i just called 1866 ask mini to file a complaint about this and something else... the guy i spoke to, james took down my complaint but he said that they have no intention of budging.. he said its a legal issue and minicooperonline is independent so they're not gonna change their position even if all 9,000 members complain.
even though i'd hate to see this name gone.. i think we might not have another choice...

 

:smile: Thanks to our fellow MINI enthusiasts on MINI2 for thier support :smile:

 

Got a creative idea about a possible new name?
Wondering if it's already in use ?

Go here and find out :
Domain Name Search

 

Mark, This really sucks!! Once the petition is approved, I will sign.
And as MINIclo suggested, maybe dues to help with legal fees??

Sam

 

I can't believe this. MCO has been my motoring advisor, much more than any of the random people I've talked to the at the dealership why my MINI is on order. I never would have pictured myself buying a new car, ever. And I wouldn't have started now if it hadn't been for the advice, support, and fun of MCO. I'll email MINIUSA as soon as I have a civil tongue back in my head...

In the unhappy event we do have to accept a new name, I'd suggest we go with something including "MC". If we're not going to be able to say "mini" or "cooper" outright, any shortened or cutsie version will just end up looking silly.

mcooponline.com
MCOwners.com
MCOwnersonline.com
MCOwnerforum.com

Of course, if we go too far with the "MC" thing, then we have the golden arches after us...

--The Ferret

 

This is just ridiculous

I'd like to reiterate we are all behind you Mark.

 

Looks like everyone should put a big fat lemon sign on there car park near a dealership and protest

 

oh man no more mini skirts, mini marts, I can't watch austin powers anymore as it has a charcter Mini me. so BMW will probably recall all movies and have them dum little over all mini.

so now what the only thing that can be mini is the car? they called the MINI

how about microcooper.com

still mco.

what will a man do without the word mini?

 

I too called and complained this is sill I am behind you Mark 100%. Personally I feel it is stupid for BMW to do this and they are shooting themselves in the foot over this!

 

>>You cant just use MCO.com?
>>
>>Wow this sucks. I don't understand why everyone is being so difficult. What are we hurting, we are only helping MINI and BMW.


That's the point... we're not helping... in the great grand scheme of things, we are not allies... we are subversives... without this site many of us would not know problems and fixes and would have to rely on MINI and BMW to tell us... and what are the chances of that?

 

Do not give them any domain.

They are trying to bully you. So Side step them.

You had them first, they are yours. Simply change the content to reflect non-automobile stuff.

Oh and register mini-motion as your trademark.

Rename you site. heres a few suggestions.

http://www.crackedwindows.com
http://www.squeekyseats.com
http://www.leakscoolent.com
http://www.buzzingdoors.com

Even after a year I still get people asking me about my mini. I will be teling them while the car is ok I am not happy with the company and suggest they look at a WRX.

I was going to post somthing about a car meet later in august. I don't think I can be botherd now.

Dissilusiond.
Pebble.

!Edit! Sorry crackedwindows is already taken! lol

 

"Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, BMW" If they want the domain name, let'em have it - for about $7Million U.S. Lots of people sell domain names.

I'm with you MCO -

Gene

 

This whole situation is completely ridiculous ... is BMW this paranoid, or don't they realize how many cars have been sold through this website alone?

Hell, they should be paying Mark percentage points for this not trying to take away the domain name.

 

Emails sent, although it sounds like nothing is going to be done.....

Anybody want a BRG/B Cooper? :???:

 

:smile: I for one - being an Officer of our Club, will NOT let this crap keep us from having planned events and doing things with our MINI friends!!!

Chow!

Donna
donna@dcmetrominis.org

 

Hi Mark and all,

Just taking a break from new fatherhood and MINI2 to pop over and wish you the best of luck with this situation.

I am not really too surprised, it's probably worth checking out http://www.ihatethebmwmini.org for some details on BMW v Mini Traders activity that's been going on for some time, I am sure John who runs that site will be more than happy to fill you in. That said, this is already proving a terrific 'own goal' in PR terms for BMW/MINI NA.

Whatever name you end up with, because of the service this site provides for MINI enthusiasts I am sure it will continue to succeed.

