NRA Fighting For A Domain Name

[GUNED.COM]

First of all, I want to thank those of you who have supported GUNED and our Members. Unlike the NRA, we DO NOT GIVE AWAY RIGHTS, but we are members of the NRA also. We have to be. They are the big kids on the block.

To:
Tamara
Moderator
Registered: 03-10-2000
Location: On a mountaintop in Tennessee
Posts: 7891

Thank you.

Here is the latest information that I think all you who have supported the NRA on this will read and retract your earlier statements.
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/shotback/

www.guned.com

[Mike Irwin]

Nicely crafted response letter, but it certainly doesn't engender a retraction from me of my comments in the previous thread on this subject.

Why?

Because my contention was that NRA was attempting to protect what it views as its registered property using current copyright law as it could apply to a new communications medium.

I still believe that to be the case.

I also still believe it to be the case that a new communications medium should NOT gain exemption from existing copyright and trademark law simply because it's new.

I also stated that I hope you you and NRA can reach an acommodation that is beneficial to both parties. I won't retract that comment, either.

Once again, good luck.

[MeekAndMild]

NRA should investigate before threatening. If I'm on the jury when he countersues, he'll win a lot of money.

[El Rojo]

Too bad this turned into a ******* match. I don't see any winners out of this. I don't blame Mike G so much, he bought that domain in good faith. I also don't blame the NRA, as copy righted trade marks are copy righted trademarks.

So related to Mike G's rebuttle, does it matter if you try to sell something or not, can you use a copy righted name anyway? Again that question doesn't really matter until the courts decide on the issue once and for all. Sad that in order to figure this thing out two "pro-gun" groups are going to have to battle it out in court.

[MeekAndMild]

does it matter if you try to sell something or not, can you use a copy righted name anyway?

Some years ago I published some work which was copyrighted. It contained the words "the', "and", "it" and "he". So if you would, please refrain from using these words or I may have to take you to court.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[David Park]

This is about trademarks, not copyrights.

BTW, has the NRA done anything besides send a letter to GUNED? As a former paralegal of sorts, I wrote several letters like this and mostly never received responses. The burden is on the NRA to prove their case here, and scaring people away with a piece of paper is a lot cheaper than paying lawyers to file an infringement case. If it was my website (and speaking with 20/20 hindsight), I would have been tempted to send the letter to the circular file rather than attract a lot of publicity.

[Mike Irwin]

Meek,

I'm certain that this will be a waste of breath, but I'll try anyway...

When you copyright or trademark something, a story, a phrase or term, you don't mark simply the words, you protect the concepts behind the words.

Take, for example, coke.

An every day word that had been in use for fully 200 years before a company got started in Atlanta.

Coke now became more than a word that described a byproduct of coal production. It now represented an intellectual creation.

That pairing of the word and the proprietary creation of the druggist in Atlanta who created Coca-Cola made all of the difference in the world.

In your example, your story that used "the," "and," "it," etc. Which of those words, by themselves, is the embodiment of your entire creative process? Which one word DESCRIBES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, your story? Which word is so unique to your story, that it would be intellectually diminished without it?

The short answer is, none of them.

That's the difference here. "The Armed Citizen" evokes instant recognition -- if you've read an NRA publication, or spoken at length to anyone who has, chances are you've heard of "The Armed Citizen," and know that it has been an NRA standard feature for over 30 years.

If I were to say "The," however. You wouldn't have a clue as to whether I'm referencing your story, a post here on TFL, or stopped short in my pronunciation of "Theocracy."

Oh, and as David correctly points out, copyrights and trademarks are completely different critters.

The laws are similar, but what's protected is different.

That's one of the reasons why if you go back through my posts, you'll see that I use the word "mark" instead of saying trademark, registered mark, special mark, etc. All have different meanings under the law, but all convey use of a specific word or phrase, or sometimes even a color, to an individual for a series of specific purposes.

[MeekAndMild]

I'm certain that this will be a waste of breath, but I'll try anyway...

Lots of good points.

I don't suppose you're running Linux are you?

[Mike Irwin]

Windows 98.

Why?

[Guy B. Meredith]

Makes more sense than McDonald's suit against one small business lady who had a business named Mc<somethingorother>. I do believe that McDonald's won. Seems they own the concept behind "Mc".

Local business lady today, tomorrow Scotland.

[mguffey]

The website confronted by the NRA is mine.

There has been some interesting discourse here on both sides and I'm genuinely appreciative of both points of view.

