Multinational wants my domain ...

Hey all,

This has been discussed on IRC yesterday and today, but i'd like your opinion on this one.

I own www.shrekkie.com (its down for now) and I had used (stupid me, but heh) a logo and fonts in my header of the forum i had there.The logo was kindly taken from a moviecharacter , almost similar to my nick ;).

Yesterday i got a registered letter from the multinational owning that particular movie and character, with the announcement to reply on their demand to take down that logo and fonts. Also they *force* me to not use or drop that domainname.
So I did take it down to avoid legal consequences .... :s


The copyrighted logo and fonts i can imagine, but the domainname too ? Come on. IMO thats not fair. I did pay for that domainname, so they should refund that , no ?

Also I had a call of their lawyer, where she said I probably will need to hand over the domainname to that multinational. Can they do that , that simple ?

Anyway its ****ed,

Greetz,

i am not well versed in law but it is not just to give away your domain name also

Shrekkie that suck ass. I read that pamela anderson sued people because they owned a domin name called pamelaanderson.com or some **** before her ditsy ass got introduced to the intraweb i dont think she got cash from them but i know she was awarded the right to the domain name **** knows what will happen best of luck anyway

and wasnt the characters name shrek ? so why do they feel they need to own that domain name

they allready own http://www.shrek.com/ by the looks of it

They would own the picture issue so that you wouldn't have much to stand on in regards to likeness of the Shrek character. The other issue, well, that'd be hard. IIRC, in the movie, the character was referred to as Shrek. I don't recall "Shrekkie" being used so that, I would think, would be to your advantage. You might want to visit an actual lawyer about it and find out what kind of "legs" you stand on.

While being no lawyer I would suggest that this company has no more right to the word "Shrekkie" than the company that owns Star Trek has over the word "Trekkie". Thus, with confirmation from a _good_ lawyer I would tell them to go and shove it up their @$$ and that any further conversation on the subject initiated by them will be treated as harassment and counter-sued.......

Then duck..... ;)

I believe the term is "Fair Usage". Anyways, this might help Internet Law Page/Trademarks and Internet Domain Names. The other thing to check is what is Belgium's stance on this versus the US. What is applicable in one country may not necessarily be enforceable in another.

thnx MSMittens,

Lemme go check that out ....

Here's a site that should answer all your questions, Shrek(kie) :)

Quote:

---

Your opponent should say that your mark is causing consumer confusion or is likely to cause consumer confusion. (If the C&D does not say this, then no trademark claim exists, and you can rest assured that your opponent is engaging in scare tactics or has hired a highly incompetent attorney).

---

Quote:

---

under ICANN rules (the UDRP), you may have to surrender your domain name if the following three conditions are satisfied:
(1) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your opponent’s;
(2) you have no legitimate right or interest in the name (in other words, you are not using the name to conduct a bona fide business or for non-commercial fair use purposes); and
(3) your name is registered and used in bad faith.

---

Quote:

---

Geographic Limitations
A trademark is protected only within the geographic area where the mark is used and its reputation is established. For federally registered marks, protection is nationwide. For other marks, geographical use must be considered. For example, if John Doe owns the mark Timothy’s Bakery in Boston, there is no infringement if Jane Roe uses Timothy’s Bakery to describe a bakery in Los Angeles.

---

If you registered the domain name in good faith, if you don't use the domain name for business purposes, and if you don't use anything that could confuse users with the "original" domain name (unless you're making a Shrek parody, which would make Dreamworks' case worthless), you should be fine :)
It's up to them to actually prove that your domain name confuses people...

Everything you need to know should be on that site. I don't know if it all is worth taking the risks, though...

Quote:

---

It's up to them to actually prove that your domain name confuses people...

---

What if he add the line to the effect of "This site is in no way related to or to be associated with Shrek, the Movie. For Shrek the Movie visit here" (with appropriate link)?



Dammit! It's so freakin' cold I had to type this 3 times!

Ms. M:

Quote:

---

Dammit! It's so freakin' cold I had to type this 3 times!

