If you are a Mini/MINI enthusiast club with a website, you do not have to have commercial postings on your site to exist. If you do that, then you really are no longer just a club but a Mini/MINI business as well. That makes you commercial which, in turn means you are no longer just enthusiasts.

There is enough free space out there for clubs that the enthusiast networks do not need to be commercially supported to exist. The classic Mini network existed like that for years - the new MINI network can too.

 

It seems to me that, if you can get away with using the letters M I N I if they are within another word without penalty, you should rename the site: MINImumCOOPERationONLINE.

If you add a link to "The story of our new name" on the home page, posted prominently. BMW might become more reasonable - especially since this site positively promotes the car and, by reflection, the mother company.

There is no doubt that BMW needs to carefully vet sites that they feel may reflect badly on the car's or the company's reputation. However, to make a denial just because someone else stands to make money (the aftermaket suppliers) from the vehicle, should not stand as a reason for denying the use of the name. Mere greed should not be a criterion, nor should legitimate dissent or complaints by owners.

Sometimes it helps to match absurdity with absurdity.

Thanks for listening (reading?).

 

I will become wildly unpopular for this, but I think its brutal honesty. While I love this site and find it by far the most informative and intuitive when it comes to MINI Web site, the complaint BMW/MINI has in regards to Trademarks is sincere.

The name MINI Cooper is not a generic name. It is very distinctive and cannot be confused with something unrelated. It clearly defines a particular car. This Web site clearly financially gains from using the MINI Cooper branded trademarked name. Also, the parts dealers and other retailers who use the name or part of it for their company names also directly benefit financially from using the trademark.

So where does this leave it? Clearly other parties are benefiting financing from another companies Trademarked name, clearly. It does not matter if any of these sites in turn benefit BMW/MINI in return as it is the sole right of the trademark owner to decide how they will deal with their trademark rights.

If this site would change its name to something generic like (this would stink though for sure) eurocarsupportforums.com it could talk about whatever it liked most likely.

I look at it like this... I put myself in BMW/MINI's position. Let's say I start a new company which sells car wheels, and the name of my company is Ron Everret's Mags. And then a Web site named roneverretsmagsonline.com starts a new site that talks about how cool my car wheels are. They in turn sell cleaning products for my wheels and call those products something like Ron Everret's Mag Cleaning Solution. Clearly that company is using my trademarked and hard earned name to financially benefit for their own. In NO way are they paying me money or benefiting me... they are only benefiting themselves.

To me, trademark law is about what's fair. If BMW/MINI don't care about who and how their trademarks are used... that is really cool of them. But if they decide to enforce their rights, then they should be able to force name changes or stop any company/Web site benefiting in any way from their trademark.

This can be argued in 500 different ways with all the emotion in the world, but in the end it must stand on fact and law and this law of trademark is clearly in BMW/MINI favor and would stand in any court on any day they would wish to enforce it.

I wish for a peaceful resolution of this case, and fully hope this site does remain in its full form for the benefit of MINI owners all over the world.

 

People must also keep in mind, just because the majority of people want something one way doesn't mean it should be that way. I want all the money in the local bank and I'm sure 99% of the people in my city also want that money... but does it make it right for us to go rob it? Um, no.

Also, the emotional "if they enforce their legal trademarked rights I will purchase another car." Do you really believe this is the consensus of the general car buying product. Over half of MINI owners probably don't even search MINI related questions/sites and less than 5% even modify their cars. Also, most buyers could care less how a car company enforces its trademarks. Worst case scenerio... BMW/MINI pulls the plug on EVERY SINGLE after-market part maker and enthusiest Web site... ALL OF THEM. I would venture to strongly say that MINI sales would see little to no effect. Maybe 50 people accros the country wouldn't buy a MINI... nobody would be able to tell the difference at all. Just sort of silly to think it would matter... one buys a MINI cause they love the car, not because there are cool MINI Web sites.

Personally, I'm scared how people in America have been dealing with Copyright and Trademark questions in the past few years. Copyright and trademark owners have become second class citizens and the mob rule has come into focus. People want free music, free movies, free software, free use of other people's/company's brand names/trademarks and hard earned work. Why? Because they feel it's their right to have free stuff and benefiting from the hard work of others makes them happy as they see no direct effect to the other party so no harm must have taken place.

