NRA behaving like HCI and CPHV against progun site?
- Thread starter John/az2
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
It's called mark protection, and I'd say that the owner of GUNED.COM doesn't understand the issue of mark protection if he's yelping about it.
ANY intelligent organization protects its registered marks. In the past NRA has done the same thing with its logo and other registered marks. It HAS to. The National Rifle Association cannot, and should not, be faulted for protecting its trademarked property.
But they're on our side, right? So that makes it OK for them to use the mark, even though they don't own it, right?
Unfortunatly, wrong.
The courts don't consider the nature of the organization that uses another group's mark if it ever becomes an issue.
They only consider how vigorously the owner "defended" the mark.
If there exists a pattern of uncontested use, an organization can actually LOSE its exclusive rights to the mark.
The most famous example of this is Coca-Cola.
Coke once owned the mark on Cola independent of Coca-Cola (which they also owned).
When Pepsi came along, they started using Cola as well in their name.
For years Coke did nothing about it. Until Pepsi started to become a serious threat to Coke.
Then Coke sued over mark infringement, saying that the word Cola was their property, and asking for an injunction against Pepsi.
Pepsi successfully argued that Coke had known of Pepsi's use of the word Cola for years, had done absolutely nothing about it, and by that inaction, had allowed their mark on the word Cola to expire.
The courts agreed with Pepsi, and stated that since Coke had allowed uncontested use of the word Cola, their mark was null and void, and Cola entered public domain.
In order to preserve the exclusivity of mark, the owner MUST take on all comers, whether friend or foe.
Would any of us REALLY like to see HCI or MMM get ahold of "The Armed Citizen" and start a column of their own featuring gangbanger murderers and family killers, with the tagline "Armed citizens are responsible for over 50,000 deaths by firearms every year. Please help put a stop to the carnage blah blah blah." And yes, a third party can contest a mark citing uncontested prior use.
If GUNED.COM wants to USE "The Armed Citizen," they should apply for a license and protect what they're attempting to do, instead of endanger it.
The fact that NRA didn't get NRA.COM has little to no bearing on mark registration. A LOT of organizations and celebrities didn't get "their" web names because of cybersquatters recognizing what the web would be before corporate entities did.
ANY intelligent organization protects its registered marks. In the past NRA has done the same thing with its logo and other registered marks. It HAS to. The National Rifle Association cannot, and should not, be faulted for protecting its trademarked property.
But they're on our side, right? So that makes it OK for them to use the mark, even though they don't own it, right?
Unfortunatly, wrong.
The courts don't consider the nature of the organization that uses another group's mark if it ever becomes an issue.
They only consider how vigorously the owner "defended" the mark.
If there exists a pattern of uncontested use, an organization can actually LOSE its exclusive rights to the mark.
The most famous example of this is Coca-Cola.
Coke once owned the mark on Cola independent of Coca-Cola (which they also owned).
When Pepsi came along, they started using Cola as well in their name.
For years Coke did nothing about it. Until Pepsi started to become a serious threat to Coke.
Then Coke sued over mark infringement, saying that the word Cola was their property, and asking for an injunction against Pepsi.
Pepsi successfully argued that Coke had known of Pepsi's use of the word Cola for years, had done absolutely nothing about it, and by that inaction, had allowed their mark on the word Cola to expire.
The courts agreed with Pepsi, and stated that since Coke had allowed uncontested use of the word Cola, their mark was null and void, and Cola entered public domain.
In order to preserve the exclusivity of mark, the owner MUST take on all comers, whether friend or foe.
Would any of us REALLY like to see HCI or MMM get ahold of "The Armed Citizen" and start a column of their own featuring gangbanger murderers and family killers, with the tagline "Armed citizens are responsible for over 50,000 deaths by firearms every year. Please help put a stop to the carnage blah blah blah." And yes, a third party can contest a mark citing uncontested prior use.
If GUNED.COM wants to USE "The Armed Citizen," they should apply for a license and protect what they're attempting to do, instead of endanger it.
The fact that NRA didn't get NRA.COM has little to no bearing on mark registration. A LOT of organizations and celebrities didn't get "their" web names because of cybersquatters recognizing what the web would be before corporate entities did.
Last edited:
Mike pegged it.
