Getting Sued by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation?

If you are doing what they allege in the email, then yes they have a case. The email says:

are you doing that?

 

I mean the actual email header. Any idiot can send an email with a link to that dudes stuff in it but as far as I can tell its basically legit so you are posed with a range of issues here.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/29436?hl=en what email provider are you using?

Nigel

 

Companies like this have boat loads of attorney's that look for this stuff. You need to do what they are asking. It's a lesson learned the hard way. If you're not 100% sure if this is fake, which it looks like it isn't, you should call Fox Legal and ask to speak with the IP director that you received this email from to confirm. Do a quick search on the internet, he's listed often going after trademark infringers.

 

I would suggest the polar opposite actually. Don't talk to those folks or tell them shit. Same with the police.

Nigel

 

Attached picture of email here

 

The

Surely if it is legit it would have a signature? I would actually expect a professional legal team to submit paperwork by mail
Additionally, if they were serious about the domain name transfer then they have left out the required details that are needed forca domain name transfer. They did not even ask for the domain transfer code. Doesnt that make compliance difficult?

Op. Either way my advice is still the same. Turn the site off. Consultva real lawyer

 

I get plenty of emails from "professional legal teams"

 

Some of the people replying here are lawyers. Not sure why people who are just guessing at the law bother to reply. Often times the money at stake is not enough to even warrant meeting with a lawyer and there are a handful of people here who give decent objective suggestions based on the information provided. Of course, then there are others who are obviously clueless and still think they are helping people by offering advice. The challenge is knowing which is which.

There was a signature. (See it quoted above) There is no need to send anything by mail. I have seen people sued in Federal Court and the first time then even found out was when they were served, legally, via email only. In that case they never even received an email complaining of their use of a trademarked domain. The first contact was finding out they had been sued and an injunction had been issued freezing their domain at the registrar. If you know you are infringing and you get a legal notice from the company, that is usually a good time to get out. (I don't necessarily think you always need to follow their instructions/demands but, it might be time to close down a site that is blatantly infringing on a trademark once you know you are on the companies radar due.)

 

Considering he has the potential to be facing legal action by a company which employs an army of lawyers, I think it's pretty bad advice to suggest he adhere to what random strangers are saying on a marketing forum. Not trying to discredit any legitimate lawyers here. But, gambling on whether or not someone is a legitimate attorney, versed in copyright law, on an online forum is simply not intelligent. Until digitalpoint validates and verifies a person's right to practice law in their country, I will stand by this advice.

Granted, yes, the money involved with the site is probably not worth consulting a lawyer, but, if OP was considering anything other than complete compliance (and even that doesn't mean he can't get sued later if Fox decides to get crazy), he should really be seeking professional legal council.

 

So you are advising him to do nothing, at least until he speaks with a lawyer? I hate to break it to you but that is advice. Especially, if he is not going to see a lawyer then you are effectively telling him to maintain the status quo. That is advice.

So, I am confused. You are advising him he should do nothing in one post. Then in your next post you tell him he should not adhere to what strangers are saying. Aren't you one of the strangers that you suggest he should be ignoring?

Personally, I rarely give direct advice to anyone on this forum to do or not do something. There are far too many variables to consider before giving some serious legal advice. I do, however, try to point out and clarify the issues they face and usually spend my efforts correcting bad information that is posted in the legal section.

 

Trying to twist my words to put statements in my mouth is unbecoming. I clearly said his best course of action was to speak with a lawyer. That is advice that he can't lose with.

Trying to say that is not his best course of action, or that random forum goers can offer the same or better legal advice than a qualified, practicing copyright attorney is just ludicrous.

 

At any rate and minus a sentence, I doubt anyone needs a lawyer to receive this kind of "advice":

(Personally, I suggest rather than advise. Little to no one listens to me when I give advice anyway, heh.)

If anything, OP, you're given a few things (some of which happen in the real world) to consider in your situation. What to do afterwards is ultimately up to you.

 

I doubt anyone listens to what I have to say either. Usually when I post in threads like this I do so to correct bad information or to help other readers who might happen across the thread, in addition to the OP himself, better frame the situation so they can make an informed decision.

In this case, if we look at the information he has told us, it seems like a no-brainer.

1. He has only had the website up for a week.

2. He implies the website is in the "watch family guy online" market - that is true whether or not he is showing or linking to any videos.

3. He acknowledges that he has a potential trademark violation in the domain name itself and appears to suggest that he is using a copyrighted image in his banner.

4. He does not live in the US.

5. If I understand what he is saying, his website suggests that it will lead to Family Guy Videos to watch online and makes people click his CPA incentive offers to get to such videos. Interestingly, he says that he does not host or even link to any videos which would make what he is doing seem like fraud in addition to any potential infringement issues.

From what he has already told us it sure seems like he has no legitimate business and thus no reason to fight to keep the domain or continue to waste time building something that seems like it could easily be taken in a domain action should Fox desire to do so. Personally, if it were me in this situation, I would probably just delete the domain name from my account with my registrar and do nothing else.

When you look at the "business" he is engaged it, it seems unlikely at best that he would ever waste the time or money to consult with a lawyer over this issue, nor should he. Why? Because the totality of the situation as told by the OP himself makes it clear this is not legitimate business worth that time or expense. That being said, as Thriftypreneur pointed out, you will get much better advice from a qualified intellectual property attorney who is versed in copyright and trademark law.

 

I purchased a domain similar to this last week.
It has The Simpsons as part of the domain and I was
Concerned about trademark issues. But the EMD gets
over 5,000 searches a DAY. So I got greedy. My impression
Is however that Fox is more aggressive than most in
Going after possible infringements and I have decided
Not to use the domain. I notice when searching for
My EMD keywords that google says two results were
Removed due to requests under the digital millenium act.
At the request of Fox.

 

Even (active) linking to a site with pirated content can be interrupted as an illegal act (as stupid as it sounds).

Consult a lawyer if it's worth it, and in the meanwhile pull the site down to prevent further escalation.

 

It sounds stupid that facilitating the commission of an offense is illegal?

 

Well it seems silly that linking to a site can be construed as a crime. If you were to place the link as plain text instead of an active link, you might have a stronger defense against piracy claims. Even odder, if you link to a third party website (e.g., bit.ly, ad fly) you could argue that you're not actually linking to pirated content, but that in fact the third party website is linking them to the illicit content.

The fact that active linking is being considered a crime seems stupid, since the basis of the web is a series of hyperlinks and that the user ultimately takes the responsibility on themselves on deciding whether they follow a link (and ultimately they should bare the responsibility of what they choose to visit and whether they deem the content being linked to as appropriate/legal to their situation/country).

 

So how all went? I want to know because i have similar problem with fox now.