Domain Name Trademark

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by markd, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. markd

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:52:23 +1200, markd <>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >In the following scenario, will I lose my domain name?
    >
    >I have a domain name, for example, mydogs.co.nz, which I use to put up
    >everything about my dogs, sort of like a dog weblog.
    >
    >Now there is this overseas company with a NZ trademark MyDogs, which
    >sells dog food etc., and demands me to surrender the domain name
    >mydogs.co.nz. I have never intended to make any profit out of this
    >domain name, nor is it commercial in nature, will they still be able to
    >take it away from me?
    >
    >Are there any good copyright/trademark lawyers in NZ I can contact?
    >
    >Thank in advance.
    >
    >Mark.



    Been a lot of good answers here Mark, I'll just add my 2c.....

    My observations of historical cases are that domain names are easily
    claimed by the 'trademark' owner if it can be decided the existing
    domain name owner is squatting & not legitimately interested in the
    domain otherwise. If you're not squatting, and the name is a generic
    phrase or word, such as "mydogs", then you should be able to keep your
    domain so long as you put up a good fight.

    In my view the last thing you want to do is offer to sell it to them
    or talk money in any way. Doing so will make you look like a squatter.
    Previous history of domain name spats shows the claimant, or their
    lawyers at least, always first try to get the domain name owner to
    talk sums. That then gives them evidence of squatting, because that's
    what squatters do - sell their domain to highest offer.

    Cheers

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Jul 31, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. markd

    m00se Guest

    Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

    > PDT also has well documented credentials as a lying, backstabbing deceitful
    > bastard.



    But of course Mr Brown, you dont...
     
    m00se, Aug 1, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. markd

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    (Gavin Tunney) wrote in
    news::


    > In my view the last thing you want to do is offer to sell it to them
    > or talk money in any way. Doing so will make you look like a squatter.
    > Previous history of domain name spats shows the claimant, or their
    > lawyers at least, always first try to get the domain name owner to
    > talk sums. That then gives them evidence of squatting, because that's
    > what squatters do - sell their domain to highest offer.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Gavin
    >


    So a better aproach might be to offer to work with them for a win/win
    outcome, like get them to pay for a new website for "mydogs.co.nz" a link
    to the new site from the company and compensation for the hassle involved.

    --
    Chris Mayhew using Xnews !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 1, 2003
    #23
  4. markd

    markd Guest

    > He felt in this case as you are not competing with or degrading the name
    > 'Mydogs' they would have next to no chance of having it taken off you.


    The site itself is for personal use, and in no way similar to the said
    company's current website. So it is unlikely my domain name/website can
    pass off anything, nor can it mislead anybody. On the site, it does not
    use any of the said trademark, the only "link" is the domain name. So it
    will be interesting to find out if registering and using the domain name
    constitutes the use of a trademark.

    However I do have a sole-trading business which the said company claims,
    is a potential competitor. That is why they are quoting FTA, Passing Off
    and MTA as their grounds.



    > There has been a large number of case of companies claiming domain names due
    > to register trademarks in nz, almost all have failed to succeed.


    Is it possible to get more information about the cases somewhere? I
    would like to check out any precedence.


    Mark.
     
    markd, Aug 1, 2003
    #24
  5. markd

    DPF Guest

    On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:56:23 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:53:23 +1200, DPF wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Alan - while I agree the actions of those who supported the defamation
    >> action against you were wrong (in my opinion) and highly regrettable, it
    >> doesn't mean that this rules people out from any involvement in
    >> InternetNZ.

    >
    >Someone who repeatedly lied to the membership about his involvement in the
    >case AND appeared on TV3 as a "commentator" on the case when he'd been
    >named in court as the INSTIGATOR has pretty much proven he cannot be
    >trusted.
    >
    >He's out for his own glory. He lost his bid to stay on the council and
    >managed to sneak in the back door because you are a bunch of spineless
    >cowards.
    >
    >Or you're being paid to look the other way.
    >
    >Which is it?


    Alan if you want to insult and abuse those who spent hundreds of hours
    trying to stop the defamation action against you, for no reward or
    return, that is your privilege.