This should be an easy solution with this Web site. Simply pay a licensing fee to BMW/MINI for the use of the name and be done with it. But I promise that if the mob rule thought of one has a fundemental right to anything in this world they so please that it will destroy business and give the businessman NO incentive to build a new or better product as the vultures and sit back and steal their hard work because the vultures would lose their freedom of anarchy.

Why should one make music and record CDs/MP3s if you are just going to steal it? Why would a company produce a movie if you are just going to steal it? Why would a company develop a brand name if you are just going to use their name to financially benefit yourself and not them? Heck, why should anyone even get out of bed in the morning if you are just waiting to prosper or be freely entertained by their hard work?

Wait wait... my mission in life is to bust my butt to make movies so others can see them for free while I can't pay bills... even if I'm worth 1 billion dollars... I still made the movie, it's mine. It's not free for the taking. What has happened to this country??????????

 

:smile:

 

>>Also, the emotional "if they enforce their legal trademarked rights I will purchase another car." Do you really believe this is the consensus of the general car buying product.

It is not IF they enforce it is HOW & WHEN they enforce. They knew that the MCO site was named minicooperonline many, many months ago. They only now want to enforce because they finally woke up to the fact that they could use the name to sell aftermarket parts. And they could get mini-motion all in the same package - only for the price of their lawyers leaning on the guy that has those domaine names. I don't care if the name of thsi site changes but I pray that BMW never gets to use these domaine names

I for one will never buy another BMW product. No, I don't think that is the consensus of the general car buying public and don't care what the consensus is. Furthermore, I am not trying to make it the consensus, I simply will not buy another BMW product.

 

>> :smile:

I'm back... just causing a little controversy again I guess. Not trying to be a bad guy.

 

>>>>Also, the emotional "if they enforce their legal trademarked rights I will purchase another car." Do you really believe this is the consensus of the general car buying product.
>>
>>It is not IF they enforce it is HOW & WHEN they enforce. They knew that the MCO site was named minicooperonline many, many months ago. They only now want to enforce because they finally woke up to the fact that they could use the name to sell aftermarket parts. And they could get mini-motion all in the same package - only for the price of their lawyers leaning on the guy that has those domaine names. I don't care if the name of thsi site changes but I pray that BMW never gets to use these domaine names
>>
>>I for one will never buy another BMW product. No, I don't think that is the consensus of the general car buying public and don't care what the consensus is. Furthermore, I am not trying to make it the consensus, I simply will not buy another BMW product.


I still say BMW has the right to enforce their trademarks now or a year down the road... it's their trademark and they can deal with it how they please.

In regards to their motivation... who knows what it truly is. It could be anything from they are slow and lazy to the legal department is incompetant to they were lining their ducks in a row first. Nobody here knows the real reason, nobody.

Keep in mind too that BMW is not the first automaker to enforce their trademark rights. Every single automaker at one time or another has enforced theirs and still every single car maker is able to continue to sell cars. I'm sure we could find a small population of people angry with every single carmaker over some trademark dispute.

I for one am not going to stop buying MINIs over this matter. If I did and say turned to VWs for future buys... what is to say a similar dispute in the VW world won't start and have similar consequences. To me this is a waste of time as I'll spend wasteful time dodging carmakers and brands because they enforce legal rights of their own.

 

I beg to differ with you HA.

-- in regards to MINI Cooper not being a "generic name", and therefore it's wrong for anyone to benefit by associating with that name: You're right on the first count, MINI Cooper does only refer to the car. But as for the "therefore", I don't follow you. "Coke and Pepsi" aren't generic names either. I see plenty of businesses that make a profit by 1) selling Cokes and Pepsis, and 2) making their own product that use Cokes and Pepsis as ingredients (do ya like Coke floats?). They're not taking money away from Coke when they do this, they're making them available to a portion of the populace in ways that Coke and Pepsi couldn't be bothered to do. The big guys get their cut from the required purchase of the base product, and the increased popularity from specialty application. As far as I can see, the same applies to MiniMotorsports: I may want to pay Randy Webb to fix up my MINI, but I've gotta go and buy a MINI in the first place, now don't I? And I then become a drool factor for other car nuts in my neighborhood. Net-net: the MINI is just a soda pop, and a MINI-ala-Randy is just a Coke Float.