My problem is this: Large entrenched bureaucracy makes a
claim (tradmark infringement). Give us your domain name.

I happen to disagree with the claim. But there was no opportunity for discourse. Just some chicken-excrement demand by a junior attorney who is not even aware of my website content.

So, heels have been dug in. There is no case law that ABSOLUTELY equates trademarks with domain names. Decisions on both sides of the issue.

I wish you ALL the very best and hope you will keep your minds and your eyes wide open, lest a large entrenched bureaucracy one day comes for YOU.

Best regards. The very best regards.

[Jeeper]

I dont retract any of my earlier comments either. I do like how the letter was phrased and such.

Like Mike said, this is an interesting question where companies are just trying to protect themselves from losing their rights in the future. For this reason I side with the companies rights. I am empathetic with the site owner also. Since he is OBVIOUSLY one of us and supports the NRA and such I feel for him and the pain in the butt this has become for him. He is right that case law supports both sides on this. Since he hasnt tried to make money off this as a cyber squatter the case isnt as clear cut against him as it could be. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[GUNED.COM]

Holders of Electronic Commerce Patents Are in Court

There's already plenty of intellectual property trouble on the Internet, as patent owners are keeping their intellectual property lawyers busy. Amazon.com sued Barnesandnoble.com for infringing its "single click" patent. Priceline.com (Jay Walker's flagship company) sued Expedia.com (a.k.a. Microsoft) for infringing its "on-line auction" patent. Tom Woolston (a.k.a. MercExchange) filed to have Priceline's patent declared invalid, claiming he invented it first. Sightsound.com sued MP3.com and CDNow.com for infringing its patent, claiming it holds the patent on the entire concept of downloading music. Just wait, though -- Audiohighway.com says their patent covers Internet music.

Nobody with a Web site is immune - certainly not anybody with a fat market capitalization. Ebay has been sued by Network Engineering Software for infringing their patent covering an "automated on-line information service and directory, particularly for the Web" (for triple damages, alleging intentional infringement). But don't count ebay out yet. They have sued Bidders Edge for violating their copyrights, among other assertions, for posting listings taken from the ebay site. Coolsavings is suing everyone in sight for infringing their patent on distributing coupon-style discounts to customers. Novadigm (market cap less than $400M) sued Marimba (market cap over $1B) for infringing their "push" patent - both parties are using it in enterprise software distribution. In a slightly different vein, Andrea Rose, who is the owner of a patent covering Virtual Modeling (called StyleFitter) which helps Internet shoppers get the proper size clothes, is suing a "Who's Who" of on-line retailing for infringement, including Penney's, Lands End, Mattel, and Hearst.

There's more. Open Market (where's the dot-com?), awarded a patent on the Internet "shopping cart", announced a willingness to license it for reasonable royalties. They had better hurry. SBH, Inc. has already sued Yahoo! for infringing its shopping cart patent, granted to an independent inventor living in New Zealand. Two MIT professors (where did they come from?) sued Ask Jeeves for infringing their patents on a natural language search engine. Before wading into the debate, we can record yet another instance of intellectual property conflict that has aroused more than a little excitement. The ".gif" image-encoding format - promulgated by Compuserve as a de facto standard - has, to widespread dismay, been found to infringe a Unisys patent. Unisys has had the bad manners (it's just business, folks) to assert that patent, requesting royalties for its use.

Many Internet entrepreneurs might be even more dismayed to know that a company called LinkShare has been issued a patent on linking from one Web site to another when a commission is paid. Don't expect them to sit on this patent - with good sense (and a very good lawyer), they are in line to make a lot of money for someone, if only the lawyers.

Other Internet patents are already lurking in the forest. Open Markets has another one on secure online payments. DoubleClick has a patent on a method of delivery, targeting, and measuring advertising over networks, claimed to be what everybody does. For starters, they have sued L90 for infringement. A competitor, Flycast, claims to have a patent pending on a different method. Netcentives has a patent on online incentives and awards (frequent flyer miles for net purchases). CyberGold also has one (presumably different) on incentives for consumers to interact with Internet ads, and a different patent on managing personal privacy in a computer network. V-Cast and NetDelivery have both been issued patents on push technology. Intermind claims to have an even broader patent on the same technology. Don't be too shocked at this - there are close to 15,000 patents on "fasteners". Still, e-commerce is catching up. There were already 42 electronic auction patents issued by the end of 1998, 19 of them that year.