    DPF
    --
    Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
    E-mail:
    ICQ: 29964527
    MSN:
     
    DPF, Aug 1, 2003
    #25
  6. On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:21:37 +1200, markd wrote:

    > However I do have a sole-trading business which the said company claims,
    > is a potential competitor. That is why they are quoting FTA, Passing Off
    > and MTA as their grounds.


    the usual bullshit.

    They're trying to play the game of "who has deeper pockets"

    >> There has been a large number of case of companies claiming domain names due
    >> to register trademarks in nz, almost all have failed to succeed.

    >
    > Is it possible to get more information about the cases somewhere? I
    > would like to check out any precedence.


    Few of the companies which have tried reverse domain name hijacking have
    come up against someone opersting a company they can claim is a potential
    competitor.

    The first thing to do is stick to your guns and state the domain is not
    for sale at any price. Secondly, contact a competent domain name lawyer
    and be prepared to pay through the nose for it. Clendon Feeney would be a
    good place to start, the guys there aren't trying to play political power
    games.

    AVOID any lawyer who's been involved in the ISOCNZ circus, they're there
    for glory and politics.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 1, 2003
    #26
  7. On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:35:16 +1200, DPF wrote:

    > Alan if you want to insult and abuse those who spent hundreds of hours
    > trying to stop the defamation action against you, for no reward or
    > return, that is your privilege.


    It was action initiated and orchestrated by someone who lied about his
    involvement and is still playing a core role in the society.

    He should have been removed permanently, not sent off to rail publically
    about ICANN being secretive and manipulative when he is guilty of
    performing exactly the same things he screams about, within ISOCNZ until
    exposed - and due to ongoing ISOCNZ secrecy may well still be doing it.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 1, 2003
    #27
  8. markd

    Mark Harris Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:13:02 +1200, "T.N.O" <> wrote:

    ObDisclaimer: IANAL

    >"Mark" wrote
    >| Something like cocacola.co.nz or xerox.co.nz might be a
    >| little tougher to hold on to..
    >
    >but who is to say that "mydogs" is not as good of a marketing name as "coke"
    >or "xerox" all this is is personal opinion.
    >

    There is a subset of trademark law that deals with "famous marks" -
    coke or coca-cola might fall under that, as they are much better known
    than "mydogs". I believe "xerox" (like cellotape or jello) does not,
    as they were not initially defended and so lost their "famous mark"
    status and now cannot be counted as a trademark, except in
    circumstances of someone passing themselves off as the original. Xerox
    is now used a generic term for a photocopy.

    IIRC there was a thread on this last year when Google started issuing
    cease and desistage to all and sundry using their logo, and made
    noises about not wanting "google" used as a verb, because they didn't
    want their trademark to lapse through not defending it. IIRC also,
    there was comment about this being standard practice to establish a
    defence, but that they didn't intend to actually sue anyone.

    cheers

    mark
    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Aug 2, 2003
    #28
  9. markd

    Mark Harris Guest

    ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer

    On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 02:21:20 +1200, "The Flash"
    <> wrote:
    >> A similar, but more in-your-face example is domain names like
    >> PayPalSucks.com, PayPalWarning.com, I wonder if they can get away with
    >> using the trademarked wording?

    >
    >US Website, covered by freedom of speech act in the US. you would not be
    >able to register 'fordsucks.co.nz'


    You would be allowed to register it, but you might be buying a fight
    with Ford. If so, they might go after you for defamation, although
    it's debatable whether they'd win, on law, but their pockets would
    undoubtedly be deeper. :-(

    There is nothing in the setup and management of the NZ DNS that would
    prevent registration of a name like ford-sucks.co.nz, as the act of
    registration indemnifies the Registry and you as nameholder bear
    responsibility for any infringement under law. This *has* been tested
    in the New Zealand courts - see
    http://www.rbd-law.com/domain_names/court_cases/oggi-co-nz.htm
    (I was on the ISOCNZ council at the time)

    Also see http://www.harkness.co.nz/articles/domain_names.htm which
    discusses the wider issues.

