. I didn't realize it but Andover has had the name registered since April 11. (As a quick whois check will certainly reveal).

    Slashdot sells nothing? Hmmm...well, consider that Andover owns ThinkGeek, whose banner ads frequently adorn Slashdot's pages. And they sell stuff.
  • At first glance I'd have to say, making a web site named "TheBarbies.com" is a blatent and obvious infringement. It is arguable whether TheBarbies.com is in a different market and thus not applicable to trademark infringement. However, I can see TheBarbies.com leading to confusion and dilution with Mattel's Barbie computer games, and if it ever wanted to put up Barbie sites.
  • like this? www.slashdot.com [slashdot.com]

    errr... your point again?

  • It is a name commonly associated with too-perfect-looking, bubble-headded blonde dingbats, (thanks to Mattel's, success). The term "barbie-doll" is part of the national zeitgeist, and humorous references of this sort are very common. If Mattel had not made such an idiosyncratic toy, it might not have become a shorthand term for shallow femininity.

    (Barbie is designed to be obsessed with fashion, sunbathing, and other pursuits that feminists hate seeing little girls socialized to. There has never been a "Hacker Barbie" or a "CPA Barbie" or a "Firefighting Barbie"... but there have been dozens of iterations of Barbie as a fashion model. Among the phrases programmed into the first Talking Barbie were "Math is hard!" and "Let's go shopping!", which led to a very funny episode of the Simpsons.

    That reminds me of a joke... Have you heard of the new Divorce Barbie doll? She's the same as the regular barbie, except she has all of Ken's stuff.

  • One piece of advice that nobody seems to be giving you is this.

    Take a fist full of twenties out of your wallet, and hire a lawer to sit down and consult with you on the issue. Find out exactly what your rights are, how much the dispute is likely to cost, and whether you want to bother going to bat over something as trivial as a clan name.

    Then at least you will know about the situation, and Knowing Is Half The Battle (tm).

  • The DigitalDivas should be able to stop Microsoft from using the term Digital Diva, even though their usage is very different, it's a fairly generic term, and virtually nobody thought that 'Digital Diva' was a reference to the prior group.

    How are the two usages "very different"?

    www.digitaldivas.com is a site made for (in their terms) "digital divas"; women who work in computer/Internet-based industries.

    www.digitaldiva.com is a site for a woman, referring to herself as a "digital diva", who gives advice to other women who are in (or are interested in) computer/Internet-based industries.

    You're one keystroke away from two sites with similar content. If I wasn't sure if I wanted "digitaldiva" or "digitaldivas", but I knew I wanted the one that dealt with women and tech careers, which is the "right" one? (In fact, while typing this I checked both sites to make sure I didn't mix the two up. But no, MS intended no confusion there at all...)

    But Mattel is evil for objecting to the use of "TheBarbies" to refer to an online group for young girls, even though the reference to the doll is obvious to everybody.

    I'm not going to type "thebarbies" if I'm looking for the doll, and I'm not going to mis-type "barbie" and get the TheBarbies site.

    And, when I get to TheBarbies, it's going to be rather obvious that it's not the site for the doll. No trademarked "Barbie pink" color, no Barbie logo, no images of the doll.

    nobody here seriously thinks the name was just accidental, do they?

    No, I suspect that he picked the name quite on purpose. But your assertion that the purpose was to steal business away from Mattel is ludicrous.

    Had TheBarbies.com been a site about barbecuing, then he'd have a point, but this is simple trademark theft. The nature of the original trademark has a direct connection to the new business.

    Except that TheBarbies is not a business! It's a gaming fan site for an all-female gaming clan. (Actually, to be pedantic, it's a page that says "A Super Fun Party Tribe" and "OMG, like, it's coming soon!"; there's no "there" there yet.)

    They're not selling anything, and even though it's got little flowers and something resembling a shade of pink for the background -- again, not the trademarked "Barbie pink" -- doesn't mean TheBarbies is trying to create confusion to draw young girls to their site instead of Mattel's.

    Jay (=
  • I never said it was harmless, I said the poster may deem it harmless.

    Whether it is or is not harmless is up to Mattel, just as it is Linus' decision as to what usages of the trademark "Linux" within the computer industry are harmless or not.

    Mattel doesn't get to decide whether it is trademark infringement or not, but it does get to decide when the infringement is great enough to be harmful. If I start calling another operating system "Linux", it's up to Linus to decide when to stop me.

    And I have no problem with that.
  • Just because everyone is out to get me does not mean that I can't be paranoid too.

    But seriously, the intent is not to piss everyone off. I am trying to make sure that when people think of Mattel's abuses, they think of my site. That they know the url, like most people know yahoo or /..

    If I can coordinate the Mattel litgation, we (other people being abused by Mattel) can use other rulings against Mattel in our cases.

    By sharing information, individuals can be stronger than an individual corporation. That if there is a ruling against a corporation, that ruling may be used against them by everyone. But that's only if you find out about it.

    If a jury, when assesing punitive damages, know how much of a practice this has become for a company, will assess large amounts of damages. This might stop them from continuing.

  • I think you have a point somewhere...

    I know what I think of all this. There was a show on telly in the UK here last night that even my landlord understood *why* I think domain-name 'trading' is immoral. When it comes to stealing e.g. David Beckenham's name from him to make money by selling it back - piss off. If you have no right or reasonable claim to the name, get lost.

    As another corollary, if all you have to sell is your *name*, do the gene pool a favour and get off the planet - please? Be widget.co.uk by all means if you're a commercial seller of widgets in the UK, but don't be a mynamehere.com if you're not a world-wide commercial distributor of mynameheres, OK?
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
  • >an absolutely colossal mountain of personal integrity

    Well shit! That's about the best thing anyone has ever said about me (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic).

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close