[asterisk-biz] Bunch of asterisk-related domains for sale

[Matthew Rubenstein]

	I got a clue, from you comments on this list. You're marketing
"asterisk-related" domains to sell products and services at least some
of which competing with Digium, at least some of which have the
trademarked "asterisk" in the domain name.

	I could be wrong, but the strongest clue has been your cageyness in not
just posting their names in your ad - the strongest sell with the least
effort. So why don't you prove me wrong by posting all of them? In which
case you're just overselling a product with unnecessary mystery at
unnecessary effort.


On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 20:13 -0800, Justin Newman wrote:
> Get a clue. I hope you don't practice law. 18 USC Sec. 1051 etc. was meant to help folks identify the mark holder and it's source. Digium would have an up-hill battle trying to get me on rights for "sipdid.com". 
> 
> The only thing clear from your e-mail is that you lack information to pass judgement. I said "asterisk-related". Does "recordacall.com" infringe upon Digium's marks? However, that to me is "asterisk-related", as it may be of interest to companies which do business with Asterisk or similar platforms. I have a bunch of them.
> 
> Under the Lanham Act, the so called trademark owner still has the burden of proof. Also, the word "asterisk" is widely used in technology, software, and on the Internet. We all know that any idiot can sue the same. That doesn't mean they will win or that they would even want the bad press.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Matthew Rubenstein <email at mattruby.com>
> To: Justin Newman <jnewman at newmantelecom.com>
> Cc: Asterisk -Biz <asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2008 6:24:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Bunch of asterisk-related domains for sale
> 
>     You're pitching domains that are "asterisk related", which, as nothing
> but names, means they have the word "asterisk" in them. You're pitching
> them to people on the "asterisk-biz" list, "Commercial and
> Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion". Your offerings clearly infringe
> the Digium trademark on "Asterisk" used to identify Digium's "Asterisk"
> product.
> 
>     Under the Lanham Act, which your copy/paste operation evidently failed
> to fully parse, if a mark holder fails to "vigorously pursue" action
> against an infringer who's diluting the mark as used under the held
> trademark, the original mark holder can lose claim to exclusive use of
> the mark.
> 
>     Understanding trademark requires more than hitting Wikipedia. But then
> you might not have registered those domains intending to make money
> infringing someone's trademark.
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-- 

(C) Matthew Rubenstein