    >as we do not allow this level of personal freedom.


    You're right in that US law has explicit freedom of speech, and that
    covers parody and criticism. (I'd debate whether that amounts to
    greater personal freedom, but YMMV ;-)

    There was a case recently where a guy set up such a domain and won.
    See http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case313.cfm

    The Taubman Company v. Webfeats, et al., Nos. 01-2648/2725
    (6th Cir., February 7, 2003). Reversing the court below,
    the Sixth Circuit dissolves an injunction which enjoined
    defendants from using plaintiff's trademarks in conjunction
    with the word "sucks" in the domain name of several
    "complaint" sites, as well as in the domain name of a
    non-commercial "fan" site. The Sixth Circuit held that
    defendants' use of plaintiff's mark in a 'fan' site
    did not run afoul of Section 1114 of the Lanham Act
    because of the presence of both a prominent disclaimer
    on the site disavowing any affiliation with plaintiff,
    and a link to plaintiff's official web site. Defendant's
    use of plaintiff's marks in conjunction with the word
    "sucks" in the domain names of non-commercial complaint
    sites did not violate Section 1114 of the Lanham
    Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion
    arising therefrom, and because such speech is protected by
    the First Amendment.

    While US law does not automatically set precedent in NZ, the Courts
    here are aware of decisions in other jurisdictions and do note them in
    their arguments and judgements.

    NZ does not have the blanket benefit of the US First Amendment,
    guaranteeing free speech, but we do have a common law tradition of
    free speech, as long as it does not cause public unrest. We have
    fairly solid defamation laws, but truth is an absolute defence. If you
    set up a site called ford-motors-porirua-sucks.co.nz, which detailed a
    bad experience you had had with that company, odds are you'd get away
    with it. If you just used it to rant about Ford cars in general, or
    about the company in particular, I think the balance would swing the
    company's way, as you could be seen as bringing the company into
    unwarrented disrepute "in the minds of right-thinking people" (I am
    *not* making this up!)

    fordsucks.co.nz is even more open, I think. It could refer to a man
    named ford, a stram crossing, a car or tractor or even a dog. The name
    per se wouldn't be enough to attract a trademark case (IMHO) or a
    defamation case.

    Whew, that's a lot for a Saturday night. If in doubt, consult a
    lawyer, but check your bank account first - IP lawyers do not come
    cheap.

    cheers

    mark
    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Aug 2, 2003
    #29
  10. markd

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    (Mark Harris) wrote in
    news::

    > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:13:02 +1200, "T.N.O" <> wrote:
    >
    > ObDisclaimer: IANAL
    >
    >>"Mark" wrote
    >>| Something like cocacola.co.nz or xerox.co.nz might be a
    >>| little tougher to hold on to..
    >>
    >>but who is to say that "mydogs" is not as good of a marketing name as
    >>"coke" or "xerox" all this is is personal opinion.
    >>

    > There is a subset of trademark law that deals with "famous marks" -
    > coke or coca-cola might fall under that, as they are much better known
    > than "mydogs". I believe "xerox" (like cellotape or jello) does not,
    > as they were not initially defended and so lost their "famous mark"
    > status and now cannot be counted as a trademark, except in
    > circumstances of someone passing themselves off as the original. Xerox
    > is now used a generic term for a photocopy.
    >

    I don't know what this "subset" is that you are refering to but there is a
    difference between trademark names like "mydogs" and Xerox, Cellotape,
    Google, Coca-Cola etc and that is that "mydogs" is made up of 1 or more
    common english words unlike Xerox, Coca-Cola etc which are made up words
    Which had no meaning when they were introduced. The fact that Xerox has
    become a generic term is mostlikely related to the fact that describes an
    action i.e. it's used as a verb and started to used like this when there
    wern't to many brands of photocopyers on the market. In a case like this
    it is more likely to add to the value of the trade mark (?) on the bases
    that you can't "Coca-Cola" anything - it simply "is it" :)

    > IIRC there was a thread on this last year when Google started issuing
    > cease and desistage to all and sundry using their logo, and made
    > noises about not wanting "google" used as a verb, because they didn't
    > want their trademark to lapse through not defending it. IIRC also,
    > there was comment about this being standard practice to establish a
    > defence, but that they didn't intend to actually sue anyone.