Now, does MCO, or for that matter, any MINI-related endeavor other than BMW, have the RIGHT to use MINI in the site name? Probably not. But that's not the question that people posting on the issue are concerned about. We're all peeved about whether it's RIGHT for BMWMINI to enforce their RIGHTS. See the difference? MINI painted themselves in a lime green brush as the "other" kind of car company, one that broke from the mold, and cared about departing from convention as a lifestyle. "Sip, not guzzle". "Let's put away the middle finger." Basically one clever advert campaign based upon "Let's do things differently". From that basis, their own actions are WRONG, whether they're within the bounds of the company's legal rights or not.

And speaking of the advert campaign, in the US, MINI has no TV ads. Zip, zero, zilch, none. It's all being done via billboards, and web pop-ups, auto review articles, and significantly, word of mouth. Ask someone who loves this car (and we do love it) what we think of it and we gush all over the place. That's rapidly turning into "It's a great car, but the company that makes it sucks! Don't believe their advertising, their just like any other big automotive gaint. A true 800lb gorilla..." Based upon the number of inquiries I've had about my car, upwards of 80% of the people who ask me about it have no reference on it OTHER THAN MY OPINION. Fully 50% of the conversations start out with "What is it?". The lack of an advert campaign has made it that way, and it's not the typical situation that big automotive makers put themselves in. So it's not without reason that the members of this and other webs sites feel they've got significant influence.

As for "stealing" products, I view that as a legitimate concern of manufacturers and artists everywhere. But I defy you to put forth any sensible argument that shows MCO is in any way "stealing" from MINI. MCO doesn't make look-alike autos with identical badging, they don't download them from free over the internet, and they don't burn them on DVDs and sell them for profit. Unlike the bad guys in your "theft analogy", MCO exists to promote the excellence and enjoyment of MINIs to anyone who cares to partake. There's a significant difference between parasitic behavior and symbosis; trademark law is not nearly sophisticated enough to appreciate the difference. But thinking, feeling humans are.

It's a sad fact that I agree with you that things will likely end up being determined by trademark law in the end. The laws on the books exist, and while being binding are also blind in most regards to what is considerate and gracious. Laws are far from perfect, and to rely upon them as a judgement for properness is frankly rather lame. The worst kind of rat can be legally correct, but a gentleman is defined by his actions above and beyond what is legislated for him to do. The same opportunity exists for BMWMINI to step up to the plate, put some truth behind their advertising, and do things in a community spirited way that benefits everyone involved. The easy way is to just let the legal hounds bite off every ounce of flesh that they greedily can...

 

)

 

>>I beg to differ with you HA.
>>
>>-- in regards to MINI Cooper not being a "generic name", and therefore it's wrong for anyone to benefit by associating with that name: You're right on the first count, MINI Cooper does only refer to the car. But as for the "therefore", I don't follow you. "Coke and Pepsi" aren't generic names either. I see plenty of businesses that make a profit by 1) selling Cokes and Pepsis, and 2) making their own product that use Cokes and Pepsis as ingredients (do ya like Coke floats?). They're not taking money away from Coke when they do this, they're making them available to a portion of the populace in ways that Coke and Pepsi couldn't be bothered to do. The big guys get their cut from the required purchase of the base product, and the increased popularity from specialty application. As far as I can see, the same applies to MiniMotorsports: I may want to pay Randy Webb to fix up my MINI, but I've gotta go and buy a MINI in the first place, now don't I? And I then become a drool factor for other car nuts in my neighborhood. Net-net: the MINI is just a soda pop, and a MINI-ala-Randy is just a Coke Float.


But that is comparing apples to oranges. I'll take both your examples:

1. Coke and Pepsi both control who sells their product. They can keep retailers from selling their product. They have complete control. It is THEIR product.

2. Coke and Pepsi floats fall similarly under the above statement. When a business sells a coke or pepsi float or related product there is coke or pepsi in it that in turn is making money directly for that said company.

If a resaler was selling a Coke Float, but it really wasn't coke but a brand X that they invented and were selling under the Coke name that would be trademark infringement.


