I remember reading about this in several different places a few years back. Not sure if anyone of it was here on NP.
I also remember reading something somewhere that seemed to indicate that the guy who originally owned the "Nissan" dn was not quite as lily white as to the trademark infringement issue as he claimed to be.....
Lol, any of you guys got one of those bumper stickers on his car? Nissan bumper Stickers - Digest.com.
Yeah this case is not over for sure.....
Hmm.. but obviously this guy had it from the initial days of the launch of .com domain name registration and has every right to owning his last name in whichever tld they want. These big corporations cant come saying that they have the right to something which is not actually owned by them....
Old story. Here is one. Here is older one...
Old for you, not for me! very much new for me..
This is one of the most common pieces of wrong that I find on domain forums.
No, you don't get to sell chemicals even if your name IS DuPont.
If your name is Cartier, then you are going to have to use another name if you want to sell diamonds.
There is not an absolute right to use your last name in business.
Early on, Uzi Nissan was advertising foreign car services, and did a quick change to the so-called computer business when he attracted the attention of the car company. The result of the litigation is that he is enjoined from using the domain name in connection with cars.
Here's a challenge for you, go to his computer company website, and try to buy a computer.
The real losers in the affair are Uzi Nissan's lawyers. There was a ton of legal work done on that case - easily over $150K worth. Either they were expecting him to settle somewhere reasonable, which obviously didn't happen, or he's out a bundle...
Did I say he has right to sell whatever? I CLEARLY SPECIFIED THAT HE HAS RIGHT TO OWN HIS LAST NAME!!..
I understand what you said. A lot of people interpret it the wrong way.
One of my favorite UDRP cases involved a domain registrant named A.R. Mani...
Interpretations much Mr. Berryhill.. I'd like to know more about your favorite case, link me please!..
Hah! This is cool!...Armani...You must have a lot of fun dealing with all these egoistical folks and their emotions!..
Armani.com directs to the armani site, you fought it!?..
In the light of the above findings, the Panels decision is as set out below.
So far as paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is concerned, the Panel concludes that the domain name is identical to the Complainants "ARMANI" mark.
As far as paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is concerned, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has a right to and/or a legitimate interest in the domain name by virtue of the domain name corresponding to the Respondents first two initials and his surname.
So far as paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is concerned, the Complainant has failed to show that the domain name was registered in bad faith or that it was subsequently used in bad faith. The Panel therefore declines to find that the domain name should be transferred or cancelled.
The Panel finds this Complaint to be an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
No further action is required to implement the Panels decision...
That was not one of my cases, btw. I just like the facts in that one...
They could of got armani just for $1,935 and they decide to UDRP..
Perhaps they wanted to make example out of A.R. Mani..
But, I would say it's stupidity..
I wonder how much they ended up paying for it...
Interesting decision. They must have bought the name eventually...
Copper and sdsinc win the deductive reasoning prize here. Now, let's go a step further and guess why Uzi Nissan still has Nissan.com...
He won't give up the domain / they won't pay his price, and he is selling them his traffic ?
Yeah, uzi looks very smart.=)) there's something these bullies can't get in their life. very interesting story..
As for armani.com - I previously thought any domainer-hating corporate idiot would buy their .com for a ridiculous low $xxxx...
Yes, racking up 10's of thousands in legal fees, so that you can keep a site that advertises (but oddly does not sell) $399 no-name desktop computers is sheer genius...
He still owns his last name and Nissan Motors have no right to it that's smart work!!..
Yep. Brilliant. Pay me $150,000, I'll let you use your name, and you can be smart too!..
Can Uzi make NIssan motors pay him the compensation and request more for his wasted time and nerves on these lawsuits?..
I soo think he can, after all he was just being dragged into it for nothing by Nissan Motors!!..
The result of all of the litigation was an order against Uzi Nissan requiring him not to use the domain name for anything relating to automobiles.
Nissan did not win transfer of the domain name, which they had also sought, but simply failing to get everything you asked for in a lawsuit does not make you liable for paying one red cent for someone's time spent defending or "nerves" (whatever that means)...
He cant file a case against Nissan Motors for recovering his costs or legal expenses?..
Sure he can. Wonder why he hasn't done that ever since?.
To think he's got arguably one of the best lawyers in the biz around.....
He he, I'll put it this way.
The word can denotes possibility. Thus, Mr. Nissan can file if he wants to.
However, he won't win damages for wasted time and "nerves"...
If your question is "Can I file a lawsuit against someone for using witchcraft to turn me into a houseplant?" the answer is "Yes".
You will be laughed out of court, but you can file it.
If you are going to try to claim that someone has put you out by filing a frivolous lawsuit, then you do that by a Rule 11 motion IN THE LAWSUIT.
What you are failing to grasp is that this was not a frivolous lawsuit. The only order which issued and is binding against anyone is the order which the car company won against Uzi Nissan, requiring him to stop using the domain name for cars and never to do so again. What Nissan didn't get was the domain name itself, but lots of plaintiffs fail to get everything they want. It doesn't mean they owe the defendant anything for having to defend himself.
This isn't even a difficult question, or anywhere near a difficult question, under US law...