Comcast taking action against Comcastroturf.com for trademark infringement
reddit.com
reddit.com
I am not on the list, but I looked up 7 members of my family and four of them are, several of them showing up more than once. Including my 3-year-old nephew, who I am sure is very smart but definitely did not submit comments to the FCC in support of repealing Net Neutrality. (And if he did, he would not use wording identical to hundreds of thousands of other commenters. /totallynotrobots/)
Maybe there's nothing actually novel or surprising to discuss in it there, but I feel like covering the issue this way is absolutely burying the lede a bit.
His parents post to Facebook, I don't know if that's the connection, but my nephew's name is definitely out there on the Internet, so I searched for him and saw two identical posts in his name from different states.
(It's probably a common name and I would concede there, but the comments match the regex formula[1] that's in the Reddit thread exactly, they are definitely not legitimate comments.)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6cvg82/comcast_...
Have you found one that matches exactly both name and address? Because I haven't found any, but I'm still convinced that something is rotten here in Denmark. (All of these family members never were Comcast customers or lived in Comcast service areas, so like I said, I'm not at all convinced this is some kind of Comcast data breach. Just that some kind of massive fraud is being perpetrated, by someone in favor of repealing NN.)
I heard a few people say that they found exact matches for names and addresses, but I haven't seen anyone say for sure that they simultaneously matched a real person's name with an address that they actually occupied. I don't think they're doing that.
I did see a comment from someone who looked up their town, found a lot of names they recognized, tried matching them to any county records and came up empty (eg. nobody by that name submitting those comments paid property taxes at the address.)
As a counter-example to the Comcast breach angle, I am a Comcast subscriber and my name was not used. But my wife's maiden name is more common and it was used, more than once. (I have a very un-common name and it was unlikely to be on the breach list unless it was a genuine match.)
Com C AstroTurf
Comcastastroturf.com's content is about the industry Comcast is in, and actually explicitly mentions Comcast. That makes a slutsofinstagram excuse much harder.
> Comcastastroturf.com's content is about the industry Comcast is in
So yes "communications broadcast Corp" would be mentioned in a site about communication broadcasting corporations BUT to assume that just because they are the most user-hostile, anti-competitive and vile of the ComC's doesn't give them some sort of claim over Communication Companies Astroturfing. It's just a portmanteau of the above 3 words; only 1 of which is found in that other company ;)
This situation is basically Monster Cables vs. Blue Jean cables, but without a snarky, go-fuck-yourself response (yet).
They "... continue to strongly support a free and Open Internet and the preservation of modern, strong, and legally enforceable net neutrality protections."
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-statemen...
/s
/snark
Comcast appears to be using patent troll level fuckery in an attempt to further their goal of stopping net neutrality. A goal, which itself is about controlling the flow of information, and mirrors this attempt to control information.
Attempts to control (like turtles) go all the way down.
The concern is that if they're willing to be aggressive jerks in a situation like this, why make it easier for them to actually hijack or block the site? Of course, net neutrality is about much more than that, but that's how I understood the direct tie-in here.
Echostar is doing a good job with their proven GEO ISP constillation. With several billion in the bank they are the most promising to be sucessful, keep an eye on their HTS development over the next couple years. The problem with GEO ISPs is they have 1-2s latency :(
I agree that they're vaporware until they deliver, but latency isn't going to be the killer.
The current incarnation of Iridium bought the constellation for only $35 million, effectively discharging the massive debt and allowing them to profitably operate the satellites without having to pay back what it cost to put them up in the first place.
Come forward to today and satellites are cheaper and more capable, demand for communications is higher, and launch services are much cheaper, so Iridium thinks they'll be able to put up a next generation constellation without repeating their history. It looks like they're planning on spending about $2.1 billion to build the satellites and $800 million to launch them, which puts the new constellation at about one third the cost of the original taking inflation into account, while being vastly more capable. (The current Iridium system gets you a connection which provides either a single voice line or 2.4kbps (!) data service. The next generation will go up to 1.5Mbps.)
Iridium is a fascinating story of hubris, spectacular failure, and eventual success.
Unrelated fun fact, an Iridium satellite was involved in the first accidental collision of two satellites. Iridium 33 collided with the defunct Kosmos-2251 in 2009. The relative speed was over 26,000MPH and sprayed a bunch of debris around the two orbits. Iridium has spares in orbit, so they were able to patch up the constellation without much trouble.