I can add only one bit: recently, some people on our side have had a lot of fun finding grabber corporation names that had expired and took 'em over. Really pissed 'em off good. So they'd LOVE to find an unprotected NRA trademark such as "thearmedcitizen".
In other words, Mike isn't talking about a "theoretical danger", he's talking about a serious possibility.
I can add only one bit: recently, some people on our side have had a lot of fun finding grabber corporation names that had expired and took 'em over. Really pissed 'em off good. So they'd LOVE to find an unprotected NRA trademark such as "thearmedcitizen".
In other words, Mike isn't talking about a "theoretical danger", he's talking about a serious possibility.
Interestingly, a quick search proves that when the villain was HCI instead of his previous employer, Mike Irwin had a very different reaction. 
It appears to me that the NRA, by the tone and words of their letter have tried to resolve the situation peacefully rather than by brute force and threats. And they have clearly stated their position and reasons for such.
Seems to me that someone had a cute idea that they wanted to try out and unfortunately ran afoul of the legitimate laws safeguarding trademark ownership and wants to throw a tantrum about it.
Seems to me that someone had a cute idea that they wanted to try out and unfortunately ran afoul of the legitimate laws safeguarding trademark ownership and wants to throw a tantrum about it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Not sure of what your point is, Tamara. You think I'm actually going to cheer HCI?
Liberty's fight with HCI covers somewhat different ground, as others note. And HCI blinked, and changed its name.
From my readings, there's actually two ways a court could come down on that specific issue -- either agreeing that the site is parody and satire, and thus is protected use (Jerry Falwell found that out when he took on Hustler magazine and lost), or the courts could find that even though satire, the aims of the organization are so counter to the originating organization that it in fact dilutes the mark owner's message and purpose.
In other words, two valid interpretations, and two possible outcomes. To the best of my knowledge, both stances have been successfully argued, but neither has been to the Supreme Court.
But when you get right down to it, it's still a case of one group defending its marks against friends and/or foes. As I noted, the law makes NO distinction between the two -- it looks only at how long others used the registered mark before the owner stepped in to claim it back.
Because of that, NRA has NO choice but to defend its mark against all comers, or possibly lose it.
Liberty's fight with HCI covers somewhat different ground, as others note. And HCI blinked, and changed its name.
From my readings, there's actually two ways a court could come down on that specific issue -- either agreeing that the site is parody and satire, and thus is protected use (Jerry Falwell found that out when he took on Hustler magazine and lost), or the courts could find that even though satire, the aims of the organization are so counter to the originating organization that it in fact dilutes the mark owner's message and purpose.
In other words, two valid interpretations, and two possible outcomes. To the best of my knowledge, both stances have been successfully argued, but neither has been to the Supreme Court.
But when you get right down to it, it's still a case of one group defending its marks against friends and/or foes. As I noted, the law makes NO distinction between the two -- it looks only at how long others used the registered mark before the owner stepped in to claim it back.
Because of that, NRA has NO choice but to defend its mark against all comers, or possibly lose it.
Mike Irwin...
"Not sure of what your point is, Tamara."
I think she's flirtin' with ya, Mike. After that pic you posted in the "Rogue's Gallery" with yer dawg, you should expect to get that all the time.
On a slightly more serious note, I think there is no comparison between the in-depth idea you posted on this thread and your short, humorous reply in the HCI thread. In this case there was a clear effort at using a trademarked name for a website address which backfired, or at least, did not work out as the individual thought it would.
Stand your ground (and keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot!).
"Not sure of what your point is, Tamara."
I think she's flirtin' with ya, Mike. After that pic you posted in the "Rogue's Gallery" with yer dawg, you should expect to get that all the time.
On a slightly more serious note, I think there is no comparison between the in-depth idea you posted on this thread and your short, humorous reply in the HCI thread. In this case there was a clear effort at using a trademarked name for a website address which backfired, or at least, did not work out as the individual thought it would.
Stand your ground (and keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot!).
Reply To All
First of all, you all need to study the Patent and Trademark laws before you make ignorant statements. GUNED™ and all our members are members of the NRA and support the NRA.
Our Member Mike G. has done NOTHING wrong with the registration of his domain name. He has not infringed on any Mark whatsoever. The current law states that any name in the ICCAN register is “Open” for purchase.
