Stupid Press Release of the Week: Blu-RayOutlet.com
Monday, August 11th, 2008
Nothing screams “trademark infringement” like a press release.
Add this one to the bonehead press release of the year department.
“Web publisher” James Moore is auctioning off the trademark domain name Blu-RayOutlet.com and told the world about it in a press release.
Blu-Ray Disc, of course, is a trademark. And I doubt any UDRP panel would let this one slip through.
At the TRAFFIC auction in Orlando, BlueRay.com sold for $30,000. After the sale, an investor next to me leaned over and said, “yeah, but the legal costs will be just as much as the domain cost.”
But the Blue-Ray Disc Association need not worry about some nefarious party picking up this domain at the eBay auction. Moore has a beginning bid price of $250,000 and a buy now price of $1,000,000. Um, don’t all bid at once.
Related posts:
- Stupid Domain Name Press Release of the Week
- Stupid Domain Name Press Release of the Week
- Saddam.com shows power of Press Release
Tags: blu-ray, trademark domain
FYI, I think Blueray.com sold for $30k as opposed to BluRay.com
Thanks Bill, I’ve fixed it.
I don’t see what the problem is.
It is descriptive and fair use.
How else would you describe an outlet site that sells blu-ray discs?
David, if I were to start a forum called ToyotaForum.com, I wouldn’t expect to go free and clear from Toyota. They may be OK with it, but it’s their trademark.
Why not? It’s a forum about Toyota.
It’s descriptive. Just like ToyotaSucks.com
Don’t assume that if a sitename incorporates someone elses mark that it must be infringement.
However, if you are parking, then all bets are off.
OK, I’m assuming ToyotaForum.com would make money by showing ads. If you make money from ToyotaSucks.com you’d lose the domain.
There is nothing wrong with showing ads as long as you are adding value.
For example, http://www.ToyotaNation.com does just that and is run by a reputable company AutoForums.com:
http://www.autoforums.com/pages/about/index.php
I’ve yet to see a “sucks” case that showed ads and the domain owner won. But I’d be happy to look at one.
When Internet Brands filed for its IPO, it said one of its risk factors was that it ran forums such as Ford-Trucks.com, and CorvetteForum.com, which it said it didn’t have licenses to use the trademarks.
Does that mean they’d necessarily lose the domains? No. But I can guarantee you if Blu-RayOutlet.com went to UDRP the current owner would lose given the circumstances.
Hi Andrew,
You might want to check your facts — the trademark on the word “Blu-ray” has been abandoned since September 5, 2007. You can check the TESS directory at the USPTO online for verification.
I’d appreciate your publishing a retraction (your article may be driving away potential buyers with false information). Perhaps my asking price is too high, feel free to ridicule me about that, maybe you can still make it an interesting article.
Regards,
James
James, “Blu-Ray Disc” is the current trademark. “Blu-Ray” when used for DVDs is a common law trademark.
Don’t worry, you’re not going to lose any sales over this. If anything it has brought attention to your domain, so you might get a legitimate offer.
Andrew,
Well I certainly appreciate any additional publicity. I do regret that view this domain/its sale/owner as ‘fishy.’
If I (or a potential future owner) was using Blu-rayOutlet.com to sell HD DVD’s (now defunct) instead of Blu-ray discs, or trash-talk the Blu-ray format, I could possibly see the Blu-ray Disc Association having a problem with my use of this domain name. As it stands, I don’t envision the problem you do.
And for the record, I really am a “web publisher,” at least as a hobby (I have a day job that pays the bills). I own/operate/publish ChristianSongwriters.org, a niche website that has a loyal, growing network of members worldwide.
Regards,
James
James,
I used the term “web publisher” in quotes because that’s what your press release had. Web publisher can mean a lot of things.
You’re probably right, I doubt the Blu Ray Association would come after you. They want Blu Ray to become popular. But there’s certainly some risk.
The whole trademark in domainname issue is one I’ve never fully understood although I have just assumed that if part of your domainname has a trademark in it, you could be in legal hotwater if the company chose to come after you.
However, in this case would I be ok if I registered a domain with BluRay in it, not Blu-Ray? I’m thinking of starting a site listing BluRay release dates and information etc and want to be sure I can legally register a domain with BluRay in it without getting sued.
Any advice would be appreciated.
James, I think BluRay would be viewed the same as Blu-Ray. That said, if you are promoting Blu-Ray discs, they may choose to not come after you and view it as a fan site. The trademark is owned by a non-profit organization now that promotes Blu-Ray.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the info. The site will definitely be a resource for people who want to find out what films are available on Blu-Ray and which ones are coming out in the various regions.
It will have advertising on it though so will be commercial..
I did do a search on the Blu-Ray trademark and apparently that is DEAD according to the USPTO. Wouldn’t this in theory allow a domain with BluRay in it?
The other option is to play it safe and just use the BD initials, though I’d prefer to use BluRay. Just don’t want to invest time in building a site only to find out I have to relinquish the domain and find a different one.
Thanks again for the help.
James, the new trademark is under the term Blu-Ray Disc, I believe.
It would be a shame to go with BD or BR or something instead. In all likelihood they won’t come after you, but that doesn’t mean they can’t. Sometimes lawyers don’t realize how you’re helping them promote their business’ cause
Ah yeah, I noticed the LIVE term was ‘Blu-Ray Disc’. So even though the trademark is the term ‘Blu-Ray Disc’ they could still legally go after people using part of that phrase, even without using the hyphen? I always assumed trademarks were pretty absolute – i.e you had to be using the entire term to be in violation.
It’s an important distinction to be aware of I think.. Definitely keep my eyes open for that kind of thing in future.
I would much rather use BluRay as it’s alot more memorable and snappier.. I’ll have to give it some though and weigh up the risks.
James, I guess it depends…they could argue that they had common law trademark rights. Regardless, I don’t want to be that non-lawyer worry wart that stops you from doing something that may be legit. You could always ask the Blu-Ray organization first if you want to.
Thanks Andrew,
I appreciate your help. It’s helped to make me feel a bit more confident on moving forward with my project.
Not a bad idea to ask the right holders.. At least for a general response.
Cheers,
James.
Just to add to this, I was looking at http://www.blu-ray.com recently and that is unrelated to the official Blu-Ray group but has this dislaimer on the footer of the site:
—
This web site is not affiliated with the Blu-ray Disc Association.
All trademarks are the property of the respective trademark owners.
© 2002-2008 Blu-ray.com. All rights reserved.
—
I wonder if this is all they had to do to cover themselves..
I saw a similar example somewhere, which is exactly why I added “Blu-rayOutlet.com is not affliated with the Blu-ray Disc Association.” to my site when I first put it together last year. I’m no legal expert (and was the fodder for this press release), so don’t take advice from me though…
Regards,
James