For the record, almost 1400 "Internet" patents were granted in the first six months of 1999 - compared with only 650 in all of 1997 and 2200 in 1998. According to the USPTO (formally, the US Patent and Trademark Office), 125 business methods patents had been issued by the end of 1998. No less important, there were 2100 new patent-related lawsuits in 1997, up from 1500 in 1992. However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that none of the Internet-related cases mentioned above has yet gone to trial, much less had a verdict returned.

How's that for a painted picture???

My Two Bullets Are Better Than My Two Cents

[Lord Grey Boots]

I think this can be sorted out with a phone call, instead of by letters to/from lawyers.

[mguffey]

a few words more...

The NRA kid (assistant general counsel) *does* have my website confused with another. One which (in good faith) distributes The Armed Citizen anecdotes replete with the NRA logo for that trademark. One which gives away something which the NRA itself encourages the giving away of: the stories. My attempts to communicate with that domain owner have so far been unanswered. I don't really have anything to say to him, aside from keeping him apprised.

I understand and agree with the legal necessity to protect a trademark. But both the NRA's "The Armed Citizen" and the domain, "thearmedcitizen.com" give away for free the information they provide. But. THEY PROVIDE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INFORMATION. Neither type conflicts with, negates or contradicts the other.

It is my belief that the NRA kid was sent on a fool's errand and is operating without a complete grasp of the facts. That said I would like you kind folks to know that at one point I was prepared (while these matters were in dispute) to make the "thearmedcitizen.com" a domain of redirected links to another domain name I own which could not be construed or misconstrued as potentially weakening the NRA's trademark. I discussed it, briefly, with another very active pro-gun website owner I have come to greatly respect. His reaction was affirmative but less than gung-ho because he knew, as I knew, it was a cave in BEFORE the second shot was fired. (The NRA letter being the first.)

I understand full well the power of an entrenched, well financed bureaucracy. I have few arguments with the NRA in general and fully believe that without its PAST contributions the anti-gun forces in America would have triumphed as they have in other countries. But I disagree the the substance of their allegation and remain profoundly offended by their demand. If they want to take this position forward to ICCON, they should let fly.

I further believe the NRA's "case" is/will be seriously weakened by their prior backing away from another forum website (mentioned in my response to them). This makes their position somewhat arbitrary and adds to the loutish character of the demands of this bad boy lawyer kid speaking for them.

Future developments will be publicized.

Keep up the good work, pro or con on this issue but remember, we are all pro-gun. That is what makes this a sad, dark event.

[El Rojo]

MGuffy, when you say we are all pro-gun, someone can just as easily say to you, "Since you are progun, why not sell the NRA the website? Why tie up precious resources fighting within?" I am not saying I agree one way or another, but the claim to both be pro-gun can be a good point for you and a bad point against you. Same thing can be said for the NRA. Problem is the NRA is a very large organization with a pretty well-know history, you are not. I won't say whether I should trust one person more than the other as it will start a flame war of epic proportions. Just things to ponder in this debate.

[Mike Irwin]

"However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that none of the Internet-related cases mentioned above has yet gone to trial, much less had a verdict returned.

How's that for a painted picture???"

I think it's actually something of a MISpainted picture, Guned.

With a couple of exceptions, the items you're citing aren't mark infringement cases -- they're technology infringement issues.

Copyright and Trademark law is one thing. Patent law is another.
They have similarities, but not so much as would relate to this issue, I don't think. Issues involving computer code do blur the issue significantly, though...

I do, however, think I recognize at least 3 and possibly 5 patents in your list as having been issued by a friend of mine. She's an examiner in the intellectual property and technology field.

[GUNED.COM]

Mr. Irwin,
The examples above are just that - examples. Interesting that you noticed 3 or maybe 5 out of the group your friend might have worked on.

I don't use lawyers for Patent, Copyright, or Trademark work unless I have to. My friend is the United States Register of Copyrights - Ms. Marybeth Peters. Here's some of her bio for you: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mbpbio.html

I do NOT want to get into a ******* match with anybody, for we are all on the same side, but if anybody would like some lessons in the great big world of copyright wisdom, I would be glad to send you in the right direction.

Mike W. Smith
GUNED.COM(TM)
SiteApproved(Tm)
Unified Consulting Company(R)
Holder of Trademark, Copyright, and Patent.

ps- you can call me Mike also Mike- not just guned... Do you have any Copyrights, Trademarks, or Patents?

[El Rojo]

I do NOT want to get into a ******* match with anybody, for we are all on the same side...

