Feeds

Lord of the Rings domain fight enters realms of fantasy

Warner Bros puts claim to 1,000 years of history

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Security for virtualized datacentres

You're one in a million

The letter quotes the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding One in a Million Ltd as proof of its legitimate intent. This was a landmark decision in the UK courts in July 1998, which upheld the decision to hand over ladbrokes.com, sainsbury.com, sainsburys.com, j-sainsbury.com, marksandspencer.com, cellnet.net, bt.org, virgin.org, marksandspencer.co.uk, britishtelecom.co.uk, britishtelecom.net and britishtelecom.com over to their respective namesake companies.

Unfortunately, this decision is frequently wrongly used by large companies as legal grounds for pressuring people into handing over their domains. (The Easy Group's derided crusade to take over all domain names with the word "easy" made extensive and misleading use of the One in a Million judgement.)

Citing the Appeal Court judgment (which you can find here), Addleshaw Goddard argues that Shiremail.com infringes its clients' rights. The judge in the judgment does say that he doesn't see direct infringement of a trademark as being needed to prove "passing off". However, he does explicitly mention several other aspects of the case that clearly would not refer to Shiremail.com.

In the One in a Million case, the defendants showed a "deliberate practice followed over a substantial period of time of registering domain names which are chosen to resemble the names and marks of other people and are plainly intended to deceive". That is patently not the case with Mr Costelloe.

The judge also stresses: "The trade names were well-known 'household names' denoting in ordinary usage the respective respondent." The same simply isn't true of Shiremail - which is a name that does not exist in any meaningful sense. And while in the decided case, "the motive of the appellants was to use that goodwill and threaten to sell it to another who might use it for passing-off to obtain money from the respondents," Mr Costelloe has no intention of selling the domain.

The matter of goodwill was clearly stated (although not properly argued) by Addleshaw Goddard in its letter, but what of the intention to sell? This may explain a phone call Mr Costelloe took on his mobile a few days after he responded to the original letter by saying he would see them in court.

As Costelloe recalled: "A friendly gentleman ... asks me if I am who he was looking for and continues to query my intentions of whether or not I intend to hand the domain over to them, which I said no. He then instructed me that this was likely to end up with me being taken to court and I kindly replied with 'good'..."

Mr Costelloe has since reported the phone call to the Law Society of England and Wales claiming harrassment.

It's mine, all mine

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised though. One of three parties being represented, Warner Brothers, has made a habit of stretching its "rights" far into cyberspace.

Back in the early days of the commercial Internet, Warner Brothers sued Andrew Baucom for his District of Columbia Information Site at www.dc.com. Warner Brothers felt that it infringed on their trademark for DC Comics. It is now owned by consulting firm Deloitte.

Then of course there was the infamous campaign against teenage boys and girls who had registered domains with the name "harry potter" in. After massive media coverage of the company's threatening approach to children, the company eventually backed down.

Even in the days before the Internet, Warner Brothers was making a name for itself claiming extraordinary rights over names, prompting Groucho Marx to respond to its claims over his film A Night in Casablanca with the assertion that he believed Warner Brothers may not posses the right to use its "Brothers" name. The letter has been preserved for posterity.

Mr Costelloe remains determined not to have any of it though and has told Addleshaw Goddard he will see them in court. ®

What a load of shire

Here are the areas within the UK that still possess the suffix "shire" - all of whom may have something to say about a US film company's efforts to claim rights over their name.

England: Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire and Yorkshire.

Scotland: Aberdeenshire, Argyllshire, Ayrshire, Banffshire, Berwickshire, Buteshire,Clackmannanshire, Dumbartonshire, Dumfriesshire, Forfarshire, Invernesshire, Kincardineshire, Kinrosshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, Lanarkshire, Morayshire, Peeblesshire, Perthshire, Renfrewshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, Stirlingshire and Wigtownshire.

Wales: Breconshire, Caernarvonshire, Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire, Monmouthshire, Montgomeryshire, Pembrokeshire and Radnorshire.

Related stories

Fur flies in animal rights domain dispute
Powergen awarded whistleblower's domain
Roxio wins napster.co.uk from the Crown
Microsoft lawyers threaten Mike Rowe (17)

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Phones 4u slips into administration after EE cuts ties with Brit mobe retailer
More than 5,500 jobs could be axed if rescue mission fails
Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians
'Disciplinary treatment will be sharp and clear' vow spy-chiefs
Apple CEO Tim Cook: TV is TERRIBLE and stuck in the 1970s
The iKing thinks telly is far too fiddly and ugly – basically, iTunes
Huawei ditches new Windows Phone mobe plans, blames poor sales
Giganto mobe firm slams door shut on Microsoft. OH DEAR
Phones 4u website DIES as wounded mobe retailer struggles to stay above water
Founder blames 'ruthless network partners' for implosion
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
prev story

Whitepapers

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.