Is "coke.ch" A Violation of Coca-Cola's (tm)? 486
"The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine ... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland."
Let's face it folks...the word "coke" is slang. It's been a slang representation for both "Coca-Cola" and "cocaine" for as long as I can remember. Does a corporation have the right to trademark such slang? And if a word is trademarked before its inadvertent use in common language, what then? Must we all prefix a "(tm)" after using the word coke(tm) even if when we use the word coke(tm) we are not referring to what was trademarked, but the slang version?
This is yet another case that might call for third-party resolution. As near as I can tell, this domain was not registered or used in bad faith. Therefore, as I understand it, Coca-Cola shouldn't have any rights to the domain. Or have I missed something?
Thoughts?
Fight with FUD? (Score:2)
Ask Us! (Score:2)
the Swiss Internet User Group. There's a paper
on this: http://www.siug.ch/positionen/SIUG-Domain.shtml
Furthermore, the SIUG might take a look at this,
and can probably do something.
Depending on the case, this is probably a blatant
act of domain-piracy through law on Coca-Colas
side or an act of cybersquatting on yours.
Kirth
Interesting (Score:2)
That said, this still reduces to an absurd situation where you can't put 'Coke' in any domains, subdomains, etc etc without being hassled. What's needed is some good solid rulings in court saying "Grabbing and holding the .com is ENOUGH! You don't have to hassle everyone on the planet. If 'coke' means 'small purple fish' in Zabongahelian, well then "coke.zb" can go on meaning a fish restaraunt's web presence WITHOUT weakening Coca-Cola's trademark claim- because they hold the .com and are doing business using that as a trademark in many countries.
It's the fear of the unknown: "Does coke.zb mean that we lose our trademark all over the world? *quake, tremble*" that causes the abuses. You have to immunize these big companies from their fears of losing what they're entitled to. They have a perfect right to own the name 'Coke' as applied to beverages. They've a right to be scared if they think they could end up losing that. They need some clear rules formally making them safe from the threat of losing all their trademark stuff just for not hassling domain holders in Zabongahelia. Without such assurance, they are compelled to really be destructive and draconian, because it's out of fear and nobody can tell them they _won't_ lose their important trademarks over such a thing.
Say, aren't trademarks industry specific? (Score:2)
``Apple'' is a common dictionary word, so unconditional trademark protection cannot reasonably be applied to it. Such is the case with ``coke'' as well.` Coke is a product derived from coal, which, I believe, is useful because it burns at higher temperatures than coal. More recently, the word is also slang for cocaine.
I think that these crooked corporations are simply going too far when they oppress people for using common words in a way that is unrelated to their industry.
Re:Domain not being used? (Score:2)
If I own a piece of unused land in the middle of an area that some big corporation wants to build on, do they have a right to take that away from me?
Bah!
Look at it from Cokes perspective. (Score:2)
I disagree that coke is a slang word. Coke has been commercially associated with the drink longer then it turned into drug slang.
What does Coke mean in Swedish? Or wherever the
Regardless of the readers good intentions (Don't get me wrong I fully agree that they are valid) the domain is being squatted.
- Xabbu
yes, but (Score:2)
Should those companies have the right to stop you from using those names to prevent confusion? ("There are better names for a person to use, anyway...")
A "reasonable person" should make no assumptions about any trademark issues based solely on a domain name.
--
Coke is evil (Score:2)
Coca Cola is the American way. Its thier way of marking property, just as a dog would do.
Re:youre right...but you'll loose. (Score:2)
Just because there's little/no HTML content on coke.ch, doesn't mean the domain isn't being used.
The Collapse of Trademarks (Score:2)
And the one with the most lawyers win. (Who cares who was there first.)
Why do Trademarks take precidence over other usage (Score:2)
Programmers and techs built the net. Afterwards the marketing and corporate slime came in and said "thank you. We now own this." We are being treated as serfs in our own land. Creating value for the landowners and then kicked off the land when they find it has value.
Maybe it is time to build something else...
Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism.
I have a similar problem. (Score:2)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
"Coke" is no longer slang (Score:2)
Re:Clearly Not (Score:2)
Similarly, clue.com was registered by clue computing several years ago. Hasbro tried to abuse the NSI dispute policy to steal it from Eric Robison, owner of Clue Computing. Eric got a court injunction against NSI. Later Hasbro came back to Eric and sued him in a distant state based on some consultin work he did for a company that is based there. They lost that case as well.
The main crux of both of these cases was that the domain name was registered in good faith and wasn't intended to trade on the trademark. Both the names were legitimately derived from the business that registered them.
I don't know how much the TNN folks spent on their legal defense, but I do know that Clue Computing has put a pile of money down trying to defend clue.com.
There's a lot of misinformation about this topic in the public today. Mostly because many "bad actors" got in and were swatted so the trade mark holders thought they could go after the "good actors" with domain names that matched their trademarks. They were wrong.
The mere existance of a domain name that matches, partially, a trademark does not, in and of itself, constitute infringement.
However, sometimes it costs lots of $$$ to fight.
Re: In US and new registration (Score:2)
Re:"Coke" is no longer slang (Score:2)
2: n (slang) cocaine
If there is a dictionary definition for the word "coke" then then Coca-Cola(tm) IMHO should never have been granted a trademark on it in the first place.
Also, I thought trademark infringment had to be within the same industry i.e. there can be an acme toilet-paper company and an acme brick company co-existing without infringing on each other's trademarks. (I don't have a TM law book to back that up, though)
Re:absolutely not? Well, maybe (Score:2)
This is hardly a matter of opinion. They either have a registered trademark or they don't. They apparently claim that they did register the trademark. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
Another definition of 'coke' (Score:2)
Re:youre right...but you'll loose. (Score:2)
--
Have CocaCola aquire cocaine.ch and swap domains (Score:2)
Of course, leave it up to them to aquire the "acceptable" name.
Re:An Offtopic suggestion (Score:2)
Compare notes (Score:2)
jtl@molehill.org
jtl@dietcoke.net, for the moment at least.