Regards,

Paul
http://www.MINI2.com

 

>>maybe dues to help with legal fees??


We all support you here Mark. If dues are necessary to keep MCO going them I'm for it.

 

Thanks Donna... :smile: I'm not about to sell my car or stop going to meets. It makes more sense to put positive energy into this and help Mark out by thinking of decent names for the site. Regardless of the outcome, I'm not going to abandon this site or the car...the vendors will also need our support if they are forced to go through similar changes. Think about advertising costs, letterhead - everything.

BMW/NA is not paranoid, just going after intellectual property for future advertising and marketing use. They cannot control the message boards, or hush up owners with complaints. The "issues" with the MINI clearly haven't affected sales. It's another way for increased product sales like they have done with BMWonline.com

 

maybe this is an obvious point, but if MINIUSA didn't want us to use "MINI" "mini" oor "cooper" in our enthusiast club names (I belong to NorcalMINIs), shouldn't they have registered those websites themselves so that we couldn't use them?

I say let them try. Rebrand your toy tto TINI, buy only from aftermarket suppliers or from UK based MINI dealerships, hurt them in the wallet and send out press release after press release after press release. They've invested millions building MINI brand awareness, it can all go away with free press releases, maybe to some TV shows like 20/20, 48hrs etc…

BTW, where are the Paypoint account details so we can contribute to the legal defense?

 

I mentioned this on a regional Mini board but it's tough to surprised by this action by BMW. That's not to say that I'm not very disappointed in them as the weasel at large mentioned on Mini2 these forums are enhancing the marketability and value of his products.

Still as a Jimmy Buffett fan for the better part of the past twenty years, I've watched a man who sang, "The Lawyer and the *********" - a vicious rant about overly litigious corporations ruining our lives (and more precisely an estate keeping him from singing God's Own Drunk) to a guy who would sue any mom and pop restaurant he caught using "Cheeseburger in Paradise" on their menu and becoming Corona's ***** numero uno. The Clash were right.

Good luck finding a new name that the stormtroopers in Munich won't object to. I did find it odd that many of their suggestions contained the word Mini but they vetoed other names using Mini that seemed equally benign. I can understand to some degree the potential confusion over non-official sites looking official (and possibly the high level of professionalism that go into this site and Mini2.com contribute to that impression and concern despite disclaimers.)

I don't envy your challenge say any descriptive name of the make is going to be rejected by BMW. I keep thinking along the lines of "northamericancooperenthusiats" but the name is far too long and might be too restrictive for the aims of the site. Even still they could reject it based on the inclusion of the Cooper name.

I kinda like the idea of trotting out "MotoringUSA" in some format. I don't think Mini can lay claim to all forms of the word Moter. Their slogan is "Let's Motor." Night Ranger might want a piece of them for "Motoring." Based on the "Book of Motoring's" rear cover "Let's Motor" is trademarked.

 

I found this article. It is from 1999 but it does offer hope.

From Technology News NY Times on the web linked from Columbia Law School

September 17, 1999


By CARL S. KAPLAN
Judges Pick David Over Goliath in Domain Name Suits
uppose a small company named Racer Inc., which sells a line of widgets, has set up its Web site at http://www.racer.com. And suppose a giant company that owns the trademark for Racer brand tires files a lawsuit because it wants to use the racer.com domain name.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Articles
Policy for Resolving Domain Disputes Adopted but Implemenation Is Delayed
(August 26, 1999)
Proposal on Internet Names Favors Corporate Interests
(February 19, 1999)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a classic Internet dispute. And until recently, many courts faced with such cases have tipped the scales in favor of the large companies who own famous trademarks.

But in a long-running domain name feud pitting Hasbro Inc., the giant toy maker, against Clue Computing Inc., a tiny Colorado-based computer consultant, a federal judge in Boston recently ruled in favor of the little guy.

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on Sept. 2 that Hasbro's ownership of the well-known trademark "Clue" for its board game does not automatically entitle it to take away Clue Computing's Internet address "clue.com".

