[107663] in Cypherpunks
RE: another kid vs company website issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MJG - inet-access)
Wed Jan 20 16:38:01 1999
From: MJG - inet-access <inet-access@lists.ecosystems.net>
To: "'list@inet-access.net'" <list@inet-access.net>
Cc: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:22:16 -0800
Reply-To: MJG - inet-access <inet-access@lists.ecosystems.net>
So if Veronica was not a six month old, but a amateur 22-year old Internet
porn star named Veronica, would they have pursued? If this Veronica grows up
and decides to use the domain in ways Archie Comics' censors disagree with
(but still in no relation to Veronica(tm)), would they then pursue?
The law is not designed to be subjective.
archiecomics.org is a clear trademark violation. It was used in trade and
misrepresented clearly and unmistakably the name of a different company. An
unofficial Archie Comics fan club would not have violated trademark on the
*same* domain, so you see my point regarding domains in themselves cannot
violate trademark.
The potentiality of veronica.org to violates Archie Comic's trademark is
vastly different, the company ought to be chastised. The porn issue looks
like an easy excuse out, and the implication of which are ominous at best.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Talbert K. Coker [mailto:tcoker@flosc.net]
>
> On the NBC Today show this morning Michael Silberkleit of
> Archie Comics said that after they were able to see the site
> they dropped all objections to it.
...
> Anyway Mr. Silberkleit said that their only objection to it was a
> similar case in the past where they found archiecomics.org to
> be a porn site.