CH = (Score:2)
That's what the CH sticker on cars means: you either bought it in Switzerland or bought the sticker there
GB = Great Britain, FR = France, IT = Italy (IIRC) etc...
Pope
Nasty squatters rights.... (Score:2)
But, there is a problem in this whole domain name mess. You can sell a product in a noncompeting industry and call it something that is trademarked in another industry. So, for example, I could make a new quadruple pane window frame for use in new house construction and call it Windows, and Microsoft, who owns the trademark Windows in the computing world, could do nothing to me since I am not competing with them in the computer industry. If I started to sell software to design quadruple pane windows, then I could not call it Windows. This all makes sense, and IMHO, it is the right thing to do.
But, now we get into a problem here on the net.
Say that I own a company called Slashdot Farm Implements and it is trademarked. We have been in business for 100 years, and back in 1998 we finally got an ISP in Podunk, Wyoming so we want to set us up a website. We find out that a bunch of geeks back in 1997 went and set up a website called Slashdot that deals in computer geek news. Since they are not in the farm implement industry, they too could get a trademark on their name, which they do. Who the hell has the right to the domain? They are not squatting, we are both in different industries, and neither of us are competing with one another.
Granted, here in the states we have
Who would get the name slashdot in that case if things were pressed?
Lately in the news there has been some stuff about Coke Industries doing a lot of polluting somewhere around the US. Does Coke have the right to go after them? What if Coke Industries wants to set up a domain? If they call it coke.net, is Coca-Cola going to go after them?
I'm confused now.
Re:Nasty squatters rights.... (Score:2)
Coke is public domain (Score:2)
Don't forget: Coca-Cola is named what it is because it originally contained cocaine. Did Coca-Cola copyright cocaine as well? I think not. I'm sure they would rather we didn't remember their origins in what is now an illegal drug.
Re:No, assuming.... (Score:2)
Sure, but what does that have to do with domain names? There isn't a set of domain names for softdrinks, and another set of domain names for shoes. Nor is there an internet for shoes, and a different, unrelated internet for softdrinks.
There is just one, big internet. Everything is related.
-- Abigail
Re:Trademarks (Score:2)
I bet Coca-Cola doesn't just hire stupid people. Someone overthere will now that host and domain names are case insensitive, and that Coke.ch will resolve as coke.ch.
-- Abigail
Re:No, assuming.... (Score:2)
But there is coke.com and coke.ch - or should, as said before, we just ditch those TLD's, and go straight for www.coke?
coke.com is for shoes and coke.ch is for softdrinks?
No! There is a reason for TLD's!
Ah, I get it. Only Switzerland has cocaine addicts, right?
-- Abigail
Coca Cola might win this one (Score:2)
-B
Re: Spin Doctor - Sad, but true... (Score:2)
The very twisted version of the Golden Rule now applies:
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
I really wonder if we are seeing the decline of civilization as we know it? I know that sounds a little extremist, but we run a great risk of becoming a homogenized, bland and useless species if we let corporate interests win over human interaction.
Russ
I, Ron. E (Score:2)
Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine
One could argue Coca-Cola is almost a trade name for something containing cocaine. It's obvious that coke is a synonym for cocaine, just like 'tater and potato.
I hope I didn't give the Tater Tots people any ideas.
Settle (Score:2)
Ask for more, and you're a no-good domain squatter. Try to fight, and you're toast.
Tell them you'll take payment in kind. Hold out for at least 240 cans.
Make them a deal (Score:2)
I can understand Coca-cola's position on this one. Now you try to keep in mind that you're dealing with Businessmen. So here's my recommendation (I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc)
If, as you say, your purpose was legitimate, ask them to negotiate - ask them to buy the "cocaine.ch" domain for you (or another domain you think would be appropriate) and tell them in exchange you will gladly relinquish the domain. Your site stays up, they get back their name. They might even agree to add a link to your site for your old users for a year or two.
You are dealing with businessmen, not goons. Be polite and tell them your good faith reasoning, while allowing them a clean Win-win deal. Most businesspeople would rather spend the few bucks for the domain you want (and depending on the price, maybe even buying it off the original owner for you) and trade it with you (while making you sign a few papers relinquishing the "Coke" name forever) than pay for lawyers, media spin (so they don't look like the bad guys) and that kind of thing.
Above all, be civil.
Hope this helps,
- David
Re:Sayyy... what happened to sampling? (Score:2)
And you sir, have topped him!
Main Entry: malfeasance
Pronunciation: "mal-'fE-z&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: mal- + obsolete feasance doing, execution
Date: 1696
: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
You have done a brainwrong, my twisted friend.
That's not enough (Score:2)
this shows why more TLD's won't help! (Score:2)
Next thing you know, companies will complain about their names being used in subdomains.. Would coke mind if slashdot served all of it's images from coke.slashdot.org? Would Coca-cola mind if pepsi had a site called coke.pepsi.com. Would they have **LEGAL CLAIM** to the site or to stop it's usage?
what about coke.addict.org ??? Could they sue for slander/libel?
When is anyone going to realize that the current system just doesn't work anymore, and that "FAIR USE" and uniqueness on the internet need new definitions.
What about c0ke.ch ?? spelled with a zero, not O -- it's a unique ASCII string. Does their trademark cover that? What about cokes.ch? what about coke-soda.com what about cokefan.com what about betterthancoke.com, what about cokedexhaustvalve.com (referring to the carbon called "coke")
see the problem???? even if you can have 60+ character domainnames, you're going to be including something/word that's someone's trademark and they're going to sue you to change your name!
... and by the way, what's wrong with domain squatting??? If someone staked out the prime real-esatate and bought it when it was cheap, people would call that person shrewd. I think everyone now just has sour grapes syndrome 'cause they didn't think of registering simple words.
I think the slashdot crowd is pretty lame for condemning people who registered interesting domains. Slashdot users are usually for "free everything", "release your source", "too bad it's not free", "we need a free replacement". But on domainnames, they seem to just kowtow to big busienss and US law and say, "Shame on you for trying to cross big business!".
Oh wait, I get it... Slashdot users are against anyone making a profit. If you register coke.ch and use it for opensource software, that's okay and we'll stand behind you, but if you try to sell it to Coca-cola, you're a slimy demon that we all hate?
