Boyd Lawsuit Statement - Page 6 - Poker News

1p0kerboy · 12-17-2009, 11:24 PM

11. Two Plus Two has made extensive use of the TWO PLUS TWO Marks on,
among other things, signage, wearing apparel, publications, internet communities, online
forums, magazines, and sales and promotional materials, and has obtained (or applied for)
federal registration for the TWO PLUS TWO Marks for various goods and services,

Did these cases cause 2+2 to go out and apply for federal registration of their marks?

It will probably be relevant (again, non-lawyer opinion here) that registration of these marks were not applied for or obtained prior to the incident in question.

stass13 · 12-17-2009, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchalicious

I posted the wrong link... that's from the complaint alleged against the other dude they are suing, who my best guess is put up some pirated versions of 2+2 books... updated my post with the new link.

its brutal, i dont even know how they can sue u.

It wasnt a forum site im sure.

they should of actually approached u about buying the domain name.. end of discussion.

CRUDEFINDER · 12-17-2009, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

Also, suing somebody who is broke has to be -EV, right? Even if you win you still lose.

There is something called a judgement that they can get and unless Dutch is busto for the rest of his life they can recover...

soapdodger · 12-17-2009, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchalicious

A key point in this whole lawsuit mess is that they already own the domain they are suing over. That fact is nowhere in the complaint, however, which you can read in full here. The attorney screwed up because he basically lied about the facts of the case in the complaint by demanding a transfer of the domain as a remedy and alleging several times that I currently own it. Tyler Andrews is incompetent and vacant, as anyone can clearly see by clicking here.

Also, the notice requirement is very important... so important it got its own section. To save people a few seconds, I'm going to just post the whole section :

§1111. Notice of registration; display with mark; recovery of profits and damages in infringement suit

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 22 hereof [15 USC 1072], a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words "Registered in U. S. Patent and Trademark Office" or "Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off." or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus (R); and in any suit for infringement under this Act by such a registrant failing to give such notice of registration, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this Act unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration."

In other words, 2+2=4 is only going to be able to recover the domain name (which they already own)... not the $100k + attorneys fees that Tyler is promising.

gotta put ole dutchy on a semi-bluff here. his line seems to make sense, but why is he saying this here, after his response to the lawyers was "f*** off"?

think mason is calling, to see what happens on the turn (but are the implied odds worth it?)

Abbaddabba · 12-17-2009, 11:38 PM

I know this isnt 'the point', but Mason - do you feel like you've incurred damages because of what he did?

Or is it completely that you feel entitled to money generated because you have the rights to the trademark? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

moki · 12-17-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stass13

That may be your opinion. Fact of the matter is, if you own your own website, your entitled to the domain name that u choose and pay for.

Um... no. That is not how it works at all.

#5:

You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like a "Delta" airline. Delta Airlines "owns" that word applied to air travel, even though it is also an ordinary word. Delta Hotels owns it when applied to hotels. (This case is fairly unusual as both are travel companies. Usually the industries are more distinct.) Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

Savvy? Dutch is in the wrong, full stop.

moki · 12-17-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stass13

u still have to prove that, and if the name is available, u can use it

they have to prove your using the brand. And number 2. just because its obvious, or u think. Doesnt mean u can prove this or that, their is lots of ways to spin the name and content.

still smart business by dutch in my mind. I never went to the site, so i dont know the content. they are going to bleed him in court though.

No, no, and no. Seriously, it's a good idea not to speak on topics that you do not understand.

If you really would like to learn, start here:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metasch.../domain/tm.htm

drkstember · 12-17-2009, 11:47 PM

Cutting off your nose to spite your face can be satisfying - even if it's not game theory optimal strategy.

moki · 12-17-2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

11. Two Plus Two has made extensive use of the TWO PLUS TWO Marks on,
among other things, signage, wearing apparel, publications, internet communities, online
forums, magazines, and sales and promotional materials, and has obtained (or applied for)
federal registration for the TWO PLUS TWO Marks for various goods and services,

Did these cases cause 2+2 to go out and apply for federal registration of their marks?.

Yes, they did:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...05:d24guh.3.41

Word Mark: TWO PLUS TWO
Goods and Services: IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Providing on-line forums for transmission of messages among computer users; Internet broadcasting services. FIRST USE: 19970701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970701

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...05:d24guh.3.42

Word Mark: TWO PLUS TWO
Goods and Services: IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment and education services, namely, providing an Internet website featuring information in the field of entertainment, gaming, poker and card games; Providing instructional information on gaming, poker and card games via an Internet website; Publishing services, namely, book publishing and publishing of electronic publications. FIRST USE: 19970701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970701

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...05:d24guh.3.43

Word Mark: TWO PLUS TWO
Goods and Services: IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Series of books on the topics of gaming, poker and card games. FIRST USE: 19900101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900101

moki · 12-17-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutchalicious

In other words, 2+2=4 is only going to be able to recover the domain name (which they already own)... not the $100k + attorneys fees that Tyler is promising.

Dutch, as someone who went to law school, you of all people should know full well that attempting to hijack someone else's mark for your personal gain is just not going to fly. Again, this synopsis is good:

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.

Why would you do something that you know is wrong to do? I believe you are also incorrect in stating that no damages can be recovered other than the transfer of the domain name.

Any and all proceeds that you received from using their mark are certainly on the table. If you're really interested in settling the matter without involving expensive attorney fees, disclose to Mason the revenue your site generated, and negotiate a reasonable settlement.

Side note: Yes, Dutch, you are correct that it is extremely silly that they are not prominently showing an ® next to the mark. But it's equally silly that someone with your background wouldn't do a trademark search before using a clearly derivative mark.

However, they do list:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/terms.php

TWO PLUS TWO and other service marks, trademarks and logos displayed on the Service are the property of Two Plus Two or its licensors. You agree not to display or use the Two Plus Two intellectual property in any manner.

Comtempo · 12-18-2009, 12:12 AM

O/U $2500.00 Dutch made on that site in 5 years.

teddyFBI · 12-18-2009, 12:16 AM

Mason, srs Q's:

- Under what legal principle can any party demand that an infringer reclaim an expired domain name for the benefit of the plaintiff?? I'm a lawyer and have never heard of that remedy. Even if someone had registered a domain name and was using it in bad faith, if it expires and you make the claim after the 60-90 day window during which the previous user can actually reclaim it via his hosting provider, how can you possibly require him to go get it for you (especially if it has already been registered by someone else). I have a basic amount of familiarity with cybersquatting cases and I've never heard of that before.

- How on earth did you not discover his infringing use for 5+ years?? Surely you must have checked out twoplustwopoker.com at some point since 2004, no?

Protential · 12-18-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comtempo

O/U $2500.00 Dutch made on that site in 5 years.

profit or revenue? I think i'd take the over on both of those. Definitely the over on revenue.

200k is pretty hard to determine, i'd say over on the revenue and under on the profit.

I am also going to have to agree with those who are stating it was financially stupid for mason to try to sue Dutch. However it was morally wrong for dutch to use the site in any way shape or form that he made in likeness to 2+2. No lawyers should have been involved, revenue/profit should have been figured and disclosed and dutch should have paid a large % of said profit to mason as could have been afforded by dutch. Either way dutch is morally retarded, mason is correct however spending such a large sum on a paltry matter seems pretty....well...dumb.

Kariminal · 12-18-2009, 12:23 AM

For those who dont know who Dutch is......

From 7min25s in..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtZY0sna3CA

boc4life · 12-18-2009, 12:23 AM

I've never been much of a Dutch fan, but I'm pulling for him in this one.