As to latency; their tech woul;d be ~750[1] miles from the ground. They are targeting 1Gbps capabilities[2] vs a global avg of terrestrial companies around 20gbps. I don't know how viable that number is; but if it is physically possible then hitting 1/100th of that would still put immense pressure on ISPS as the floor for your weakest offering is 10gbps to be competitive. 2019 is scheduled date; so presumably 2020.
[1]https://www.engadget.com/2015/01/17/elon-musk-spacex-interne... [2]http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-explor...
Can somebody please explain why I'm wrong above, and Comcast is actually bulling the poor little guy throwing around baseless accusations? To be fair, I hate Comcast (and support Title II); but I also don't believe in defending crap like this just because it's targeted at a company I don't like.
This is a clear-cut trademark issue, but it's clear that Comcast is wrong. Registering and publishing at nytimeslies.com without evidence that the New York Times actually lies could be a libel issue, but it can't be a trademark one.
The courts.
There is no trademark violation. Comcast is trying to scare people into thinking that there is, which is bullying.
The other day I was being cheeky and went to notreddit.com (it's owned by reddit and redirects to /r/redditalternatives) but if someone wanted to simply clone reddit (open source) and use that URL instead of something like voat.co, etc, that would be perfectly fine?
Then there are cases of direct name URLS like nissan.com of Nissan Computers which existed for a very long time before Nissan the car company had a web presence. They have been in litigation[0] back and forth for years and now Nissan the car company is attempting to do a federal trademark that would cover "...computers and computer peripherals among other classes of goods and services."
Interesting cases. Anyone else have any further thoughts?
It would be hard to argue that "notreddit" was a brand that could be confused with Reddit, but it does use their mark, and if you did build a site that was confusingly similar to Reddit and used that name they would probably have a case that you infringed on their brand. By competing with them I think you'd be stepping closer to infringing and farther from a legal fair use.
In the case of the Nissan's, it seems less clear. As the Nissan Computer domain holder, he registered the domains and had an established business before Nissan Car had any interest. What would stop him from pivoting into car manufacturing/sales and even if he called his company something different, used nissan.com to promote his car sales?
They do not always have to open with "cease and desist" -- alternatively they can even offer a license to use the mark, but if they are derelict at enforcing their TM brand then all of their associated legal protections can be taken away.
If you publish a work under copyright and someone steals it, you win if you can prove that your work came first.
If you are sued for patent infringement and you can prove prior art, you can potentially get the patent thrown out under review.
If you are "Mike Rowe Soft" independent software developer and went into business years before Microsoft existed, but nobody knows you, you will lose because your brand is confusingly similar and your market domain significantly intersects the more well-established mark. (This is actually a real case, and that was his real name.)
Microsoft can file an injunction forcing you to change your (company's) name and to cease and desist from any marketing that uses a mark that is confusingly similar, and they will win, even though you got there first. Just different systems for protecting different types of intellectual property.
It's understandable that you would be confused.
The key is to assess the probability that the consumer might be confused with respect to who is ultimately responsible for what they are seeing.
It just so happens that "Comcast" is the company name and trademark, drawn from the list of companies apparently pushing to kill net neutrality, that best overlaps with "astroturfing". So it metonymically represents all those companies in the clever name.
The fact that Comcast has a widespread reputation for being one of the most hated corporations in America certainly doesn't hurt. Whether warranted or not, it is the poster child for everything wrong with the US telecoms industry. Even if it is not the ultimate source of the bogus public comments, I have no great hurdle in believing without further evidence that it could be, because of that poor reputation.
* Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't. Comcast is such a well-known brand and that also plays into the decision. It's not at all clear-cut.
I think if you did this today, you would get shut down at the discretion of the judge for piggybacking on the established brand, but if you had Comcast Cola established before Comcast Cable or at the same time as them, you'd have a better chance at keeping your name.
(I am not a lawyer but I did study at Slashdot U in the 90's.)
For example, if I buy a Coke, I can be confident that it came from The Coca-Cola Company, not Joe's Discount Soda and Rat Poison.
Companies holding trademarks benefit as well, but that's not the goal.