MCO DOES profit from MINI's trademarks... and they profit DIRECTLY. How? Look at all the advertising on this site. Do you think thousands of people would come to this Web site if it was not called minicooperonline.com? Do you really believe that? That is how I found this Web site... I found this Web site because it had the MINI trademark in the name. This is NOT a non for profit site, even if it was... it would still be trademark infringement.


People get so angry when someone bigger than them try to take something away that they deem theirs or their right. This is not your right. Simply isn't. Again, I say what I said before... license the trademarked name from BMW/MINI so this Web site can remain... it is the moral, ethical and legal thing to do. It isn't as complex as everyone wants it to be.


Trademark law is a very complex thing and was established for very good reasons. It protects capitolism and business rights. It is a fundemental foundation of business that I would defend any day of the week.

 

>> )
>>
>>

Grrrrrr. just kidding. Hello MINIclo! yes, I do come by every now and then... I seem to swim around here for about a week every few months or more. What's even more terrible is I don't drive my MINI very much (10k miles since July 2002). I bought an Infiniti FX35 and drive it all the time now. Poor MINI doesn't see as much action... but I have no plans on getting rid of it at all.

 

AH: I'm not looking to get into a quote-rebuttal fest here. I think my original difference in opinion still stands pretty well on it's own. I will express one final viewpoint, then I'll go back to lurking and leave this thread in peace.

Reading between the lines of your response, if I'm reading you right, you feel that because the Coke/Pepsi example ends up having a DIRECT monetary benefit to the parent company, it's ok. But you apparently view MCO as not providing any direct benefit to BMWMINI, and therefore it's a different story. Like maybe it's really stealing.

Ok. I'll tackle that.

Would you say that autmotive magazines, the ones that review automobiles, carry out trademark infringement or brand theft when they:
1) have a write up on the car,
2) carry lots of pictures of the vehicle,
3) maybe even feature the vehicle's picture on the cover, and
4) recieve money from advertisers who's business it is to sell modification parts and accessories for said vehicle?

Certainly seems to me that the magazine is raking in cash purely because automotive manufacturers make cars, and people want to read about them. The DIRECT compensation to the auto maker is...where exactly? Furthermore, would readers buy said magazine if they thought there WAS direct compensation to the manufacturer?

Seems to me that MCO does pretty much what every specialty auto mag does, namely activities 1-4 listed above. Lord knows, both the magazines and MCO contributers are free to contain both complimentary and derogatory content, and that freedom comes in part because both MCO and the magazines are not being paid by the auto maker to write the content. Furtehrmore, to think that *I'd* have to pay MINI before posting a review as a member of these forums is ludicrous.

So, to the crux of your point (I think): Does it only become infringement if the magazine includes the BRAND of the automaker or vehicle in the magazine title? "Corvette World" infringes unless it has explicit legal authorization from Chevy, while "Pointy Noised Fast American-Made Sports Cars Starting With The Letters Corvett" is free to do the exact same thing with legal abandon? And you view that situation as proper, good, and a fine example of American capitalism at work?

If your answers are "Yes", then I repeat to you that trademark laws have no sense of "right" or "wrong", only what's (currently) "legal". Yes, MCO has the word MINI in it's web address. No, I don't think even the dullest of blockheads has ever come to this site and mistaken it for a Manufacturer's sponsered web site.

As far as I'm concerned, our (and I mean the US's, as they're certainly not international) trademark laws in their current state are yet another joke that society's played on themselves; another example of the road to Hades being paved with good intentions. Slavish adherence to rules, while ignoring the concepts of fairness and appropriateness, is shamelessly irresponsible. (That's a moral judgement, it's in fact MY judgement, and I'm pretty comfortable making it without referencing any legal codes). The fact that our capitalistic society seems to have an increasing number of individuals who see no issue with exploiting the idiotic nature of our legal system is distressing.

PS. For the record, No, I didn't locate the site by looking for places with MINI in their URL. Been using the internet for what seems like eons now, and I still don't know how to search through existing URLs. I just do a google on "MINI Cooper review" and wouldn't ya know it pops up all over the place. I suspect it'll still do that when it gets it's URL changed to "MeanieCooperOnline".

 

Reading all the comments here, I truly believe 99% of you have never read anything about trademark law in your lives. I don't think anyone here has taken the time to read the trademark codes.

If one would have taken the time to read up on trademark law, 99% of the arguments/feelings expressed here would have never been stated as one would immediately see how extensively this Web site is violating those trademark laws.


