We had been surfing the world wide web for a long while.
Then, all of a sudden, we found a little remote corner of that immense cyber space.
One that no one had ever claimed.
So, we did. We claimed it.
And we did so, legally, abiding all the rules and through the official means. Of course, paying the corresponding fees.
This site, this little remote corner in the cyber space that we claimed before anyone else, has been acquired in good faith, with only intent to make public our thoughts and establish an open forum to share our opinions on the subject that matters the most: fair play and the basics of individual rights in a democratic open global economy.
Basically it all started when a thatre group of argentinians were looking to have a simple web page to promote their upcoming play: Bonne Nuit Paris, in Buenos Aires. As we were browsing, we were suggested as an option: BNP which was a great acronym for Bonne Nuit Paris. So we paid, and registered the domain. Next morning, we woke up to the surprise of a threat email by an international bank and their lawyers threatening to drop the domin name due to the fact that they are so big, we are too small, the whole world knows them, nobody knows us; but still, we could harm thir image wiith our brand new acronym domain name.
As long as there is free speech, a free world, an open economy, fair trade and lawful competition, then,
THIS SITE MUST PREVAIL, as a clear manifestation that HUMAN individual civil rights are by no means subject to the power of international corporations, such as the one that shares a similar (but not identical) url, to ours.
What do we stand for? For the right of freedom to acquire, use (according to international trademark laws) and create a network of domains names that symbolically create the alternate www.
It is uncertain still, as the possibilities are endless and the projects are many, so we need to take some time, and think will become of this site. For now, this site remains on hold, and it is reserved for our future plans.
· We intend to bother no one, have conflict with no one.
· This site is not profit-oriented, and shall never be.
· We have no affiliation or whatsoever with any other organization.
· We are proud to use no logo, no banners, no representative colors.
- We are in the legal right to have and keep this, our site, and so we shall, as long as we live in a democratic, fair, just, and global-open-market world.
- This site is not up for sale.
Use of others' trademarks by incorporating them as trade names or into domain names is a well established doctrine in trademark jurisprudence. It acknowledges the possibility of their lawful non-consensual use as signifiers of non infringing products or services.
It is the wholesale prohibition of nominative use in domain names that would be unfair. It would be unfair to merchants seeking to communicate the nature of the service or the product offered at their sites. And it would be unfair to consumers, who would be deprived of an increasingly important means of receiving such information.
“Nominative fair use” is one exception to the general rule that you may not use another’s trademark in commerce. That is, use of another’s trademark is allowed under the nominative fair use doctrine. Nominative fair use, by definition, is not trademark infringement because such use is not likely to confuse consumers. The nominative fair use defense gives protection to those who use another’s trademark for the purpose of identifying the brand without suggesting affiliation or sponsorship with the brand owner. The following test evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases. To determine whether nominative fair useapplies, courts generally look to three factors:
Simply put, a domain name is essentially the user-friendly form of the internet equivalent to a telephone number or street address. It is the address of a person or organization on the internet where other people can find them online, and it can also become the online identity of that person or organization. For example, many businesses will register their company name as their domain name. A domain name can function as a trademark if it is used to identify goods or services and is not used simply as a website address.
Sometimes a powerful company tries to force a smaller one to give up a domain name that was legally acquired in good faith by the smaller company. Because trademark conflicts are ultimately resolved in court, a business that can easily afford to pay lawyers is in a powerful position to sue the smaller company for trademark infringement (assuming there is any basis for doing so, which there usually is). When the smaller company realizes that it will cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend the suit, the big guy proposes a settlement under which the small company parts with the name for a relatively meager sum. In other words, the powerful company ends up getting what it wants simply because the court system is manifestly unfair to those who can't afford attorneys.
There are strategies to fight this sort of bullying. If the small company has the resources, of course, it can mount a defense and actually win. In addition, the Internet community has been extremely hostile to online bullies, and out-of-court campaigns sometimes make them back down.
Defenses to ACPA lawsuits. If the accused cybersquatter demonstrates that he had a reason to register the domain name other than to sell it back to the trademark owner for a profit, then a court will probably allow him to keep the domain name.
However, most importantly, the court stated the following (ICANNWatch calls them "precedent setting words"): "The rooftops of our past have evolved into the internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it."
An important question for bloggers, citizen media creators, and other online publishers is whether trademark law limits their ability to engage in reporting, commentary, criticism, and other forms of political, social, and artistic expression. There is a threat, should trademark law become too robust, that companies and other trademark holders might use it to silence commentary, criticism, and unfavorable reporting. Such a "right to control language" would offend the First Amendment and seriously undermine the quality of public debate on issues of fundamental importance.
The good news is that courts have consistently protected the public's right to use the trademarks of others in order to engage in criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression. As long as what you're doing is really commentary, criticism, or reporting (etc.), and not a surreptitious attempt to sell goods or services, or to deceptively attract customers or readers you otherwise would not have had, you should be able to defeat a trademark claim brought against you. The bad news is that the law relating to this intersection of trademark law and free expression is complex and confusing. Neither Congress nor the courts have developed a simple and clear rule that protects your rights to use the trademarks of others for free speech purposes; instead they've developed a complex array of defenses to trademark claims that even lawyers find difficult to untangle. This makes it hard for a defendant to get a trademark lawsuit dismissed quickly with little expense, and it leaves bloggers and citizen media creators vulnerable to intimidation through the unscrupulous use of cease-and-desist letters. (The ideas here are based on William McGeveran's excellent article, Four Free Speech Goals for Trademark Law.)
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work.
Sign up if you want to stand beside us