Yeah, right.
The mark has *already* lost its distinctiveness (Score:2)
As to distinctiveness in this particular context... Were I to head down to the States, purchase some Coca-Cola, and head back, I would be very hesitant to respond to the Customs Agents queries with the work "Coke."...
Customs Agent: Have you anything to declare, Sir?
Me: No, just picked up some Coke while I was down - it's pretty cheap down here.
Customs Agent : Step out of the car, keep your hands in plain view!
The confusion exists already. If anything, the fact that there is _not_ a website operating should work to this person's advantage, as there is clearly no potential for confusion here.
youre right...but you'll loose. (Score:2)
Why not just register cocaine.ch or something which cant possibly be trademarked ? Its a helluva lot better than fighting coca cola forever.
yes, it sucks, but the bigger guy with the baseball bat usually wins.
Re:Yeah right.... (Score:2)
Something smells here. You usually get that when someone has been "squatting" nearby. The result is squishy and steaming on that domain name.
A question that hasn't been asked... (Score:2)
It might be different if it was an "I hate Coke" site or there was a site that looked like it was endorsed by Coca Cola, but this is madness.
A solution (Score:2)
Why not limit the number of domains that a single company can own? Corporations can't pay off the USPS to give them thousands of different vanity mailing addresses; why should they be able to have unlimited domains?
As a bonus, this would also increase public awareness of just who actually runs the sites they're visiting... i.e., people would notice that everything ends in aol.com.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:2)
Solution (Score:2)
You might offer Coke's lawyers that in return for dropping the suit, you'd be glad to sign an agreement binding yourself not to associate the site in any way with Coca-cola or any other beverage products.
[Or if that doesn't satisfy them, agree to only setup the site with material specifically oriented around cocaine, and/or setup tighter clauses about who you can sell the domain name to so they can't be burned that way.]
Hiring a lawyer to do this negotiation wouldn't be a bad idea if you're serious; otherwise, they'll probably sue and you'll end up as little guy bug meat, hate to say it. Unless you can get the EFF or someone on your side.
You didn't say whether you'd actually put up any material on the website dealing with cocaine; obviously actions of that sort would strengthen your argument and case, as would marketing/promoting your site as a source of knowledge about cocaine. It'd be much harder for Coke to convince a judge you are infringing when you have spent time and effort (and money) on meeting those goals that your motive is trademark infringing.
--Greg
Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:2)
Re:Domain not being used? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah right.... (Score:2)
Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:2)
Everyone wants a catchy domain name, for good reason. Would you choose thedangersofcocaineabuse.ch or coke.ch?
The idea that you have to check trademarks in every spoken language incase your domain name infridges one of them is madness. Who knows, maybe cocaineabuse is a world tradmark of a famous toilet cleaner sold in every country in world, perhaps their sales are small in your own country, small enough for you to not have heard of them, but everywhere else they are a household name. They have a presence in your country, so they have to defend the name cocaineabuse.ch. I'm trying to show (and failing miserably) that thos whole concept does not work well across language and country borders.
As an aside. Unlike The USA, in the UK coke = any brand of black fizzy stuff that rotes your teeth. Coca-cola = brand of drink. I.e. you walk into a pub and ask for a coke and you're just as likely to get Pepsi
Of course, if ch had org.ch and co.ch then this problem would never of occured.
cjk.
Call for an internatianal organisation (Score:2)
Blah-blah-blah! (Score:2)
US IP law has absolutely nothing to do with domains outside .us
Most words of any language are trademarked somewhere. Many of them are trademarked multiple times for different areas ("Linux" for example)
A trademark on Coke as a beverage is not a generic right to the word "coke" anymore than Microsoft can prevent a glass manufacturer from selling "windows"
URGENT-- Re:Settle (Score:2)
Offering to sell a domain to a company with a trademark similar to the domain is seen as prima facie evidence of "cybersquatting." Any offer of mayment must be made by the trademark-holding party first
Offering to sell will strip you of all rights-- don't do it!
Re:absolutely not? Well, maybe (Score:2)
So, I'm afraid that link isn't very enlightening.
Mixed news: mixed solution. (Score:2)
Who's right? Let's take a few arguements on both sides.
1) Does Coca-Cola own the trademark to the name, "Coke" in Switzerland? If not, one point against Coke.
2) Have you been using the address? Regardless of original intent, if you haven't been using it, it looks like cybersquatting. Half a point against the current owner.
3) How much will you relinquish it to Coke for? Registration costs for a new domain? Some annoyance at having to switch? Or, the amount of money that it's going to make for Coke. If it's the latter, chalk it up as cybersquatting again, and half a point in favour of Coke.
(aside: Naturally, if these all go in the opposite direction, then switch the points around appropriately)
Maybe you could suggest to Coke that if they let you keep your domain name, you'll put a link to their real web site on your home page. (i.e.: "Looking for Coca-Cola? Click here!!!")
And as someone else very astutely mentioned, remember that you're dealing with businessmen, not goons or a faceless corporate entity.
Legally... (Score:2)
the cans (Score:2)
So what does it say on the side of the can? Or bottles or any promotional signs they give out? People have said that you order a Coke some other way, well, frankly, so what? You can order a "tonic" in some areas and get a coke. The question of trademark is whether they are using "Coke" in their advertising or packaging.
Once we figure that out, we can argue about whether a domain being used to combat cocaine addiction has a common use that trumps the trademark, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows what a coke can looks like in the country in question before you flame people about if they have any right to the word or not.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Why register a known trademark? (Score:2)
Except that other people have observed that no pages are currently up. Were they taken down as part of a legal fight, hadn't gotten around to it yet, or we are being fed a line?
What would you suggest? "cocaine-killed-my-friend-and-i-dont-want-it-to-ha ppen-to-anyone-else.ch"?
