[Talisman]

Today at 02:46 AM hellsatan said this in Post #12
As stated on vB.com, the only thing they can enforce is the removal of Windows Logos...

As far as the domain goes, Microsoft have no leg to stand on - They cannot sue him for having a domain containing the word "Windows" as everyone has them in their home - Are you telling me Microsoft could sue me because I have Windows in my house?:rambo:

Satan

You bet, they can sue him over a Windows-"something".com domain, Chris. That's exactly why companies register trademarks in the first place.

In this situation, a direct connection between xpguy's domain name and their registered trademark/OS product is obvious. Just look how at the way he used their logo in connection with his domain. There's no way xpguy can even pretend that the two aren't related:





This looks like classic trademark infringement to me. For that matter, I almost think it would be hard to find a more blatant example.

As they've notified xpguy, they own "WindowsXP" and "Windows98" ..... so they've already shown a direct connection how his use of a "WindowsOS" domain infringes upon their trademark and could reasonably be shown to confuse their customers looking for OS support for their Windows product from them; not from xpguy.

We're not talking about some legal fight between Speedy printing services vs. Speedy plumbing services...... in which case any resulting confusion would be incidental and there's no overlap in the customer base of the two organizations. And xpguy is not running a domain/website advising people how to install window panes, screen doors, and shutters.

The way I see it....... for Microsoft's legal department to eat this (xp)guy for lunch, they only have to show three things:

1. The trademark owner <<Microsoft>> owns a trademark <<Windows Operating System>> that is the same or confusingly similar to the registered second level domain name <<WindowsOS>>;

[Well, duh...]

2. The party that registered the domain name <<xpguy>> has no legitimate right or interest in that domain name;

[Meaning those rights belong to the trademark owner; not someone else.]

3. The domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

It's this third item at question now.

So what would a court look at? ...... xpguy registered a WindowsOS domain, plastered Microsoft's logo on that domain name, and started offering technical support services to the public for a software product that doesn't belong to him. The fact that he registered the domain as a .com address instead of .org or .net gives him an option to make this a commercial enterprise any time he chooses in the future.... another consideration Microsoft and their lawyers won't overlook.

If xpguy cooperates with Microsoft's request to transfer this domain to them and he sets up another less official-sounding domain name, he'd be okay...... But if he thinks he can fight their right to pursue legal action to protect their trademark or makes the mistake of asking (demanding) money from them to give up the domain, then his actions would demonstrate that his real purpose for registering the WindowsOS domain all along was to get some financial gain from this. Thus, he would just prove their case against him that he's operating in bad faith.

Talis.