Thanks for the clues.
What I mainly don't like, more even than I do you now, is people
polluting the -biz list with indications that it's OK to infringe
tradmarks.
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 21:46 -0800, Justin Newman wrote:
> I don't need to prove anything to you little guy. If you're not interested,
> delete the message and move on. This is the biz list. I have domains I
> thought others may be interested in; the last place I'd post infringing work
> is on the owner's list and I don't compete with Digium.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Matthew Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Justin Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Asterisk -Biz <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2008 9:09:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Bunch of asterisk-related domains for sale
>
> I got a clue, from you comments on this list. You're marketing
> "asterisk-related" domains to sell products and services at least some
> of which competing with Digium, at least some of which have the
> trademarked "asterisk" in the domain name.
>
> I could be wrong, but the strongest clue has been your cageyness in not
> just posting their names in your ad - the strongest sell with the least
> effort. So why don't you prove me wrong by posting all of them? In which
> case you're just overselling a product with unnecessary mystery at
> unnecessary effort.
>
>
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 20:13 -0800, Justin Newman wrote:
> > Get a clue. I hope you don't practice law. 18 USC Sec. 1051 etc. was meant
> > to help folks identify the mark holder and it's source. Digium would have
> > an up-hill battle trying to get me on rights for "sipdid.com".
> >
> > The only thing clear from your e-mail is that you lack information to pass
> > judgement. I said "asterisk-related". Does "recordacall.com" infringe upon
> > Digium's marks? However, that to me is "asterisk-related", as it may be of
> > interest to companies which do business with Asterisk or similar platforms.
> > I have a bunch of them.
> >
> > Under the Lanham Act, the so called trademark owner still has the burden of
> > proof. Also, the word "asterisk" is widely used in technology, software,
> > and on the Internet. We all know that any idiot can sue the same. That
> > doesn't mean they will win or that they would even want the bad press.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Matthew Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Justin Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: Asterisk -Biz <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2008 6:24:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Bunch of asterisk-related domains for sale
> >
> > You're pitching domains that are "asterisk related", which, as nothing
> > but names, means they have the word "asterisk" in them. You're pitching
> > them to people on the "asterisk-biz" list, "Commercial and
> > Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion". Your offerings clearly infringe
> > the Digium trademark on "Asterisk" used to identify Digium's "Asterisk"
> > product.
> >
> > Under the Lanham Act, which your copy/paste operation evidently failed
> > to fully parse, if a mark holder fails to "vigorously pursue" action
> > against an infringer who's diluting the mark as used under the held
> > trademark, the original mark holder can lose claim to exclusive use of
> > the mark.
> >
> > Understanding trademark requires more than hitting Wikipedia. But then
> > you might not have registered those domains intending to make money
> > infringing someone's trademark.
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--
(C) Matthew Rubenstein
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