"cokekills.ch"
"cocaine.ch"
"nocoke.ch"
"killercoke.ch"
"dont_do_it.ch"
"getoutraged.ch" (used in a MA antismoking campaign as org or com, great url)
There are tons of legitamate and just as usefull names that do not seem to be a corporate website. If he didn't think about the international use of the name as a trademark, he has my sympathy, but I'll wait to hear a little more before I throw in support. If he suspected that Coke could get pissy about the name and was serious about wanting to do something useful, he should have picked a different name.
-Kahuna Burger
Why no .com.ch? (Score:2)
This method works great in Australia... Microsoft haven't even registered "microsoft.net.au" in Australia, because they are a COMpany, not a NETwork.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:2)
I don't see how this argument could have any validity. That's like a corporation asking you to give up a piece of land you own so they can make a mall. Would you say "Well, since I don't have anything on the property, take it. I'm not using it."? No. Coca Cola does not own the rights to the word coke. Why should they bully someone with a coke domain out of it?
kwsNI
Mainstream vs. underground Internet (Score:2)
It's really sad to see the Internet becoming so much influenced by big corporations. I'm not talking about e-commerce, I'm pointing to the user experience. It seems that the wish of many is to spread the idea that the Internet should be "surfed" through portals with their own content and links to corporate websites. Someone referred to this change, IIRC, as the Internet becoming a shopping mall where we would be forced to live in the back load delivery areas. Corporations don't own the net, but they would love to.
I don't see such a clear cause-effect relationship in owning a trademark and thus being entitled to own the domain name. Courts, OTOH, are easily fooleed into thinking so.
Now, if this guy had set up his site he would have much more reason to complain. He should also put a clear link saying something like "if you want to go to the "Coca-Cola Company website...". Things would be much easier. Many companies don't rely in the country letters, they have pages like "www.acme.com/france", which I think is the best way to go.
Coca-Cola has a history of strongly defending the trademark (their main asset). If you paint their logo in your business and the tone of red is not precisely the same, or if the tail of the third "C" in Coca-Cola does not pass through the "l" loop exactly as in their model, they force you to repaint it. That capitalization issue someone mentioned is another good example. This guy is having a though fight ahead.
For my next trick.. (Score:2)
No, assuming.... (Score:2)
Even if Coke is trademarked, they can't block the use in unrelated areas. You can have Coke softdrinks and Coke shoes for example.
Trademark dilution has changed that to an extent. The main issue is whether there would be confusion, or that uou are using "famousness" of their mark.
Coke had referred to cocaine and also for by-products of coal product for years. Also, you are using it for a non-commercial purpose (unless you tried to sell it to them).
I tend to think that they don't have the right.
It could be a PR nightmare for Coca Cola, that they are preventing people who are fighting cocaine addiction.
You might suggest that they hire you to run the site and reimburse you for your costs. Then Coca Cola can do something good and help people with and/or help prevent cocaine addiction.
Tone (Score:2)
Ok, so how do I improve the message? How do I get the message out, without smacking of crackpot-ism?
Re:Domain not being used? (Score:2)
He paid for it, he holds it, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Are we now going to make a rule that unless you are using a domain you can't have it anymore? I shudder at the litigation that could come from that!
It seems the smartest choice in this situation is to try and sell the domain to the company. With some slick talk, I'm sure he could convince them that they'd rather hand him a check than pursue a lengthy and unfavorable legal battle that would raise resistance all across the net.
I worry for what happens when the new TLD's come along. Who will own coke.web?
-Mad Dreamer
Coca-Cola, Cocaine, and Coke (Score:2)
Now *THAT's* the pot calling the kettle black! (Score:2)
Coca-Cola hasn't a prayer as I see it
************************************
Here is a guy that wants to use the name Coke as a derived term from cocaine, just like Coca-Cola did. He is using the accepted first derivative, while Coca-Cola wants to slide in the back door with a second derivative claim and claim first derivative rights!
What do I mean?? Street slang for cocaine is coke
******************
Or in other words:
******************
Cocaine ---------------> Coke
|
|
+-----> Coca-Cola ----> Coke ????????
Coca-Cola is *NOT* the route of the term; Cocaine is. If the site in question was about something other than Cocaine all bets would be off, but here the case (no pun un-intended) is clear! (IMNSHO)
first come, first served. PERIOD (Score:2)
It is unreasonable to say that only the one with the deepest pockets can own the web site with that trademarked name.
I registered 'ajw.com' years ago, and have been using it for almost all that time. I'm sure that somewhere in the world is a company with a trademark on 'ajw' - should I have to give it up to them? If that's true, there's a whole boatload of domains that are gonna change hands!
Or another example... My father was a magician; he went by the stage name "Mr. Fingers". When he died last year, I registered "mrfingers.org" and "mrfingers.com" (yeah, there's a weak page there right now...
Personally, I don't care what the reason is for registering a domain, I think the domain name should go to the first person (or company) registering it. If Coca-Cola (tm, r, c, whatever) wants all the "coke.xyz" sites, then they can go register them. They're big enough to afford it. Domain squatting? Tough luck!! (or smart thinking, depending on your viewpoint!)
As more and more companies worldwide get connected, there are going to be increasing conflicts. I think that the only reasonable way to handle domain names is first come, first owned.
- ajw -
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:2)
At that point, it is possible to trademark. Then there would need to be third party to settle the dispute. There are mitigating factors on either side. However intent and action are not the same thing. While it is possible that the current leasee of coke.ch wanted to make a site about cocaine addiction 2 years ago, he hasn't. Or if he has, he has stopped maintaining it. Since there has been little action or proof of action by the leasee, I would not tend to automatically assume he is not cyber squatting just because he has a good story or honorable sounding intentions.
Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As far as I can see, if he does not put up a well researched, well designed site that appears to have taken 2 years to construct, then he is cyber squatting.
And as for why Coke should "bully" someone with the domain out of it: suppose someone were to say use your name at a place of commerce. I think you may see how someone stealing your identity writing bad checks for easily pawnible goods may give you a bad day. Metaphor applies.. Coke is the name and the Internet (unfortunately) has become a place of commerce more so than information repository.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:2)
I would also point out that "The Coca-Cola Company" does not market their beverage name as "Coke" but as "Coca-Cola".