Given that, I think (IANAL either) that much of the decision will come down to whether or not they think buyers will be confused about who the product came from. I don't know how that would play out in the case of a Comcast barber shop, but that's going to me a major part of it.
Back to the actual case at hand, nobody is going to see comcastroturf.com and think that it's actually from Comcast, so there should be no case for trademark infringement.
You absolutely can open up a Comcast barber shop, by the existing trademark laws. But every trademark lawyer worth their retainer would recommend that you not do that.
In order to be a blanket trademark, you have to be instantly recognizable in every household in the US, and be registered for nearly every possible business category. Something like Disney qualifies, because it puts its kraken tentacles into everything, and sells many types of merchandise in its giant web of internal cross-promotion. About the only thing I would even attempt is (without searching the trademark database) Disney Firearms Manufacturing, and I'd better not have more than two ovoid shapes total in my entire factory. Those, I could mine tons of brass out of, for shell casings.
In addition to the law, there is the unwritten "better lawyer rule". And that means that any company that has enough money to hire more than one dedicated, full-time corporate lawyer will almost always beat you in court, even if the law is on your side, because they can tie you up forever with procedural rules and dirty tactics, until you run out of money and are forced to concede defeat. In order to win against Comcast, the judge would have to be on your side, but judges are supposed to be impartial, and those who aren't are more likely more partial to the ones funding their judicial retention election campaigns.
So any sensible person, not just your lawyer, will advise you not to throw rocks at giants. But the law would still be on your side, even if no one in the civil courts system is. Though everyone who knows you would think you're crazy, and would try not to stand too close to you in public.
Another comment further down on this post also references a few legal precedents protecting domains that demonstrate protection for domain names along the lines of <trademarkedname>sucks.com
Basically, if you're offering a product in a marketplace and benefiting from consumers' familiarity with the trademarked brand then you're probably in trouble. But if you're not, then you're probably okay.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-fiV362r1M2ikxo8m/nks_djvu.tx...
(_why the lucky stiff's Nobody Knows Shoes, which is definitely not titled A Gundible Journey)
I apologize in advance for wasting your time but it made me laugh. The fore-word is the thing. Also, the PDF version in case you actually wanted to read the whole book:
Comcast's trademark reserves the right to use the name "Comcast" in their trade. It prevents me from starting a local TV station called "Comcast", or a VPN service called "ComCastSecure", or whatever. It may or may not prevent me from opening a hot-dog stand called "Com Cast Hot Dogs" or a fashion label called "COMME des CASTES," depending on whether the courts think people will believe these brands are associated with Comcast the TV/internet/etc. company. It certainly does not prevent me, or you, from having use the word "Comcast" several times in our comments -- the entire point of a trademark is that when we say "Comcast" in a discussion about their field of business, we're all referring to the same thing.
If Comcastroturf.com is not engaged in trade, it will be hard to argue trademark infringement. If there is no risk that a Comcast customer or potential customer will believe that Comcastroturf.com is associated with Comcast, it will be very hard to argue trademark infringement.
The company that sent the notice looks like they have some shell scripts running in cron that send out scary notices whenever they see a domain that matches a regex for a client that pays them money:
https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/products/machine-readable-...
Re: "have to sue you defend a trademark"
The bully will simply state the oft-repeated excuse that they must bully according to trademark law, which isn't remotely the case.
It's the same excuse we see time and time again and it's almost always false.
Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter: The topic isn't reforming trademark law, people are trying to hint that Comcast are specifically targeting this one domain to shut down the bad PR.
You do sometimes need to formally assert your ownership of the Trademark in order to maintain your legal protections, but you do not have to open with "Cease and Desist" in 100% of cases where a mark may be confusing in order to retain protections. I can't think of a specific case where this happened right now, but I have definitely heard of this happening. Maybe someone here knows of such a case. I think it was a company that produces video games.
(A competent IP lawyer would probably advise you against diluting a brand in this way in most cases without having a very good reason for allowing the use. The case I am thinking of was something along the lines of "going after these people with a legal threat right out of the gate is likely to result in severe bad PR for us because they are likely to be seen by our customers as performing a valuable service." So let's ask them nicely to change the name, or offer them a license for a nominal fee of $1 to use the mark instead; bring them into legal compliance, maintain our protected position, reap positive PR and save on lawyer bills.)
In the case of this thread I definitely agree that the lawyer is totally out of bounds.