Do you look at Sony and instantly think Wells Fargo? They use the exact same font. Neither of them own it.

Here's a few hundred companies that use Helvetica for their logo. Perhaps they should all sue each other.

Yeah, but Caesars goes out of its way to threaten folks, plus they JUST now registered their mark with the various cards depicted.

However, I would suggest someone considering action waiting until AFTER the subject book cover is published to drop a dime re the book logo and possible infringement .... after all it may be changed before publication.

I read your post, went and looked at the logo and still couldn't "think World Series".

I thought exactly the same as MJ and was going to post the same thing.

Sony and Wells Fargo is completely different, but you know that anyway and are just being facetious.

Boyd's book and WSOP are linked through the industry of poker. His book is aimed at people with connection to the poker industry.

Whether Caesars own the font or not, Boyd is trying to take advantage again.

In that psychotic mind of his, he doesn't see a problem with it.

It's not the same font Thomas, it's the same everything. It's literally cut and paste. So, if I looked at a Sony ad and it said Fargo on it using the same font as Wells Fargo then yeah, I'd think of Wells Fargo.

I see what you guys mean about creating a sort of feel, that the font is mostly associated with poker. I didn't even notice the font until you brought it up, but I can see how it makes people think WSOP. I would even agree that it's a bit unethical. But talking about lawsuits is a huge reach imo.

I don't know what you mean by cut and paste. I have tried literally cutting and pasting the WSOP logo for video work, and it was far more trouble than it was worth. I ended up tracking down a vector file. Anyway, it doesn't contain the letter T. I'm pretty sure Dutch just installed the Europa CG font and typed it in.

Poker Tilt's cover has a lot in common with the WSOP logo, but WSOP has no claim to any of the elements. Not the font, and certainly not suits or the word poker. All these things existed long before the modern WSOP logo.

+1

That doesn't mean they aren't exactly the same, it just means you're not obviously not at all familiar with the WSOP logo.

You said: "No one will look at that book title and not instantly think World Series."

I am telling you that you are wrong. I looked at the book title and didn't think twice about it. I then read your post, and went back to the book title, and still didn't immediately think "World Series".
I have 20 years of experience with the WSOP (not sure why it matters), so I am intimately familiar with the logo. I also have a little bit of experience with poker marketing and logos in general. I think you are overreacting.

You are EXACTLY right.

He's always been a douche! One scam after another his whole life!

could dutch plead insanity? i'm serious. does that have any teeth in civil court?

Still isn't anyone that's seen a copy then?

I have a copy of scott fishman's book that some donk family member gave me. I wish I could sue to get those hours of my life back.

A copy of what?

Sorry -- a copy of Dutch's book. I'm dying to know if it's any good.

Edit: Oops. Maybe I posted that in the wrong thread?
Re-edit: Ah. Seems we were talking about it earlier in the thread.

I read it and I would have subtitled it "Rantings of a Sometime Delusional Mind".

Why don't you start reading here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...tement-660963/

Also thanks for the insult and enjoy your vacation.

MM

Bring back druff

Dutch's latest comments.....

Wonder how many people out there would call Russ a bully cause he extorted them by cybersquating

So thuis domain was/is owned by two plus two in The past?

Im not really up to date on this topic.

What was the purpose for this move by dutch?
And is this proven?
Why is it bad that he registered a domain?

Here is Boyd's comments following the judgement.

Boyd's summary:
The domain name he registered was never developed into a functional web page.
He made no money from the domain name.
Mason Malmuth is a bully and pursued litigation for the sole purpose of proving a point.
He didn't have a problem with Mason before the lawsuit, but now he does.
Mason lied about him refusing to release information regarding the web page and claims that all records were given to Mason's attorneys before the lawsuit.
The domain name was offered to be handed over for free before the lawsuit.
The domain name was in Mason's possession before the lawsuit.
Boyd hopes and thinks Mason is a miserable person.
Boyd doesn't think Mason has any friends, can play a lick of poker, or is a good writer.

Of course, pretty much all of the conflicts with the version presented by 2+2.

Since I'm pretty sure Mason has friends, can play poker, and is a good writer, I have to put into question the rest of what Boyd says.

Hi Everyone:

There has been some misunderstanding floating around about Two Plus Two’s lawsuit with Dutch Boyd. Specifically, Boyd and others have mentioned that our lawsuit may have been somehow "unfair" because Boyd allowed the TWOPLUSTWOPOKER.COM domain name to expire before we filed the complaint. This misses the point and we never engage in litigation without good reason. Here, our main goal was not just to get the domain name back, which we could have done through several methods. Instead, before filing suit, Two Plus Two demanded information from Boyd regarding:

1. Why he registered the name in the first place,

2. How much revenue he generated,

3. What other domains he may have registered with our trademarks,

4. Why he offered a name with our trademark as "for sale,"

5. How many hits he received over the more than 5 years he owned the infringing domain,

6. Where those hits were re-directed,

and several other questions.

Before the lawsuit was ever filed, Boyd was extremely uncooperative and needlessly aggravated the situation. He brushed off our allegations and threatened to file sanctions/motions against our attorneys if we ever brought suit. He even asked for money from Two Plus Two to "covered his redemption cost." He refused to provide complete information regarding his domains and said he wouldn’t pay us a dime to settle, calling his defense a "slam dunk" and stating that 2+2 would "look pretty stupid" if we filed. Obviously he was mistaken.

We at Two Plus Two don’t think Dutch understands that the purpose of the cybersquatting statute is not just to "get domains back," but to compensate for past actions, deter future infringement, and reimburse attorney’s fees if warranted. Again, we are not bullies, and we certainly don’t file lawsuits often.

This is not personal, it is about protecting our brand. In fact, I don't know Dutch Boyd at all and don't believe I have ever met or spoken to him.

If we would have received the information we requested and a reasonable amount to cover our initial fees and costs, we would have never gone to Court. We explained this entire situation to Boyd numerous times before we filed a complaint. We gave him several chances to resolve this short of litigation, and he refused. It wasn’t our first choice to file a lawsuit, but we did what we had to do.

Best wishes,
Mason