    This is another example of what I was trying to say above. Google has
    become a verb as people refer to "googling" as a seach activity - which can
    only improve googles value as a search engine and hence the companies
    value.
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > mark




    --
    Chris Mayhew using Xnews !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 3, 2003
    #30
  11. markd

    markd Guest

    > I don't know what this "subset" is that you are refering to but there is a
    > difference between trademark names like "mydogs" and Xerox, Cellotape,
    > Google, Coca-Cola etc and that is that "mydogs" is made up of 1 or more
    > common english words unlike Xerox, Coca-Cola etc which are made up words
    > Which had no meaning when they were introduced. The fact that Xerox has


    Someone raised an interesting question regarding trademarks and domain
    name entitlement. At the moment "ecommerce" is not trademarked yet, and
    it is simly an expression of commerce in the electronical way, similar
    to the use of "my" in "dogs"?

    The main point is, if someone successfully registered "ecommerce"
    trademark in NZ, is this person automatically entitled the use of all
    "ecommerce" domain names in NZ? Can they claim the use of
    www.ecommerce.govt.nz an infringement? If someone managed to register
    "ARMY", doing some army-styled clothing/toys, www.army.mil.nz might then
    be in trouble?

    Any thoughts? I can't seem to find any official info for or against the
    rights of a trademark in cyberspace.

    Mark.
     
    markd, Aug 3, 2003
    #31
  12. markd

    Mark Harris Guest

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:27:50 GMT, Chris Mayhew <> wrote:


    >I don't know what this "subset" is that you are refering to but there is a
    >difference between trademark names like "mydogs" and Xerox, Cellotape,
    >Google, Coca-Cola etc and that is that "mydogs" is made up of 1 or more
    >common english words unlike Xerox, Coca-Cola etc which are made up words
    >Which had no meaning when they were introduced. The fact that Xerox has
    >become a generic term is mostlikely related to the fact that describes an
    >action i.e. it's used as a verb and started to used like this when there
    >wern't to many brands of photocopyers on the market. In a case like this
    >it is more likely to add to the value of the trade mark (?) on the bases
    >that you can't "Coca-Cola" anything - it simply "is it" :)


    You can also "make a xerox copy" of something, which is equally common
    usage. How a term is used has little bearing bearing on how famous it
    is. That a term has recognition value is an indication it may be a
    famous mark, regardless of whether it is trademarked in a particular
    jurisdiction.

    For information on "famous marks", try "googling" it ;-)

    Among others, you'll get:
    http://www.domainhandbook.com/famous.html
    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wipo/Arc01/msg00020.html
    http://ipc.songbird.com/famous_marks_paper.html
    http://www.pbwt.com/Resources/index-newsletter.html
    http://www.iplawky.com/wcsb/tradempr.htm
    http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/famous-marks-position.txt

    Also
    http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=famous mark&sites=findlaw.com
    http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=famous mark&submit2=search&sites=wlegal
    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9904.html

    To my mind mydogs isn't a famous mark, not because it's a mixture of 2
    words, but because it simply isn't famous. Putting "mydogs" into
    Google doesn't bring up anything resembling a commercial page in the
    first 5 (they *all* seem to be personal pages)

    More importantly, www.mydogs.com brings up a domain parking page! And
    the domain is held by a Korean outfit:

    Whois info for, mydogs.com:
    Registrant:
    ARISU TECH
    P.O.BOX.5
    Unpyong-Gu
    Seoul, 122-600
    KR
    Domain name: MYDOGS.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Kim, Sooyong
    P.O.BOX.5
    Unpyong-Gu
    Seoul, 122-600
    KR
    +82-502-110-1010 Fax: +82-502-808-0101

    Technical Contact:
    Kim, Sooyong
    P.O.BOX.5
    Unpyong-Gu
    Seoul, 122-600
    KR
    +82-502-110-1010 Fax: +82-502-808-0101

    Registration Service Provider:
    ARISU TECH,
    +82-502-110-1010
    This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
    DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.

    Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
    Record last updated on 05-Aug-2002.
    Record expires on 23-May-2004.
    Record Created on 23-May-2002.

    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS.NOVANIC.COM 211.169.248.13
    NS.CHOIS.COM 211.169.248.14


    So, I don't think the OP need be too worried.

    [I wrote]
    >> IIRC there was a thread on this last year when Google started issuing
    >> cease and desistage to all and sundry using their logo, and made
    >> noises about not wanting "google" used as a verb, because they didn't
    >> want their trademark to lapse through not defending it. IIRC also,
    >> there was comment about this being standard practice to establish a
    >> defence, but that they didn't intend to actually sue anyone.


    >This is another example of what I was trying to say above. Google has
    >become a verb as people refer to "googling" as a seach activity - which can
    >only improve googles value as a search engine and hence the companies
    >value.


    The point I was making was not about recognition but about defending a
    trademark. Google was willing to forego the recognition factor in
    order to protect their trademark. It didn't do any good, as you can't
    stop a meme once it's out of the bottle, but they had to be on record
    as trying or they would lose any right to legal protection through
    abandonment.

    I never said the law wasn't crazy! ;-)

    cheers

    mark
    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Aug 3, 2003
    #32
  13. On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:39:22 +0000, Mark Harris wrote:


    >>US Website, covered by freedom of speech act in the US. you would not be
    >>able to register 'fordsucks.co.nz'

    >
    > You would be allowed to register it, but you might be buying a fight with
    > Ford. If so, they might go after you for defamation, although it's
    > debatable whether they'd win, on law, but their pockets would undoubtedly
    > be deeper. :-(


    They'd be hard pressed. There's precedent already - ford took legal action
    against fuckgeneralmotors.com (which redirects to www.ford.com) and lost,
    bigtime.

    > While US law does not automatically set precedent in NZ, the Courts here
    > are aware of decisions in other jurisdictions and do note them in their
    > arguments and judgements.


    Indeed, and it'd get even more interesting if the registrant is outside NZ.

    Who remembers bastards.co.nz and the standover tactics on wisenet over it?
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 4, 2003
    #33
  14. markd

    pbs Guest

    Chris Mayhew wrote:
    > (Mark Harris) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >
    >>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:13:02 +1200, "T.N.O" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>ObDisclaimer: IANAL
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Mark" wrote
    >>>| Something like cocacola.co.nz or xerox.co.nz might be a
    >>>| little tougher to hold on to..
    >>>
    >>>but who is to say that "mydogs" is not as good of a marketing name as
    >>>"coke" or "xerox" all this is is personal opinion.
    >>>

    >>
    >>There is a subset of trademark law that deals with "famous marks" -
    >>coke or coca-cola might fall under that, as they are much better known
    >>than "mydogs". I believe "xerox" (like cellotape or jello) does not,
    >>as they were not initially defended and so lost their "famous mark"
    >>status and now cannot be counted as a trademark, except in
    >>circumstances of someone passing themselves off as the original. Xerox
    >>is now used a generic term for a photocopy.
    >>

    >
    > I don't know what this "subset" is that you are refering to but there is a
    > difference between trademark names like "mydogs" and Xerox, Cellotape,
    > Google, Coca-Cola etc and that is that "mydogs" is made up of 1 or more
    > common english words unlike Xerox, Coca-Cola etc which are made up words
    > Which had no meaning when they were introduced. The fact that Xerox has
    > become a generic term is mostlikely related to the fact that describes an
    > action i.e. it's used as a verb and started to used like this when there
    > wern't to many brands of photocopyers on the market. In a case like this
    > it is more likely to add to the value of the trade mark (?) on the bases
    > that you can't "Coca-Cola" anything - it simply "is it" :)


    Rolls-Royce have always gone to court over the none authorised
    use of their name in adverts. It is used as an adjective or adverb
    not a verb.