The word "coke" is not used in french to mean their beverage only because the Coca-Cola company refused to call it as so.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:2)
You seem to forget that the "no domain squatting for resell" law adopted by the US Congress does not apply in Switzerland (remember, it's a .ch domain).
Also you have to prove he want to sell his domain to the "Coca-Cola" company in order to this law to apply.
Concerning the trademark law: since this domain name point to no computer, no site was done and no business transaction done under this name, there is no case.
I can make a website on my computer called "Amazon.com" or a software called "Micro$oft Word". If I don't put the site online (at any URL), or market the software I can't be charged to use a trademark.
not a battle worth fighting (Score:2)
Here's the relevant legal docs [internic.net], assuming domains registered through Internic. The folks at GreatDomains.com (who probably know a thing or two about name squatting-- they're the ones who sold "loans.com" for US$3 million last month) say in their FAQ:
Our coke.ch friend sounds more like a case of the latter, but since he's still just thinking about setting up the site, it seems to undercut any cred. Coca-Cola is one company that'll protect their trademark worldwide, whether they have the use for a site or not. I hate multinationals as much as the next free thinker, but this ain't a battle worth fighting.
btw, I've heard that courts can make you stop using a domain name but can't force you to turn it over. true?
No website...must not be serious (Score:3)
If there's no website after two years, it's a little late to be crying about having to give up the domain. Give it up.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:3)
Why does everyone try to second guess his intentions? What is the point?
Case (1): He is a domain name squatter. When he tries to sell the domain to coke, then he is obviously a domain name squatter.
Case (2): He really wants to make a page to help Coke addicts. When he finally puts up the page, then it is a good service and should be left alone.
He currently has done thing. He is not using it to get hits from people who think they are going to see a web page about coca-cola, he is not using it as an anti-coca-cola page.
The solution is to wait and see. Either he will
(a) register it indefinately and do absolutely nothing with it. In which case it is certainly not hurting coca-cola (I highly doubt people looking for coca-colas web page try coke.ch first).
(b) He makes a webpage for coke addicts. Which is a perfectly valid use of the domain and should be respected.
(c) He tries to sell the domain to coke.ch. Regardless of what his original intentions are -- as soon as he decides he no longer wants the domain, but refuses to hand it over for free, he IS a domain squatter.
(d) He decides not to do the web page and unregisters the domain.
There is nothing wrong with owning the domain coke.ch and doing *nothing* with it. Perhaps he is a busy guy!
Furthermore, what if he *DOES* put up a informative web page about coke (as in cocaine). Is that going to somehow make him serious? That would certainly make him look good wouldn't it? "I put up a page to help coke users, and the evil corporate coca-cola *MADE* me sell it to them." Meanwhile laughing all the way to the bank.
The point is, website or not, you have no idea what his true intentions really are. But since he has to date, made no attempts to make money it from it, the "innocent until proven guilty" line of thought seems most approriate.
Taking Cliff at face value and believing everything he says my answer is: If you are still interested in doing the webpage, then talk to someone at coke and see what you can work out. Has coke made their reasons clear? Perhaps you can cut a deal with them that says "If you leave me alone, I will either do nothing with coke.ch OR make a website to help coke users. I will not use it to profit from the coca-cola company". Do they want the domain just to protect their trademark or do they believe that they will profit more from owning the coke.ch domain. It will be nearly impossible for coca-cola to prove that you're intentions are not to create a webpage, especially because you have done nothing with the website. In addition, it should be relatively easy to prove that your friend died from coke abuse which would definately be in your favor.
Now, if you *intended* to use the coke.ch domain to create a website for coke users, but have decided to abandon the idea, then in my opinion you should definately turn over the website to someone else who wants it. Since it has no value to you, and since only one person at a time can use it, it is just plain mean-spirited to sell it to someone just because you can. But at this level it is a moral issue. Its like finding someones lost wallet, calling them up and saying: "I got your wallet and I am not going to give it back unless you pay me a reward". If they offer are reward, by all means, accept it, but don't demand one.
I think a similar situation would be if you checked out a book from the library. Week after week you kept renewing it, because you hadn't gotten around to reading it. As much as I might want to read that book, you are entitled to check it out too. Now, I am getting tired of waiting for you to return it, so I call you up and say "Hey, I would REALLY like to read that book". If you say "well, I am reading it, but I am just a really slow reader" then I am going to have to deal with it. But if you say "Well, I will return it to the library *IF* you pay me $20"... that is just wrong. Course, in most libraries you can only renew a book so many times. Wouldn't THAT make the interent interesting.
Domain names are an awful mess. Personally I think we should ditch them, and implement something like a phone book. To a large degree that is what yahoo.com and similar sites are. Yahoo makes alot more sense, because there is no unique piece of information that only one company can hold. Domain names are rotten at the core because they do not scale well. When domain names were implemented it was never intended they everyone would own a couple.
Think about, you want to look up a website. You go to a search engine similar to yahoo, look up the company, go to the site. For most companies you already have to do that anyway.
Of course, there is more to the internet than the web, and while it might be easy to devise a better system for the world wide web, that same system would not necessarily be practical for all internet services.
Re:An Offtopic suggestion (Score:3)
Back in the olden days you could at least get a "no" from CmdrTaco when you suggested something here.
Oh, and yes, this is a place to get good advice on geek matters, what people think of such-and-such topic as it relates to free software, but let's not pretend this is a free lawyer service. I think it was when the judge released the paper on MS being a monopoly where the Slashdot editor went play-by-play with a lawyer on what the judge was saying in plain english. That was very nice, and it would be great to have more like that when issues of patents/copyrights/domain hijacking come up like this.
Ordering a Coke in Switzerland (Score:3)
The moral of this story, in switzerland, no-one refers to Coca-Cola as "Coke", so Coca-Cola should quit whining, especially since it's obviously not a case of domain squatting considering he intends to use it as an anti-drug site.
WHY should Coca Cola get the domain? (Score:3)
Trademarks were not designed to scale globally. They are made to work with geographical restrictions, and most importantly, within certain classes of goods and services. In the US, "Coke" is a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company within class 32 (Non-alcoholic maltless beverages...) and a few other classes in which they sell products. If you're not selling something in one of those classes, and you're not doing something that could confuse or dilute their trademark, there's no way you can be violating their trademark.
