I don't think it's the same. The poster was taling about having a website close to their name, and having nothing about their company there. If he had slandered or defaced their name on his site, that is one thing. But for the company to go after him when he mentioned nothing about there page, is wrong. I don't recall him having anything on the site, it was just a blank page I believe.
Well I was speaking to the part where he specifically mentions using a URL of the company name somehow. As for whether there is content on the page or not this is not an issue as the property in concern is the companys URL. It is Intellectual Property and even if not used by the company still theirs to do something with or not.... within most courts eyes, though this is a new growth area in reality. This article about Google delves into the subject matter full force and shows who will win the battle over IP 95% of the time http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060821GoOgleSomebodyNotGoogleThem.html Peace
Correct, I didn't even have any content on the page. Plus the domain name wasn't precisely their company name but two words, the first word being the same as the start of their company name but also is the name of a town/city etc in various countries and the second word being a certain trade that they were part involved in but could also be construed as other things. They had registered the .co.uk version of the domain four years prior to me registering the .com. They just hadn't bothered with registering the .com. Two years after I registered it was when they came a knocking. And this was a large UK company with sales and manufacturing all over the world. And even after I settled with them I had to contact them four times to take the bloody transfer of the domain name because they failed to do so. It was 11 months after the settlement that they eventually took the transfer and then they docked it with some free webspace company.
I don't think it's fair that big corporations can serve soemone with papers and since most people cannot affor the time or the legal expense they settle, and give the complainant whatever they want. The rich get richer... See, I was not aware that the url names were not the same. That is Mafia style bullying that shouldn't be allowed, but when you have money you can squash anyone without it. Survival of the richest
Odd.... then it would not be fair for you to protect yourself either then? Next if the URLs were not the companies exact name or brand then it is not the same thing but when you make a site www.pepsi1.com or www.coke2.com then you are trampling their trademarks and brand names. Lastly when you become a big corporation are you going to allow others to use your brand and allow yourself to lose revenue?? Me thinks not.... As Barretta used to say: Dont do the crime if you can't do the time
I just checked pepsi1 ... hmm, I see godaddy and google both jumping on the pepsi trademarked name ...well endorsing the use of it by the domain owner - but the registrar (godaddy), could well be required to make it unavailable... and they are implicating google in permitting trademark infringements when Google themselves have aggressively pursued people that tried to use 'oogle' domains
Damn, if I was getting 10k a month from adsense I'd kiss my day job good-bye and be home sleeping right now dreaming of $ signs!
Well using some common sense, you should not use a brand name. Many famous companies won cases against powerful people in the past. Wow $10k a month. Is it even possible with Adsense only?
There are a LOT of people making a LOT more than $10k a month purely with adsense, it is however better to have other inlets which I do and I notice a lot of other earners do also.
No it is not, it was my goal when I first set out, but even though I could buy one now I think the Countach is best left a dream not realised as they are really poor/awkward to drive, my friend has a Diablo and they are much better, I just love the Countach's styling and it adorned my walls as a teenager, I drive a more practical 7 Series beemer.