Question regarding Trademark Laws (recent news claim)
 

The owner of pornography streaming site FyreTV on Monday filed for an injunction against Amazon.com Inc. that seeks to block the online retailer from continuing to use the allegedly trademark infringing name Fire TV to market its own video streaming service.

(i can't insert the URL but it's a yesterday article from Xbiz.)

Okay so..
I don't get it.
Allright Fyre and Fire might sound the same when pronouncing it. But it's still written differently... So what is the problem regarding the laws ?
I'm confused and would like to understand..

thanks!!

You'll get it when you pay $10 to see a movie staring "Holly Bearry" that sucks ass.

It's all about the sue-to-get-rich business model :upsidedow

Prenda Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Like this shit-stain and his clients

I'm certainly no authority on the matter, but it may be a case of protecting against consumer confusion with respect to trademark(s), regardless of spelling.

For example, if I registered Gewgle.com and created a search engine, chances are, Google will send their army of lawyers after me for trademark dilution, confusion to consumers, etc.

Well copyright laws mean what ever they want, when key terms like porn tube and gay tube are copyright-able the internet becomes a joke for North Americans and some of Europe.

S̶c̶r̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ I read it backwards first thing in the morning ...

Amazon is trying to protect their brand using trademark dilution in their pleadings with the court (*this lawsuit). This looks to me as a bluff. Fyre spends his cash or capitulates by default. There is probably enough merit in the filing on the suit (just enough) ...

The lawsuit should be dismissed as without merit to proceed past preliminary hearing. I think they are going for a default and then plan on demanding the surrender of the name or using the court case to negotiate a purchase. Fyre may have seen ''deep pockets'' in Amazon and asked (demanded) an unreasonable price for the domain -- I have no actual knowledge and say this in speculation ... Nor should this be construed as ''legal advice''.

They would stand no chance in a UDRP mitigation so they took the civil suit route -- there are 3 criterion that must be met.

1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2. The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
3. The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".

You are absolutely correct

pshhhh! what do you know anyway??




_____________________
Nnetbilling.com

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh