Month: June 2011

Categories
News Video Games

Another twist in ModernWarfare3.com story, still not owned by Activision

Modern Warfare 3

The ModernWarfare3.com ‘not owned by Activision’ story took another twist today as the producer of the video displayed on the homepage of the now ‘anti Call of Duty’ website, posted a message on the YouTube video saying, “I did not create ModernWarfare3.com.”

I’ve been following the story of ModernWarfare3.com even before it was officially revealed that Activision was planning to launch its next Call of Duty Modern Warfare game called Modern Warfare 3.

Way back in January, rumors were already circulating that the next Call of Duty game title would be Modern Warfare 3.  But as I wrote back then, Activision didn’t own ModernWarfare3.com.

By mid May, information and dates were leaked on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 to online gaming magazine, Kotaku.  It was announced that Activision was developing what could turn out to be its biggest installment of a Call of Duty game to date, but surprisingly, it didn’t even own the matching domain name.

Days after news hit the internet, the owner of ModernWarfare3.com had a website online with thousands of Facebook fans.

Activision then announced plans for Call of Duty Elite, to coincide with the release of Modern Warfare 3. 

As news outlets ate the stories up about Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty Elite, ModernWarfare3.com went offline for days, in what appeared to be a response to Activision’s lawyers.

At the same time, the battle between EA’s Battlefield 3 and Activision’s ModernWarfare 3 heated up.   But online, EA had already positioned itself with a website on Battlefield.com and Battlefield3.com, while Activision owned neither ModerWarfare.com nor ModernWarfare3.com.  In fact, during this time in mid June, EA acquired Battlefield.net.

Then, just over a week ago, ModernWarfare3.com came back online, but instead of being a fan site, the owner launched a revamped website lashing out at Activision, in a series of statements and videos, throwing support instead to Electronic Arts’ Battlefield 3.

The site, which claims to be “Under Seige”, still doesn’t belong to Activision.

Now today it appears the producer of the YouTube video posted on the homepage of ModernWarfare3.com who goes by RoboJules, never endorsed the website.  

Titled “Modern Warfare 3 sucks”, a message has been overlayed on the the video (screen shot below).

Modern Warfare 3 Sucks

I’ve reached out the owner of ModernWarfare3.com (who also owns the .net) for comment, and will update this post if I hear back.

Categories
Disputes News Trademarks WIPO

Transfer denied to Systemware in domain dispute over Cite.com

Complainant denied

This result is not surprising.  Panelist Christopher J. Pibus has denied Systemware, Inc. of Addison, Texas, the domain name cite.com, in a dispute filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

On April 26, 2011, a complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.  The complainant, Systemware, operates a business which provides database management software and filed filed a trademark application for the mark CITE on March 17, 2011.

According to WIPO, the Respondent Gene Volovich registered the domain name cite.com on March 26, 1997.  

That’s right, Gene registered the domain name fourteen years earlier.

Systemware argued that it invested a significant amount of money to promote its business and trademark, despite only filing the application a month earlier.  Even before Systemware filed for a trademark application on CITE, other trademarks had already been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office by other companies, but never disputed.

Systemware also argued that Gene had no legitimate rights or interests to the disputed domain name because he is not commonly known by the name CITE, and was never authorized or licensed by Systemware to use the CITE trademark,which it filed for 14 years after the domain was first registered.

Panelist Christopher J. Pibus found that cite.com is identical to Systemware’s trademark CITE, except for the addition of “.com”, but since Gene registered the domain 14 years earlier, he had legitimate rights or interests to the name.

As a result of failing to satisfy the requirement for “Rights or Legitimate Interests”, Systemware was denied the domain name and no finding was made on the “Bad Faith” claim, which can help in supporting claims of reverse domain name hijacking if there is no finding of “Bad Faith”.

Although there wasn’t any finding of reverse domain name hijacking against Systemware, Gene did contend that Systemware was attempting to hijack the name.

Now it looks like Systemware will have to shell out serious bucks to purchase the name if it really wants it.  The company filed another trademark application this past week on CITE, this time for cloud computing featuring software for use in database management.

Categories
News Trademarks

It’s official: Google owns Photovine.com

Google Photovine

Just over a week ago, on June 18, I wrote about Google filing a trademark application for “Photovine” and speculated that the company owned the domain name, photovine.com, after the Whois records switched to MarkMonitor and DNStination from its previous owner.

Now it’s official — Google owns the domain, photovine.com. 

On June 23, the Whois record started showing Google as the owner.

Registrant:
        DNS Admin
        Google Inc.
        1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
         Mountain View CA 94043
        US

    Domain Name: photovine.com

        Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
        Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
        Registrar Homepage: http://www. markmonitor.com

 Created on…………..: 2004-10-28.
    Expires on…………..: 2013-10-28.
    Record last updated on..: 2011-06-23.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    gdm1.photovine.com
    gdm0.photovine.com

You might also notice that the domain has its own nameservers, right now though, no other domain names are located there.

Google has not officially announced anything about Photovine, however there has been a lot of online discussion about what the service may be, based on the trademark application.

As of today, a message on the website simply reads: Nothing to see here, move along.

Discussion: The Next Web

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News Trademarks

Looks like Arizona State wants SunDevils.com, a naturist website

Arizona State Sparky the Sun Devil

The domain sundevils.com was first registered back in 1999 and throughout the years has had a lot of different uses, including re-directing to the website of Diablo Sun Devils, a naturist club founded in the San Francisco Bay Area that publishes nude photographs of women online.  Its motto, “Dedicated to bringing the freedom and joy of social nudism and naturism to women everywhere.”

For Arizona State University, home of the Sun Devils, it looks like enough is enough.

A complaint (case no. 1393853) has now been filed with the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”). 

Though the complainant isn’t officially known just yet, it would only make sense that Arizona State filed the domain dispute over sundevils.com, which has claim to variety of trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office dating back to the 1980s.

ASU does use thesundevils.com, which re-directs to its official athletics site on thesundevils.cstv.com, but unsuspecting visitors who type sundevils.com into the browser’s address bar might find themselves in for a shocking surprise. 

In the mid-2000s, the owner of sundevils.com did for a time, re-direct the URL to thesundevils.com according to screenshot history, but considering a number of factors such as having trademark rights, this could be a quick open and shut case for the National Arbitration Forum.

In 2008, the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona won a dispute over the domain arizonawildcats.com.

Discussion: Deadspin 

(Photo of Sparky “hand waver” via Arizona State University)

Categories
Disputes News WIPO

Domain dispute proceedings over typo Twiter.com have been suspended

Twiter logo

It appears Twitter has requested that the proceedings over the disputed domain twiter.com be suspended. 

The micro blogging site filed a domain dispute (case #D2011-0890) over the web address twiter.com with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in early June, days later it added twiter.biz to its case. 

The owner of twiter.com has used the web address typo to trick visitors into clicking links that promise free gifts after providing personal information such as email and address.

According to the latest website update (see below) by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the case status has been changed to ‘Suspended’, which indicates that Twitter has reached a settlement with the respondent.  

Twitter WIPO UDRP Suspended

As of today though, the domain names twiter.com and twiter.biz are not in the hands of Twitter and twiter.com continues to re-direct visitors to an online survey website.  If the respondent in the case fails to transfer the domain names or fulfill their end of the agreement, Twitter can file a request to re-institute the proceedings.

Either way, this domain dispute seems like an open and shut case whether the case is terminated or reinstated. 

Twitter’s only other case filed to date with WIPO involved twittersearch.com back in 2010, a domain dispute that also never reached a panel, but was transferred to Twitter.