<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can I use a trademark in a domain name?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.domrev.com/domain-name-trademarks-tm/can-i-use-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.domrev.com/domain-name-trademarks-tm/can-i-use-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name</link>
	<description>Domain Names &#38; Domaining Revenue</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:07:58 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gravy</title>
		<link>http://www.domrev.com/domain-name-trademarks-tm/can-i-use-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name/comment-page-1#comment-6547</link>
		<dc:creator>Gravy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.domrev.com/domain-name-trademarks-tm/can-i-use-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name#comment-6547</guid>
		<description>I actually don&#039;t think it&#039;s illegal to own or publish xyzcompanysucks.com. This went to court a few times and the site owners always won. As long as it&#039;s true -- that the events or products you describe actually happened, then you&#039;re okay, and it&#039;s unrealistic (and unconstitutional) to start regulating the expression of opinions. 

Trademarks are about identifying the origin of a good or service rather than just making the owner look good. A company can&#039;t own all mentions of their name, only specify what it product or service it&#039;s attached to, called passing off or counterfeiting -- So you couldn&#039;t put out a line of plush toys and start throwing Disney or Russ around trying to make your products sound equal with theirs, but if you bought a Russ stuffed animal and the fabric dyes poisoned your nephew, you could certainly say so on a website, because for one thing it&#039;s fair and normal, and for another you aren&#039;t being mysterious about the product or service&#039;s origins. 

So www.e-burberry.com lost its suit when Burberry sued them for infringement, but burberrysucks.com would survive because the purposes of the sites are different. The first one was hoping to attract would-be Burberry customers to itself by capitalizing on the name, but the second site would be to air grievances. 

Same thing as if Company A did the horrible thing but you called Company B out on it -- Company B would have a legal case against you because what you&#039;re saying about them isn&#039;t true. 

The trademark and copyright owners own their connection to what they produce, good or bad. It doesn&#039;t only apply when it&#039;s flattering.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s illegal to own or publish xyzcompanysucks.com. This went to court a few times and the site owners always won. As long as it&#8217;s true &#8212; that the events or products you describe actually happened, then you&#8217;re okay, and it&#8217;s unrealistic (and unconstitutional) to start regulating the expression of opinions. </p>
<p>Trademarks are about identifying the origin of a good or service rather than just making the owner look good. A company can&#8217;t own all mentions of their name, only specify what it product or service it&#8217;s attached to, called passing off or counterfeiting &#8212; So you couldn&#8217;t put out a line of plush toys and start throwing Disney or Russ around trying to make your products sound equal with theirs, but if you bought a Russ stuffed animal and the fabric dyes poisoned your nephew, you could certainly say so on a website, because for one thing it&#8217;s fair and normal, and for another you aren&#8217;t being mysterious about the product or service&#8217;s origins. </p>
<p>So <a href="http://www.e-burberry.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.e-burberry.com</a> lost its suit when Burberry sued them for infringement, but burberrysucks.com would survive because the purposes of the sites are different. The first one was hoping to attract would-be Burberry customers to itself by capitalizing on the name, but the second site would be to air grievances. </p>
<p>Same thing as if Company A did the horrible thing but you called Company B out on it &#8212; Company B would have a legal case against you because what you&#8217;re saying about them isn&#8217;t true. </p>
<p>The trademark and copyright owners own their connection to what they produce, good or bad. It doesn&#8217;t only apply when it&#8217;s flattering.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