The Clue case comes on the heels of another domain-name decision that favored the smaller party. Jerry Sumpton, a small business owner, registered the names "avery.net" and "dennison.net" so that he could sell e-mail addresses with those domain names. Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Sumpton did not dilute the well-known trademarks "Avery" and "Dennison," which are held by the office supply company Avery Dennison Corp.

Legal experts believe the decisions may signal a turning point in how courts handle some domain name disputes -- particularly those cases involving charges of "dilution," a weakening of the power of a famous trademark to identify the owner's goods or services.

"Trademark law was built to tolerate lots of people having the same mark for different products," said Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who specializes in cyberlaw and intellectual property.

If everyone with a famous mark was able to take a domain name from someone who has legitimately registered it, merely because the domain name contains the famous mark, then "it would make a large mess," she said.

"Both the Hasbro case and Avery Dennison recognize that having a trademark, even a famous one, doesn't necessarily entitle you to a domain name" with the mark, Litman said. "That has to be the law."

The most recent case, Hasbro v. Clue Computing Inc., focused on the domain name "clue.com," which Clue Computing registered in June 1994. According to court papers, Eric Robison, the company's co-founder and current president, chose the name Clue Computing and the domain name "clue.com" for reasons unrelated to the mystery board game Clue.

Hasbro owns the "Clue" trademark for its game, which was invented in 1944. It discovered in 1996 that the rights to the domain name "clue.com" were already taken. The toy company has developed electronic versions of many of its traditional games, and is marketing its products on the Web at sites like Monopoly.com. Apparently, Clue Computing's registration of "clue.com" interfered with the toy company's marketing plans.

Hasbro notified Network Solutions Inc., the main registrar of ".com" domain names, of a potential trademark violation. In February 1996, Network Solutions, in line with its dispute resolution policies, told Robison that the Clue Computing site would be frozen until a court could resolve the issue.

Robison filed suit in Colorado state court and obtained an injunction against Network Solutions. Hasbro then brought a lawsuit against Clue Computing in federal court in Boston, charging trademark infringement and dilution.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
Articles
Ongoing Coverage of Internet Governance
Forum
Can the Internet be Impartially Governed?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The heart of Hasbro's argument was a bold claim. Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, which became effective in 1996, the owner of a "famous" trademark is entitled to stop another's commercial use of that mark if it causes "dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." The owner does not have to prove that consumers are confused by that use -- a requirement that must be met under the harder-to-win charge of trademark infringement.

Courts have traditionally recognized two types of dilution: blurring, the use of a famous trademark associated with one product to promote a different product; and tarnishment, a use which would give the trademark a negative association. But Hasbro, relying on recent cases, particularly the 1998 cybersquatting case Panavision International L.P. v. Toeppen, urged the court to recognize what would essentially be a third category of dilution -- use of another's trademark as a domain name.

In its papers and in his arguments in court, Hasbro's chief lawyer, Kenneth B. Wilson of the well-known law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, Calif., argued that by simply preventing the toy maker from using its famous trademark "Clue" in a domain name, Clue Computer was automatically committing an act of trademark dilution.


That use meant that the capacity of Hasbro's trademark to identify its goods and services was inherently diminished. After all, Wilson said, if Hasbro couldn't use "clue.com" as the address for a Web site about its game, what use was its famous mark in the Internet age? Also, any Hasbro customer who went looking for information about the board game by punching in "clue.com" would wind up in a blind alley.

Judge Woodlock rejected this view of the law, finding that, while use of a trademark in a domain name to extort money from the holder of a trademark or to prevent the trademark holder from using the domain name may be dilution, a legitimate competing use of the domain name is not dilution.

"Holders of a famous mark are not automatically entitled to use that mark as their domain name; trademark law does not support such a monopoly," the judge wrote.




Internet links of interest to Cyber Law Journal readers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The court went on to consider whether Clue Computing diluted Hasbro's "Clue" mark under existing dilution standards of blurring and tarnishment, and found no dilution. The court also rejected Hasbro's argument that its "Clue" trademark was famous -- a necessary condition for the dilution case -- because it is a common word used in many other contexts. Finally, the court said there was no trademark infringement involved in Clue Computing's actions.