Nobody here gives a darn about anything BMW/MINI says because they would do anything to see this Web site not shut down. They are are blind with passion.


Do you honestly believe it would be ok for you to start a new company called "Delta Airlines Online" which was a generic tourism site and on your Web site take advertising from travel industry companies? Do you not see this is using the Delta Airlines branded trademark to directly financially benefit yourself? Yes, you may be doing some free advertising for Delta Airlines by doing this Web site... but they didn't ask you to, nor did they give you permission to. It is their name!

It does not matter if BMW/MINI sell another 1000 MINIs because of this Web site. Because they call this Web site minicooperonline.com, they are able to bring in thousands of visitors and in return sell advertising. Do you think people would advertise here if nobody came? Do you think people would come if it wasn't only talking about MINI Coopers and used their name all over the Web site? MINI isn't getting a cut of the advertising here... but the site is using MINI's branding to be able to sell that said advertising. Don't we have a lawyer or accountant or someone with logic on this Web site that understands all of this? Hello?? Hello??

Has logic been flushed down the toilet in return for personal self-fullfillment? Seems people only care about themselves these days and picture any business as the evil dictators of the world. Very flawed.

 

HighAnxiety said, in part:

>>Has logic been flushed down the toilet in return for personal self-fullfillment? Seems people only care about themselves these days and picture any business as the evil dictators of the world. Very flawed.

All of your arguments are lucid and convincing. I still have a problem with why other manufacturers are not following BMW's lead. Witness:


corvette 1

corvette 2

corvette 3

Ferrari

and just to point at BMW directly:

BMW Z3 club in the Netherlands

All of them DIRECTLY use the marque's name in their URL. Why has GM, Ferrari and BMW not gone after them?

 

>>All of your arguments are lucid and convincing. I still have a problem with why other manufacturers are not following BMW's lead. Witness:
>>
>>
>>corvette 1
>>
>>corvette 2
>>
>>corvette 3
>>
>>Ferrari
>>
>>and just to point at BMW directly:
>>
>>BMW Z3 club in the Netherlands
>>
>>All of them DIRECTLY use the marque's name in their URL. Why has GM, Ferrari and BMW not gone after them?

Very true. I think it could be a number of things:

1. There are licensing deals in place we are unaware of, so in fact the sites do pay something to the said trademark owner.
2. The trademark holder may have officially given permission on a case by case basis to some of the above sites.
3. The trademark owners above in question simply don't care how others use their name.
4. Trademark action is coming soon.

I'm sure every carmaker approaches the use of their trademarks in different ways, but that is their right as trademark owners to do that.

 

>>Why should one make music and record CDs/MP3s if you are just going to steal it? Why would a company produce a movie if you are just going to steal it? Why would a company develop a brand name if you are just going to use their name to financially benefit yourself and not them? Heck, why should anyone even get out of bed in the morning if you are just waiting to prosper or be freely entertained by their hard work?
>>

There is a flaw in the logic here in the first 2 sentances. We are not stealing the cars. We are promoting the cars. If we were stealing them from the dealers, then we'd be taking money directly out of their pockets. After that, it makes sense. You are correct. If you are making money off someone else's brand, a fee should be paid to them for that privilege. Now, having said that, the fees should not be flat. They should be higher for pure retailers and a lesser fee for enthusiast sites that make money for themselves other than operating costs because they promote the product. Pure enthusiats sites should be allowed fee free, as they are making no money at all and therefore do nothing but promote the product.
This is, of course, all my own opinion based on what I feel is sensible.

 

Great discussion, guys! I've made my opinions known in this and other threads, so I'll refrain, but the rest of you: keep up the good work--on both sides of the issue!

Maxwell

 

I *really was* just going to go back to reading posts, but that last bit was just too much.

Be serious HA.

By and large the meat of infringement issues exist because a domain name has been established with:
1) intent to trade off of the good will of others,
2) intent to confuse or decive the public as to the origin of goods or services, or
3) intent to extort money for the repurchase of the domain name.

BTW, the above is not my read on current internet law, it's what the courts have shown to be areas of infringement where they feel comfortable upholding trademark rights.

So, how does MCO's behavior fit in with this list of intentions?