The important thing about domain names is that there is no way to tell what class of goods/services a site belongs to simply by looking at the name. You can't even tell if they're even selling anything! The only way that a domain name might be a trademark violation is if it's being used in a bad way. It can't be in violation on its own.
Unfortunately, a lot of large corporations don't like it this way, and it's possible we'll see the law changed so that any mention of any trademark anywhere has to be approved by the trademark holder. That's unfortunate for us as individuals (or even small businesses) -- we're literally having our language stolen from us.
--
You're doing it wrong (Score:3)
Then when they come knocking you have a leg to stand on.
Spin doctor! (Score:3)
Instead, I suggest you spin-doctor it: "Coca Cola to remove website over drug addictions".. and then go on to say that Coca Cola is *really* going after you because it doesn't want it's name associated with drugs. Bring up the colorful history of how Coca Cola *REALLY DID* have narcotics in it.. maybe a few claims of revisionist history?
I'm not joking here - you need to sensationalize it if you want to stand a chance. Good luck.
Do we really "own" domains???? (Score:3)
From a legal standpoint, do we really "own" domains? After all, if you own something, you don't have to continue to pay for it. We pay for domains on a year to year basis, and therefore, I would see our relationship with domains to be more of a lease, with the lease length being how long we've paid for.
Does anyone have any knowledge of how the courts view this? I started to do a little research, but frankly, I have a cisco test tomarrow, and can't get too sidetracked with this..
--knick
Domain not being used? (Score:3)
Well, coke is obviously a trademark.
Is the domain being used for anything? It appears not to have a website, and whether or not it's being used for e-mail purposes is unknown.
I would say that unless the owner of coke.ch is using it, the Coca-Cola company has a legitimate gripe. The submitter says that he at one point thought about doing a cocaine-support site. That's great, but that's not what's happening. I think the issue would be very different if www.coke.ch was an active site. As it is, it's pretty easy to make a case for "well if he's not using it, and it's our trademark, we should have it"
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:3)
However, as the article points out, the word "coke" is not used to mean the beverage in the French speaking world.
Only one tiny problem with that. French is one of three (four if you include Romanish (sp?)) spoken in Switzerland, the others being German and Italian. I've certainly ordered a coke by asking for "Ein mal Coke, bitte" here in Zuerich.
Nick.
The first step... (Score:3)
The next step is for the slashdot community to check out your claim, flame Jon Katz, moderate down firstposters, discuss trivial unrelated details, and finally come to a rough consensus.
If your claim seems just, we will rally to your defence, spreading the word of Coca-Cola Corporation's big bully tactics, mirroring your site on australian television, and attempting to correct clueless journalists on why you are right and why hacker!=cracker.
If you are nothing more than a domain squatter looking for sympathy, then you are TSOL (except for a handful of hotgritters who will believe anything
-=0=-
Jumping to the tools immediately at hand, we find the following facts to start a proper
DNS shows no current IP address for coke.ch or www.coke.ch, so you have no website up for us to take a look at. Thus all other tools like traceroute and netcraft are useless.
WhoIs produces
Domain name:
coke.ch
Holder of domain name:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Technical contact:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Date of last registration:
07.05.1999
I'll leave it to other
the AC
Read the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (Score:3)
A site about drugs is usually non profit and almost always fair use... It's not your fault that the product was named after its original ingredient (Cocaine)!!!!!!
c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint.
blah blah blah
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Available at: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm
I expect it depend on Swiss (tm)&(c) laws (Score:3)
Swiss law might be more forgiving. The ETOY controversy I think was decided in part that ETOY was a Swiss company and the US company ETOYS wasn't able to enforce their US brand their. (Peter E. Wild in Zurich was their legal counsel)
Also, I think Switzerland is one the few countries that upholds Pivo Budvar's right to the Budweiser brand for beer.
Given that your site isn't selling another brand of cola, I think you have a good shot.
PS I can't access your site due to a DNS error. Is it already up and running?
Re: No website...must not be serious (Score:3)
Just sell the domain name Coke for cost (Score:3)
If only he had a site up, we would all be championing him.
I suspect this may be redundant with 400 posts already but I dont have time to read them all.
I'm glad I can entertain you. (Score:3)
Some people don't mind being stopped by the police and questioned without reason. Well, if you are not doing anything wrong, what is the problem?
In Germany, when the Jews were asked to wear identification people would respond, "what's the big deal?"
Some people consider me a crackpot because I made my employment discrimination claim public. Other people responded, "hey, that's happening to me, what do I do?" or "hey, it's not just me!"
Now it's a free speech issue. What if Clinton sued Paula Jones for libel? She did not prove sexual harassment. Mattel has not proven my statements false. They are mostly my opinion, though you may not agree with them, there is no such thing as a "wrong opinion." Maybe a crackpot opinion, but not wrong.
Freedom is not free, it must be fought for.
You win, but you lose. (Score:3)
BUT, if people always give in, then companies will keep bullying people! Sometimes, you have to fight!
I'm bigger than that little guy with the slingshot..Goliath
Re:.co.ke (Score:4)
So what we really need is some organization like RTMARK [rtmark.com] or the now-defunct McDonalds.Org to snap up a few tasty domains (and subdomains) such as:
Odd, Regged by someone from .us (Score:4)
Coca-Coal company probably sell coke in
So this guy is probably a squatter trying to turn people against Coca Cola Company.
Domain name:
coke.ch
Holder of domain name:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Technical contact:
Somjad Puangngern
S Spring APT- C 1142
US-62704 Springfield, IL
United States
Date of last registration:
07.05.1999
Date of last modification:
24.11.1999
"Coke" IS a common term (Score:4)
Coke is the fused solid residue left when certain coals, pertoleum, or tar pitch are heated in an atmosphere excluding oxygen, so as to expel their volatile content. The process of thus decomposing these fuels into their gaseous and solid fractions is known as destructive distillation or carbonization.