Wayne Charness, a spokesman for Hasbro, said the company disagreed with the court's decision and would appeal the case.

Clue Computing's Robison said in an interview that he was "quite pleased and a little surprised" by the decision. He added that he has spent over $100,000 in his four-year fight. "I'm tired of seeing big companies come along and threaten people who inevitably cave because they can't afford to fight back," Robison said.

Thomas A. Mullen, Clue Computing's lawyer for the Boston suit, said that if Hasbro had won the case with its argument for a new kind of dilution, "it wold have been a sorry day for domain-name owners and an unfortunate day for trademark law."

Disputes like the one over clue.com could eventually be addressed outside of the courtroom if the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the new Internet governing body, is successful in setting up its own dispute resolution process. But legal experts said many cases will continue to be fought out before a judge.

Some experts said they believe the immediate impact of the Clue and Avery Dennison cases will be to send a signal to other courts that they should tread more cautiously in domain-name disputes involving charges of dilution. Others said the cases should ease the anxieties of those small businessmen with Web sites who receive threatening "cease and desist" letters from famous trademark owners.

"In just the last nine months, I've read hundreds of cease-and-desist letters where the trademark owner is saying they've got a famous mark, and that my client has to give up his domain name," said Carl Oppedahl, an intellectual property lawyer based in Colorado.

"Here the judge in the Clue case said that even if the trademark is famous, it doesn't mean the domain name owner has done anything wrong," Oppedahl said. "That's going to help domain-name owners avoid being panicked by cease-and-desist letters. It should give them courage."


CYBER LAW JOURNAL is published weekly, on Fridays. Click here for a list of links to other columns in the series.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability.



Clue Computing Inc.

Hasbro Inc.

Hasbro complaint

Transcript of oral argument in Hasbro v. Clue Computing

Decision of United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton

"Trademarks and Domain Names: Property Rights and Institutional Evolution in Cyberspace," by Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

Domain name disputes resource page, John Marshall Law School



The page link with live links is: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/...-guy-wins.html

 

WOA! This thread has taken a life of its own!

Has anyone mentioned mwerks yet? I didn't read through all of the posts. I believe it's north american based, although the site isn't up and running yet. It's for BMW enthusiasts. Could MCO use this somehow?

 

As I have not read this entrire thread, I apologize it this has been mentioned before. But reading this has me thinking, MINI has known about this site for a long time and have posted here eg: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...mp;topic=13070

(I'm sure this is just one of their posts)

The site has been around for over a year (guessing) and has over 14,000 different threads .
It seems to me that they want to have this domain so that they can do what they want with it (either now or in the future). All they are doing right now is disappointing many, many MINI owners.

I do have a question -- there are some members of MCO that work at MINI dealers, as I mentioned I didn't read every page in the thread but those members don't seem to be commenting, I was just wondering what they think.

Anyways, I support MCO and will support the site no matter what the outcome but it would be a shame to have to change the name

Jake

 

>>Mark, This really sucks!! Once the petition is approved, I will sign.
>>And as MINIclo suggested, maybe dues to help with legal fees??
>>
>>Sam
>>
>>

Dues? As much as I enjoy MCO I will never pay dues, and I doubt if Mark would ever entertain this idea. I look at the ad banners, browse the Marketplace occasionally, and most importantly, I have bought items and services from MCO sponsors. That is the purpose of the ads and that is how this site is supported. Dues would just scare most members away to "the other site".


As for this post from digitalpussi
>>Looks like everyone should put a big fat lemon sign on there car park near a dealership and protest

I think that is wrong. I STILL consider myself a MINI enthusiast and unless my MCS falls apart or something to make me think it is a lemon, I will never represent it as one, nor will I protest my dealership, who really has no decision in this.

I still LOVE MY MINI, regardless of what the legal aholes at BMW do to MCO.
Bu then again, I also liked the Tampa Bay Bucs when they had a crappy coach.
_________________
[img]albums/album25/ama.gif[/img]VinceAndJessica.com
Alta pulley, Stebro exhaust, Pipercross intake, Progress rear anti-sway bar.

 

This one's for you HARMINI.