1) One trades off the "good will" of a brand by diverting traffic from that brand. Basically you steal business by having that company's brand name buried all over the place in your web site, and search engine traffic causes people interested in the orignial brand to find your site instead. .At which point you sell them a competing product. Or you name your company "VictorsLittleSecert" and hope you'll be mistaken for the other company. Now, it's true that MCO benefits from search engine hits on the word MINI (it's how I found it). But the discriminating facts are that occurances of the word MINI on MCO are in legitimat content (forum posts and articles), and do not pincipally occur in some search-engine-friendly repeative string that's buried in HTML code. Also, it's obvious that even if the URL for MCO changed, the site would still get just as many hits on the word MINI. (Unless we all start referring to it as the M-Car; yeah right). Finally, I don't think you'll be able to point out anything that MCO is selling as a substitue ware for BMWMINI's product. (Does this site actually have any revenue stream other than advertising?)

2) MCO has made no attempt to pretend to be the "real" BMWMINI. Nuff said.

3) MCO certainly hasn't been interested in selling the name back to BMWMINI. I think they'd just like to keep it. So they're not extorionists.

Hmmm. Based upon recent actions of the courts in similar cases, you'd have a hard time saying that MCO has demonstrated any of the actionable intents to infringe on the MINI trademark. Heck, if the Linux guys can keep winning court cases to market a competing operating system called "Lindows", then MCO should have a great chance at getting a court to let them keep their URL.

But that's not how the world works, is it? He who has big bucks can make the system work for him. You don't have to win in court, you just have to make it so expensive for the other guy that he can't afford to fight you. So you send a cease and desist letter (lovely item that; it's not a directive from some court, it's just a threat to embroil your opponent in a legal quagmire, all couched in language a judge would use), and facing comparatively outrageous costs the little guy gives up what the big guy wants.

Woohoo for capitalism! And three cheers for BMW for throwing their weight around!

Oh, and AH: please stop insinuating that MCO is somehow raking in gobs of cash through advertising, and then treating that as an act of deliberate exploitation. In the first place, I doubt MCO's advertising revenue stream does much more than cover the expense of the site's hosting expenses. MCO is just an enthusiast's site; I seriously doubt Mark has given up his day job. In the second place, it's no different than the advertising stream from automobile magazines. You know the ones I mean: 5.0 Mustang, Mustang and Fords, Mustang Monthly, Super Chevy, Chevy Rumble, GM Hi-Tech Performance, Hi-Performance Pontiac, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, VW Trends, Honda Tuning, Car & Parts Corvette, Corvette Fever, Corvette Enthusiast, Mini World, Performance BMW, Performance VW, BMW Car, ...

If I knew how to gradually fade out text (like the Star Wars lead-in, scrolling off into the distant galaxy), I'd do that at this point, because believe me, the list goes on and on and on....

 

I am in COMPLETE agreement with HighAnxiety. BMWNA has every right to ask MCO to stop using the trademark in the website name/URL. MCO may not be selling cars, but they are using a trademarked name to sell advertising. BMWNA should have done something sooner, it appears that they allowed MCO to exist at the beginning to reap the word-of-mouth benefits, then pulled the plug when they felt the brand had enough momentum and/or wanted the URLs for themselves.

BMWNA should license the name to Mark for the site. And Mark should retain the mini-motion URL and put something non-MINI-related on that site to retain possession.

I do think enthusiasts site should be able to link to MINI vendors provided they aren't paid for the links. Can BMWNA sue Google for including aftermarket vendors in their results when someone does a search for "MINI Cooper"? Hardly.

James

 

>>Oh, and AH: please stop insinuating that MCO is somehow raking in gobs of cash through advertising, and then treating that as an act of deliberate exploitation. In the first place, I doubt MCO's advertising revenue stream does much more than cover the expense of the site's hosting expenses. MCO is just an enthusiast's site; I seriously doubt Mark has given up his day job.

He must be making something more than his expenses. I believe MCO is his day job.

James

 

While BMW may have the right to register MINI Cooper as a trade mark, the same is not necessarily true for the term 'mini' which is generic. It was used by BMC when they introduced the Mini, it came into general use as in 'mini skirt', etc. Whatever MINI USA's lawyers may say, some variation of 'minionline' would not be a clear violation of their trademark.