Coke is, and has for a very long time been, used in metallurgical processes such as the preparation of steel from iron, and the creation of various alloys.
Add to this 'alternative' connotation the fact that the Original Coca-Cola was so named precisely because it was infused with the addictive essence of the coca plant, and you have the a very sad situation.
Coke is an engineering and fossil chemistry term. Coke is street slang for cocaine. Coca Cola was made with cocaine due to it's taste, mind altering effect and resultant 'captive market' of addicts. Cocaine was part of the recipe until it was made illegal.
That Coca Cola is going after a site named (arguably) after the substance to which Coca Cola owes it's very existance, is laughable. The fact that Coca Cola is trying to leverage it's 'trademark' above the importance of a scientific and engineering term, is down-right scary!
It's like Nabisco trying to sue Apple (or better yet, NASA) over the word Newton.
"It's not a cookie Mother, Newtons are fruit and cake."
WRONG junior executive, Newtons are a unit of force!
Common sense people, that's all we ask.
Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)
Oxford says... (Score:4)
coke(2) n. sl. cocaine. [abbr.]
Trademarks are only really effective against items in the same genre, or other things that are trying to profit from use of an established name... If I had a kids show, and trademarked the characters names (say Ham Sandwich (ham is an uncommon but real first name, and Sandwich is a valid surname), then tried to enforce my copyright on Oscar Meyer for use of 'Ham Sandwich' on little lunchpacks, I should be drug out into the street and shot. Similarly, if this isn't just a case of domain squatting to gain money, and there is a historical non-soda related use for it, Coca-cola's lawyers (or all lawyers) should be drug out into the street and shot (maybe with a snurf gun).
And I mean that is the kindest way.
Re:absolutely not (Score:4)
Re:"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)
The Coca-Cola Company is probably the best commercial branding enterprise ever created. By spending untold millions (billions?) over the years marketing Coca-Cola the soft drink, The Coca-Cola Company has created a very strong association in the public between the trademark brands and the products. Be honest now: when someone says "coke" do you think soda or coal? In truth, it doesn't matter what you (or any specific individual) think. It matters what the hypothetical "average person" thinks. If you market a product branded Coke (e.g. Coke-brand cedar shoe inserts) and the "average person" would think that your product was manufactured by The Coca-Cola Company, then you have created Confusion over the mark and the courts will slap you down (remedies available to owners of trademarks whose marks are violated are extremely far reaching). It doesn't matter that The Coca-Cola Company doesn't (I presume) manufacture or market any cedar shoe products. If people are confused you are violating The Coca-Cola Company's mark.
Trademarks are unique in US IP law. Unlike patents and copyrights, a trademark need never expire. The protections offered by the law are far reaching. However, the protections are not automatic.
A copyright lasts until it expires, no matter what the "author" does (short of explicitly transfering the work to the public domain). A patent is still a patent whether or not the patent holder enforces it. But trademarks are different. They need to be regularly renewed. The owner of the mark must proactively police the mark. If they do, they can develop very strong trademarks that mae their brands powerful money making machines. See "Coke" for a good example. If they don't the mark "loses distinctiveness" and becomes generic. This means the mark dies. See "aspirin" which used to be "Aspirin" and owned by the original Bayer.
Trademarks holders that don't police their marks lose their marks. And a mark holder cannot decide to let certrain "benign" infringements pass. If they do they risk losing the mark entirely. The only available options are licensing the mark or forbiding its use. And if you decide to license it you create a huge number of potential headaches for yourself. What if the licensed product maims somebody? After all, they trusted your mark as an indicator of quality. Blah blah blah.
So when somebody registers coke.ch, The Coca-Cola Company has to go after them. And besides, who is he kidding? coke.ch? Why not cocaineabuse.ch or something like that? "Coke" the mark is powerful because The Coca-Cola Company made it powerful. They are entitled to reap the benefits of the powerful mark and have an affirmative duty to protect the mark.
Trademarks vs Domain Registrations, Again (Score:4)
There has been a lot of noise about how to reconcile domain names with trademarks over the last while. Personally, I can't see why we've let this happen. I am against all of the recent anti-"squatting" regulations that have been introduced to try to solve a non-problem. Public administrators are just being lazy and derelict in their duty regarding this issue. (As usual, IANAL.)
First, note that domain names were not originally constructed with the intent that they would be proxies for trade name ownership. There is nothing that necessarily says that this has to change. This is very important to understand. For example, I can put "Coca-Cola" on a sign in my property, even if I sell things publicly from that property, and not violate any trademark. Further, Slashdot can forward this comment to you and make money off of advertising without violating Coca-Cola's rights.
Now, if I try to sell you something and I specifically state in the course of this business that I, in some way, represent a holder of a specific trade name or their goods, then by all means the trade name holder should sue my pants off.
There are two key problems with the concept of equating trade name law and internet domain names. The first, and less troublesome to some people, is that there is some implied prior right to the name as an internet resource locator simply by registering the domain. If someone comes along later and trademarks it, the domain registrant should be able to retain all rights to the use of the internet domain if that domain's registration occured before the filing of the trademark. I believe that this is the current wording of, for example, American anti-"squatting" law, but I would go further and propose that even if the trade name registration occured first, the domain registration should be allowed to stand. The owner of the domain name should not, of course, contravene the original restrictions imposed by trade name law. For example, they can't pretend to be the company that sells goods under the auspices of that trade name. But the precise nature of these original restrictions, and a better reason to be leary of allowing trade names to "trump" domain names, is best analysed by discussing the second fundamental problem with such a system.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding of trade name law goes something like this. (Note that I'm sluffing over the difference between trademarks and trade names; if I remember correctly it's not crucial. Also, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html ) I can apply for protection of a particular word or term used in the sale of products. I can only make this application if I currently sell products using this name in the jurisdiction of the registering administration, and as long as no one else has already registered the name for this particular purpose in that jurisdiction. The particular purpose part is essential; the legal protections offered me by such registration will only restrict others from using the name if they are selling a similar product to the one that I sell, such that there could be a reasonable customer confusion (in a legal sense) brought about by the conflicting use of the name.
