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

[Matthew Rubenstein]

	Thanks for the clues.

	What I mainly don't like, more even than I do you now, is people
polluting the -biz list with indications that it's OK to infringe
tradmarks.


On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 21:46 -0800, Justin Newman wrote:
> I don't need to prove anything to you little guy. If you're not interested, delete the message and move on. This is the biz list. I have domains I thought others may be interested in; the last place I'd post infringing work is on the owner's list and I don't compete with Digium.
> 
> ----- 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 9:09:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Bunch of asterisk-related domains for sale
> 
>     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