Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
Ouch, and proudly hosted by Mojo Host. I guess he has to enforce his trademark now though, or risk losing it. They can just send Brad Mitchell (posting in this thread) a copy of their trademark if he hasn't already seen it and DMCA the site.
|
If MojoHost had a client allegedly infringing on a trademark then it would require proper notification from the complaining party, just as any other host entity would. All matters of this nature are handled by our legal counsel. MojoHost provides fanatical service to it's clientele, which, in some circumstances, extend far beyond managed hosting and into legal realms. It's not pleasant, or inexpensive, to be on the other side of our attorney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
Shap is the new Acacia.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sands
I know you're wiping your tears away with 100 dollar bills while bitter-sweetly enjoying that tropical sunset and lamenting your decision to get into the adult industry in the first place.
|
I just had to re-quote these for originality. Shap, now you're famous!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
the ignorance in this thread is astounding. its not about YOUR opinion... its about what US Law, international law, ICAAN and the WIPO thinks.... and there is no such thing as a "worthless trademark" anymore than there is any such thing as a "worthless patent" - either it exists or it doesn't. if it exists, its valid until found to be invalid in a court of law in some particular jurisdiction.
|
Cyndalin, with regard to my comment earlier, Pleasurepays has best elaborated my stance. As frustrating as these situations may be, they are all certainly subject to our personal opinions of right and wrong. The fact remains that trademarks either exist or don't exist. Whether or not they can or should be upheld is purely a matter of legal remedy.
I will say, however, that I am quite surprised that everyone is calling the combination of "sex" and "tube" into "sextube" a generic phrase. In all fairness to Shap and Beth, I think that their investment in the trademark was actually quite brilliant. They had essentially trademarked a colloquial phrase for the equivalent of 'sex television' and had it defined as a web site with adult content. As a combination of one regular word plus one colloquial word into one new word which had never been utilized before.... that's where brands and brilliant trademarks come from, people.
Tube sites didn't exist just a few years ago. "Tube" as a colloquial phrase or basically synonym for "TV" has been around at least since the 80's when I was prepubescent (LOL). Didn't anyone else have their mom or dad tell them to quit watching the boob-tube? In case what I'm saying is lost in translation for some of those who are English second language, I remember that the television was the 'tube' (more specifically, that it was without any educational merit). LOL
I had a trademark experience with a domain name and also web site content containing the phrase "phone sex personals" or some similar variation. I don't recall if this pre-dated me as a host or post-dated me as a PS marketing company owner. Very generic, very frustrating trademark which was ultimately upheld.
Whether or not "sextube" should be upheld as a trademark is up to venues of legal jurisdiction and/or the tenacity of those others who wish to protect their alleged, infringing assets.
As for what my opinion of the matter is, at this juncture it's not relevant or appropriate to share. If were to be served, the company's position would become solidified and subsequently shared with our client and then ultimately any such complaining party.
Good luck, everyone. Although I can understand the temptation of all parties to discuss in the forums because they are passionate about their respective businesses.. it does seem like poor judgment, IMHO.
Brad