    http://www.marketingprofs.com/2/dsouza5.asp
    http://www.baldwins.co.nz/articles/website_issue.html

    BTW in the UK nearly everyone says "photocopy" I have only
    heard Americans and American wannabes use the term "Xerox". What
    do most people says in in NZ?
    Americans "vacume", Brits "hover", what do Kiwis do?
    Strangly, the Germans have invented a new English word usage for "handy"
    as the name for a "cell" or "mobile" phone. What is it called in NZ?
     
    pbs, Aug 4, 2003
    #34
  15. markd

    DPF Guest

    On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:27:32 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:39:22 +0000, Mark Harris wrote:
    >
    >Indeed, and it'd get even more interesting if the registrant is outside NZ.
    >
    >Who remembers bastards.co.nz and the standover tactics on wisenet over it?


    IIRC the domain was www.c**t.co.nz and either Telecom or LTSA objected
    to it being redirected to their website :)

    DPF
    --
    Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
    E-mail:
    ICQ: 29964527
    MSN:
     
    DPF, Aug 4, 2003
    #35
  16. markd

    Mark Harris Guest

    On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:12:42 +1200, pbs
    <> wrote:

    [snip>
    >BTW in the UK nearly everyone says "photocopy" I have only
    >heard Americans and American wannabes use the term "Xerox". What
    >do most people says in in NZ?


    Both. I'd say photocopy is a little ahead, but I've used both
    interchangebly.

    >Americans "vacume", Brits "hover", what do Kiwis do?


    Both, and lux as well (Electrolux was a big seller here)> Personally,
    I do the vacuuming, and so does my wife (English born, but here since
    aged 10).

    >Strangly, the Germans have invented a new English word usage for "handy"
    >as the name for a "cell" or "mobile" phone. What is it called in NZ?
    >

    cellphone, mobile, "turn that frickin' thing off!" (when in cinemas
    ;-)
    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Aug 4, 2003
    #36
  17. markd

    pbs Guest

    DPF wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:27:32 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:39:22 +0000, Mark Harris wrote:
    >>
    >>Indeed, and it'd get even more interesting if the registrant is outside NZ.
    >>
    >>Who remembers bastards.co.nz and the standover tactics on wisenet over it?

    >
    >
    > IIRC the domain was www.c**t.co.nz and either Telecom or LTSA objected
    > to it being redirected to their website :)


    The privatised British Electricity utility now called Powergen UK Plc,
    back in June, had to deny that it was in any way connected to a battery
    manufacturer of the same name in Italy who had chosen to call their web
    site: http://www.powergenitalia.com
    See: http://www.snopes.com/business/names/powergen.asp
     
    pbs, Aug 5, 2003
    #37
  18. markd

    Howard Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    > Dont Telecom have "yellow"


    Well they have "yellow pages", and they only have the colour yellow when
    it's related to the paper of printed telephone directories.
     
    Howard, Aug 7, 2003
    #38
  19. markd

    Andrew Guest

    Guess that depends on the program your using to read with.... with outlook
    its easy

    "Uncle StoatWarbler" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:34:11 +1200, Andrew wrote:
    >
    > > Dont Telecom have "yellow"

    >
    > They have a trademark on the _colour_ yellow.
    >
    > "Yellow pages" is a trademark of Brutish Telecom
    >
    >
    > BTW, don't top post, it's hard to read.
    >
    >
     
    Andrew, Aug 8, 2003
    #39
  20. On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:34:11 +1200, Andrew wrote:

    > Dont Telecom have "yellow"


    They have a trademark on the _colour_ yellow.

    "Yellow pages" is a trademark of Brutish Telecom


    BTW, don't top post, it's hard to read.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Aug 8, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vijaya
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    26,739
    theapplebee
    Oct 31, 2009
  2. FESWANY
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,406
  3. Nik Coughlin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,015
  4. Limited Wisdom
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    864
    Jonathan Roberts
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. karlaserv

    Apple faces new trademark-lawsuit in China

    karlaserv, Aug 1, 2012, in forum: The Lounge
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,482
Loading...

Share This Page