Holly smokes have you seen this?

BoidKeeper · 04-02-04, 06:04 PM

I found this on the Canadian BOI. KS Lawsuite
Also on interesting post about a maritimer.
Cheers,
Trevor

Cruciform · 04-02-04, 06:37 PM

Yeah, that post has been up for a little while.

Since ************** is just a subsite of the Hobbyist network, I find it highly doubtful that they have a trademark registered for the domain name.

They'd probably have a heck of a time getting one as well, because it's a name already in the public domain. So any claims of trademark dilution are pointless.

All this really does is make them look stupid in my opinion. If someone else wants to use kingsnakes.com and make a forum about snakes, well duh.

crazykeeper · 04-02-04, 06:54 PM

That has been on their site for some time now.

mykee · 04-02-04, 07:23 PM

I think that rich is in the wrong, knowing full-well that the name already carries a certain amount of clout in the community. Just adding an "s" doesn't absolve legal responsibility, at the very least it's deceitful, ignorant and just plain dirty. I wait with baited breath to see the outcome of this one.

Cruciform · 04-02-04, 07:36 PM

Seeing as the kingsnakes.com forum site is dedicated to exactly that, there's no deceit there.

Using a generic term does not give other site a monopoly on the name. It's no different than one person choosing monstertruck.com and another choosing monstertrucks.com.

Now if you were the owner of the Bigfoot monster truck, and registered BigfootTruck.com (based on your trademark) and someone registered BigfootTrucks.com in order to ride on your trademark that's an issue.

If adding S is deceitful and ignorant then this site would be in trouble too. People need to get it through their heads that just because you paid 10 dollars for a domain name doesn't mean you own that word.

mykee · 04-02-04, 08:17 PM

Cruciform, I see your point, but look at it this way, does the work that the kingsnake name done to become the pre-eminant reptile site on the internet mean nothing? Is that not worth a value? I think it's unfair that any schmuck can spend $10 and try to piggyback on the success of that 'name' and have the bidding for the 'biter' site hit over $7000? Not fair. Only in America. That would be like someone buying www.portcreditpet.com (notice how similar they are?)and cashing in on all the blood, sweat and tears that Grant has put into his business over the years by selling the name for $10000.00

anders_240sx · 04-02-04, 08:21 PM

Hey Mykee, www.ssnakes.com is an existing site ...it is missing an "s" or was it there before www.ssnakess.com ... In terms of the name ...its legally different ...however, his references to a profitable site could be taken otherways ... I think ************** has their heads a little too far up their rears ... they are asking a lot of money

My 2 cents

Jeff Hathaway · 04-02-04, 08:24 PM

True, and one might say it's unethical, but it is not, and probably shouldn't be, illegal. If people are smart, they'd register domain names for everything that is really close to the name they're using.

Jeff Hathaway
Sciensational Sssnakes!!

mykee · 04-02-04, 08:28 PM

Anders, I just checked out ssnakes.com and no offense, they must get what, 30 hits a month? HARDLY the same as going after a site that has millions of hits a day. That would be like 'biting' Nike.com by buying nikes.com and selling it for a cool million. You're attempting to 'steal' the customer base, or at least profit off of anothers success. Again, not cool, maybe legal, that's yet to be determined, but definitely not cool.

Cruciform · 04-02-04, 09:15 PM

The difference is that Nike is trademarked. If you did that, they could sue you. Then it would be up to a judge to decide if having that domain dilutes the trademark.

There are literally thousands of sites with similar names out there that deal with similar themes. Sure, some of them are just trying to piggyback on the success of others, but you know what happens to them? Unless the person puts a hell of a lot of work into them they just fade away.

If Webslaves new site was a complete mimic of KS, then there is an ethical issue there. But it's not, so the point is moot.

And whether a site gets 30 hit or 30 million shouldn't have any effect in the eyes of the law. If someone is trying to steal your customers/viewers through deceit/fraud, then big or small you have a case. There's no claim that they are anything but a forum for king snakes owners on WS's site.