You might doubt that last bit about similar products. But note that there's nothing wrong with trademarking "Yankee Coke" to sell charcoal, despite Coca-Cola's trademark on the word "Coke". (You could even sell "African Cola Coke"; check a good dictionary!) Coca-Cola Inc. (or whatever their official designation) owns the Coke trade name only in relation to soft drinks. (For the third time, I invoke thee: IANAL.)
This is the second key problem with any scheme that equates trade names with domain names on the internet. First, note the dreaded "J" word: "jurisdiction". If it's only legal for one entity to own the trademark to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in Canada, and only legal for a different entity to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in the US, who gets the ".com" domain name? What if there are legal "PowerTool" registrants for an identical product category in different states? Will it be illegal (or at least fiscally hazardous) for anyone to register a ".com" domain name for business use unless they have international registration for the trade name and sell into multiple countries? If so, we better tell people fast!
You can't even fix the problem by forcing everyone to work off of a nested domain naming system, such as "powertool.orange_county.ca.us". What if someone in Orange County sells specialty lego pieces using the PowerTool name? Who gets the domain now?
These two essential contradictions look like a double death blow to the viability of any scheme that equates trade names with domain names. However, the suggestion of nested domains does point the way to a possible way around this difficulty. Note that this is simply a political difficulty, NOT a problem - it's just an opportunity for current trade name owners to extend their reach. Of course, we'd all like to have some way to find Coca-Cola Inc.'s "Coke" site if we're looking for it, and search engines are not enough to placate the needs of the legally anal around us, since these people reason that the public could still be fooled by accidentally visiting a site with an implied link to Coke. (Whew! IANAL.)
The solution is too sensible to be undertaken by most governments. It also doesn't allow them to scapegoat anyone, it doesn't allow them to stomp all over the previous custom of a minority, it doesn't pander to corporate interests, and of course it requires them to actually get off their duffs and be constructive. Don't expect to see it anytime soon.
However, it would be perfectly simple for any administration that oversees trade names within its jurisdiction to simply set up a web site that references those legal names to the holders' internet addresses. Uh, they're called links. If more than one business type owns the rights to a particular name, list both links under the name and include some identifying information about each owner, such as a brief description of their class of goods. Link to sites that contain higher-level jurisdictional data, as a state might defer to national registrations - or better yet, put together the technical means to include those registrants automatically in your lower-level searches. It's actually fairly straightforward.
So, why do domain names have to equal trade names? Why did we all allow this to slip toward a standard assumption? Why can't I register any domain name that I might please, and expect to have actually done so? Why do those who protect trade names feel that they must convince the public that domain names necessarily connote legal trade name ownership? Why don't they see the obvious problems with that system? Hey, hire some programmers and the "problem" disappears. And there are plenty of coders around, you just have to be prepared to pay them and have a clue!
That our governments are too lazy to hire competent programmers to put together systems that effectively manage their jurisdictions' registration programs is an abrogation of their duty, but it's exactly what we should expect. Who's surprised that they're also blaming domain registrants (aka "squatters") for the "problem"?
"Coke" IS a Trademark too (Score:4)
Goods and Services: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: footwear.
FIRST USE: 19880311.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19880311
Mark Drawing Code: (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number: 75114281
Filing Date: May 17, 1996
Published for Opposition: January 21, 1997
Registration Number: 2052760
Registration Date: April 15, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT): Coca-Cola Company, The CORPORATION DELAWARE One Coca-Cola
Plaza Atlanta GEORGIA 30313
Type of Mark: TRADEMARK
Re: In US and new registration (Score:5)
The date listed is the "date of last registration", which means that the domain name owner was last registed on July 5, 1999 -- which could have been a renewal. (Not sure, my own domains aren't up for renewal yet.)
An Offtopic suggestion (Score:5)
This site is targeted at "nerds" -- apparently the technical/computer kind. What good are legal questions in such a forum? I can count on one hand the number of real attorneys I've seen posting on this site in the past. Of those, I only see a few still posting these days (where did you go, Hawk?
Questions like this tend to elicit a lot of knee-jerk emotionalism, a lot of "IANAL, but I think my Business Law I professor once said....", and a frightening amount of uninformed or just bad advice. Worse yet, some of the bad advice gets moderated up, perhaps giving an impression of credibility. As proof, I offer a recent copyright-related story in which a highly-scored post suggested a "poor man's copyright" -- mailing yourself a registered letter with the song inside. Five minutes of research will show that this is a popular legal myth.
I often find a lot of good technical information in "Ask Slashdot", but I consider these diversions into legal matters to be somewhat pointless at best. At worst, they are dangerous. Woe be to the person who follows a course of action based on what they read on Slashdot. They may well find themselves on the losing end of a lawsuit. I don't think, "The guy on Slashdot said it was ok," is a defense most judges would honor.
For this reason, I ask the Slashdot editors to please reconsider the number of law-related "Ask Slashdot" articles. Technical questions may not generate as many comments, but they may provide more useful information. You have an audience of technical professionals, not lawyers (although I'm sure some of them are honest-to-goodness attorneys).
For those who are considering posting to "Ask Slashdot" for legal advice, I urge you to find a real attorney instead.
Thanks for your time. Now back to the peanut gallery.
Re:No website...must not be serious (Score:5)
-----------------------------------------------
all the more reason for TLD enforcement (Score:5)
All the more reason to move to national TLD's across the board. Duke it out in your own country if you want. Coca-Cola is an America company, and as such, couldn't say diddly squat about something in the Swiss TLD.
Either that, or open up those new seven TLD's that have been talked about forever. Heck even they could be under a national 2-letter TLD. Big corporations are bullying the web too much.
There are only so many reasonable domain names available, and LOTS of people that want to use them. There is going to be name collision across TLD's. Face it. If every trademark owner has to buy up their trademark names in every TLD, there'll be nothing left for anyone else to use! You might as well eliminate the current TLD's then and go to www.coke, or www.pepsi, or www.nike! Having various TLD's is supposed to allow for exactly the kind of thing they are trying to squelch!
Trademark law needs to be updated to handle this exact situation. And big corporations need to get their hands off domain registration policy-making.