A perfect example of this was with CHPV – Center for the Prevention of Handgun Violence. WWW.CPHV.COM . They were threatened and taken to court over the registration of this name and won a very nasty battle might I add with these idiot anti gun people. They DID NOT register the “Dot Com” and lost, just as the NRA will lose also.
Here is my company website, and some of the issues we handle including Patent and Trademark rights: http://www.siteapproved.com/policy.htm
So let’s get it together TFL.
Mike W. Smith
GUNED™
Guns Unified Nationally Endorsing Dignity
First of all, you all need to study the Patent and Trademark laws before you make ignorant statements. GUNED™ and all our members are members of the NRA and support the NRA.
Our Member Mike G. has done NOTHING wrong with the registration of his domain name. He has not infringed on any Mark whatsoever. The current law states that any name in the ICCAN register is “Open” for purchase.
A perfect example of this was with CHPV – Center for the Prevention of Handgun Violence. WWW.CPHV.COM . They were threatened and taken to court over the registration of this name and won a very nasty battle might I add with these idiot anti gun people. They DID NOT register the “Dot Com” and lost, just as the NRA will lose also.
Here is my company website, and some of the issues we handle including Patent and Trademark rights: http://www.siteapproved.com/policy.htm
So let’s get it together TFL.
Mike W. Smith
GUNED™
Guns Unified Nationally Endorsing Dignity
...and folks wonder why Glock registered "Glock.com" several years before they actually did a website.
All's fair in love and domain name registration.
I wonder how many hits TFL gets from folks looking for Bill Buckley transcripts?
From the filing against Washington Ceasefire and HCI:
It would appear that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
All's fair in love and domain name registration.
I wonder how many hits TFL gets from folks looking for Bill Buckley transcripts?
From the filing against Washington Ceasefire and HCI:
It would appear that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
Guned.com
Mike,
There are plenty of laws that govern cybersquatting.
For example the ACPA or 15 USC 1125(d)
Although they mainly protect against companies out for the purpose of making money by registering names they have been used to protect trademarks before. You dont have to be the first to the name to have the right to it.
If the person who had registered then name originally had intended to sell it to the NRA for profit then the NRA could easily win. I am not saying who will win this but the NRA would have a case and it is not cut and dry against them.
Mike,
There are plenty of laws that govern cybersquatting.
For example the ACPA or 15 USC 1125(d)
Although they mainly protect against companies out for the purpose of making money by registering names they have been used to protect trademarks before. You dont have to be the first to the name to have the right to it.
If the person who had registered then name originally had intended to sell it to the NRA for profit then the NRA could easily win. I am not saying who will win this but the NRA would have a case and it is not cut and dry against them.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Does anyone know the NRA's policy on licensing their marks? An amicable solution might still be reached if the NRA would license "TheArmedCitizen" to Mike G. for a reasonable amount.
I wonder if this will eventually affect El Jefe over at TheArmedCitizen.net?
I wonder if this will eventually affect El Jefe over at TheArmedCitizen.net?
I would predict that the NRA won't license the trademark. They wouldn't be able to assert control if the site turned into "NRA bash central" the way KABA is now and JPFO/GOA have flirted with in the past.
The NRA is *very* careful with their "corporate image", most of the reasons for that I agree with. I won't get into details because there's a lot of "heat" in that issue on both sides.
The NRA is *very* careful with their "corporate image", most of the reasons for that I agree with. I won't get into details because there's a lot of "heat" in that issue on both sides.
Mike is doing a good job for the cause. If he beat out our friends on the domain name, they certainly do not hold with there promise. Always ready. I am in the same boat Vtwin holdings wich is mother Harly is using my domain name vtwin.net, and I will not take a 300.00 dollar buy out. So more power to Mike.
Jim March,
So, hypothetically speaking, it would be okay for John/az2 to use "CPHV.com" to lampoon, satirize, and denounce CPHV, but if Mike G. uses "armedcitizen.com" to do anything but toady up to the NRA, then that'd be illegal?
Hmm. Guess that makes sense... or something.
So, hypothetically speaking, it would be okay for John/az2 to use "CPHV.com" to lampoon, satirize, and denounce CPHV, but if Mike G. uses "armedcitizen.com" to do anything but toady up to the NRA, then that'd be illegal?
Hmm. Guess that makes sense... or something.