---

Take the computer off the front of your bike and go back into the house....... It's too cold to be long distancing today, silly...... ;)

Something else that might be of interest: if a site is not used for commercial purposes, it completely falls under the First Amendment. Since (as far as I know) Dreamworks does NOT own the copyright to the name "Shrekkie", they have absolutely no case.

This changes entirely if your site is used for commercial purposes (even putting a link to your friend's webbuilding site on your site falls under commercial purpose): then it all falls under the Lanham Act, and it is up to Dreamworks to prove that your site causes confusion.

Some examples: it is completely legal to register Dreamworkssucks.com: Dreamworkssucks.com is purely an expression of free speech and the Lanham act is not invoked, as long as your free speech is not commercially misleading.

The only points Dreamworks could have, are:

- They own the copyrights on the name "Shrekkie" (I couldn't find anyone owning that copyright)
- Your site is commercially misleading.

You don't need a lawyer... you need to ask them for proof of their "Shrekkie" copyright, tell them that your site is not commercial, tell them you'll put a link to the official Shrek-site on yours, and tell them all you want is $1,000 to hand over the domain-name (that seems to be the best offer in most cases)...

Maybe we should start a whole big ring of X"ie" sites:-

Lordoftheringsie
Terminatorie
DieHardie

etc......

Maybe we could make some cash. We break even for every 35 domains registered....

Warner Bros did the same thing with Harry Potter and asked for the domain names to be given to them. A couple of people fought it and Warner Bros decided that it wasnt worth it anymore....(The letter you recieved is probably some form letter they send to anyone who comes up with Shrek in google)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17706.html

I see it, as do most of us, that they are trying to strongarm you. Sell them your domain rights, if they won't buy it, and can't prove they have copyrights to "shrekkie" then copyright the name yourself... right now! And further correspondence can be used to sue them.

( as TigerShark says ) Then duck!!

Just my 2 cents

As all the others said - investigate your laws in Belgium, the EU itself and maybe the US. It seems on the surface that your site should be ok. I spoke to a trekkie on this kind of issue last year and he was strongly threatened regarding the matter, but, in the end the claimants backed off.
You might have a shot.

Well, the way I see it is:

1. You registered the domain in good faith
2. You're using it for non-commercial purposes
3. The site has been up for some time and no-one has complained
4. Your site doesn't contain offensive content
5. Your domain name is 'shrekkie', not 'shrek'

Point 1 means you can't be accused of cybersquatting and point 2 means that you're not competing with Dreamworks Inc. and so you're not harming their commercial interests. Points 3 and 4 negate the argument that you're bringing the name of Dreamworks (or one of their trademarks) into disrepute, and point 5 shows that you're not actually infringing their trademark, since different trademarks must be registered (at least over here in the UK). Had you used shrek4 or something, you could be in trouble because adding numbers to a trademark doesn't make it a new one.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't guarantee that the above points will negate Dreamwork's case (if they are serious rather than just using scare tactics), but at the end of the day I think they'd back down rather than go to court. Heck, if they do try seriously to take your domain I'll just register shrekkie.org or something similar and draw out the process even further. ;)

Any more news Shrekkie? Have you responded to them yet?

You might want to take a look at this
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...ight=Microsoft

One thing did surprise me about the Mike Rowe case that perhaps you should be aware of, Shrekkie. The minute that Rowe asked for money apparently changed the view of the "purpose" of the site and it was viewed that his intent wasn't for personal use but for domain squatting. So perhaps a lesson to NOT ask for money outright.

Well my lawyer advised me finally not to ask money, cause the domain is not there for
commercial purposes.
And since i used the logos and fonts it could backfire. Also I personally am not interested in fighting a multinational and the stress that comes along, only for a personal domain.
If I didn't use the logo nor the fonts, the case would be different.

It surely is pityful and doubtful, but heh ...

Anyway, all thnx for the advice ...

Greetz,

A bit late to add my thought perhaps.
But a request may not be out of order.
Is there any way I can see a scan of this letter?

Just for the record, I wouldn't give up the domain. But your lawyer has a good point about it backfiring on you. Since you did use like material.

Thanks in advance.

Be safe and stay free