I noticed a lot of negative NRA statements on your Guned.com website under the Copyright Fight link. Interesting that "we" are fighting each other so fiercely over this since we are supposed to be on the same side. Now I understand the NRA is responsible in this too, but I have a hard time thinking "we" are all on the same side when you insult the NRA in that link with descriptions such as, "Stupid" and with the cry of "Call or e-mail and rip into the NRA." Sure sounds like fighting words from a bunch of brothers in arms. Not saying I necessarily blame you as they did try to strong arm the website back. However, why hide behind this whole "we are all on the same side" bullcrap when it is obvious that you are at war with the NRA? So what are you doing to ease the tensions? I sort of liked the response from David Park.

If it was my website (and speaking with 20/20 hindsight), I would have been tempted to send the letter to the circular file rather than attract a lot of publicity.

As David so eloquently stated, the ball is in the NRA's court. So drop it and let them pick it up. If they don't have the legal backing you state, let them waste their money, countersue for expenses to fight the legal battle. Otherwise, continue to make a big deal about it, but please don't keep up the "we are on the same side" lies. You are ready to fight the NRA in a war. That is not helping our cause any. If the NRA takes this any further, then I will blame them just as much. They tried to scare you into submission. It looks like it got you riled up for some reason. Maybe it is best to just let the situation die and if they bring it up again, take care of it then. If the law is so on your side, then there is no need to worry. Really until the courts decide the issue, there isn't much you can do about it.

[GUNED.COM]

El Rojo,
If you noticed, the NRA started this commotion, and with a GUNED Member. I will take on ANYBODY that fights or threatens our group. I have a pair, do you? Listen, I just received my Endorsement from the NRA in my Campaign:
www.mikewsmith.com

I am a full member of the NRA, and back and support them with 95% of what they do. As a member of the NRA, I feel it necessary to say what needs to be said when bad rule comes about concerning the other 5%.

What are you doing to help secure your firearm freedoms in California? Are you running for office? Are you calling and meeting with your Representatives PERSONALLY, at their places of business? Do you have what it takes to start your own gun club or organization? Have you tried to contact a GUNED Member in your State?

With your comments:

"However, why hide behind this whole "we are all on the same side" bullcrap when it is obvious that you are at war with the NRA?"

I guess you don't understand. Why would I be at war with the same organization (NRA) that just backed my Candidacy, and knows and supports GUNED??? I don’t know of anything else I can tell you, other than YOU are stirring the pot.

[mguffey]

A wise mand at a cult-of-personality company I once worked for said, [paraphrased] "Don't direct a stream of urine into the face of a tiger."

So, the question here remains: who is directing a stream of urine?

[Mike Irwin]

"Who's directing a stream of urine..."

Quite frankly, neither AND both parties.

[Jeeper]

Guned.com or site owner

It has appearded to me from some of the previous posts I read here that the majority sided with the Trademark owner and not the site owner. I am curious as to what type of responses you have received elsewhere. Were other BB's vastly different in their opinions? Just curious.

[El Rojo]

What are you doing to help secure your firearm freedoms in California? Are you running for office? Are you calling and meeting with your Representatives PERSONALLY, at their places of business? Do you have what it takes to start your own gun club or organization? Have you tried to contact a GUNED Member in your State?

Nothing. I am not doing anything that is worthy to your greatness. Everyone knows that no one has sacrificed more than you in this war for our 2nd Amendment rights. Oh wait, why is this relevant again to this discussion?

I will take on ANYBODY that fights or threatens our group.

Why? Why fight when you don't have too? The NRA threatened your site member. Let them walk the walk. Until the courts rule otherwise, you have the domain name. What more do you want?

You have a pair eh? A pair of what? What does a pair of women's pumps have to do with this? I personally don't have a pair of women's pumps. Sorry.

I am stirring the pot? You called the NRA "stupid" on your website for not registering their domain name. Is that what allies do? Call the people that support them stupid? Sort of defeats your own campaign when only idiots are backing you.

I would be interested in hearing the results if you or Mike G called this lawyer or someone else at the regional NRA level and discussed this. If you have already, I would be interested in hearing what happened. It would be interesting to see how responsive the NRA is to this. Let me know if you would like me to inquire too, but I don't think they will want to discuss much with me since I am not really connected to this whole thing.

[FPrice]

"I have a pair, do you?"

Of all the stimulating intellectual arguements and persuasive commentary I have heard in the course of this friendly discussion, this one is without a doubt the one most designed to sway a reasonable person who is searching for the truth to one side or the other.