Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
08-23-2011, 06:55 PM #21
08-23-2011, 07:20 PM #22
08-23-2011, 07:41 PM #23
Guys don't criticize Saurik for this. If he does it he does it. If you have nothing positive and helpful about it then I see no point to clutter up the comments with pointless negative comments.
08-23-2011, 09:00 PM #24
Check out nissan.com, there is a similar lawsuit going on there.
08-23-2011, 09:40 PM #25
08-23-2011, 10:04 PM #26
08-23-2011, 11:49 PM #27
08-24-2011, 12:25 AM #28
08-24-2011, 12:42 AM #29
A commenter mentioned on pg 1 or 2 that the cydia.com domain has been registered to its current owner since 2002. I wish Saurik would comment on that. We can discuss trademark laws all day but if the commenter is correct, I'd say that makes trademark laws inconsequential in this case. Saurik, why do you feel entitled to the name if they've indeed owned it since before you ever heard of an iPhone? I don't think the jaylenoshow.com story applies here, since jay leno is a person's name while cydia is a word that's older than dirt. I grant you that people might be going to cydia.com by mistake, hoping to learn about your software, but isn't that ultimately because you decided to use the name cydia even though it was already trademarked and in use? You might not be happy about it, but even if they were 'parking' the site to sell it, domain name auctioning is a legitimate business. No less so than, say, hacking a phone and affecting the business of its manufacturer. You want to make free software, for the people, for the noble cause of eliminating apple's restrictions (thanks a lot for the great software, by the way), but that doesn't mean you have the right to just waltz in and bypass someone's legitimate claim to property.
Last edited by clockworkengine; 08-24-2011 at 12:46 AM.
08-24-2011, 02:11 AM #30
In this specific case, Cydia is a software distribution system for Apple platforms (such as the iPhone). cydia.com, which was originally a random "nothing" ad landing page, has slowly decided to become first a body of advertisements of software for Apple platforms, and then a forum for the discussion of software for Apple platforms.
In practice, this forum was even further confusing, as /all/ of the people using it were users who believed they had found an official Cydia website, and were going to get useful support: I actually got users asking if they could be moderators on this site I don't own, I got reporters asking what I was doing with this site I don't own, and I got complaints from people who got bad advice from this site I don't work.
Seriously, when I first started Cydia, I didn't care that I didn't have cydia.com: few people were going to be confused that the random website that was there was mine. When I contacted them later about getting the domain name, though, they started using it against me, seemingly in an attempt to extort me into some larger amount (not that they've given me any actual money-valued quotes I can respond to yet).
The thing you have to realize here is that the general understanding of trademark laws that random Internet commenters have is simply false: somehow, the idea got out there that trademarking a term means you "own it", and "no one else can use it". This is simply not the case.
In fact, multiple people can have a trademark on the same term: yes, multiple trademark registrations for the same word in the same database at the USPTO. The idea is that you cannot use the same name if it will cause confusion.
That is the real goal of the trademark system: it is designed to keep people or companies from deceiving users or customers (whether on purpose, as I believe is the case here, but even if it is on accident).
Therefore, if the people who owned this domain name had decided to use it to run a laundromat, they could totally do that, and there wouldn't even be any confusion: no one would expect users of Cydia who went to cydia.com and saw a website for a laundromat to seriously expect they had found the site they were looking for.
However, in this case, this company simply registers domain names with no intended purpose for them (you claim "already in use": it was not; therefore, they certainly have no trademark, registered or unregistered), and then modified the website /in response to my complaints/ to be /more/ confusing over time.
At first this was an attempt to monetize the site at my expense, and later it was a (failed) attempt to separate themselves from their previous infringement (as they realized that if I had filed a UDRP while they were running those advertisements I would have gotten immediate judgement).
This company seriously just registers names, many of which are typo-squats of existing known brands, like wokia.com. According to domaintools.com, these people own over 37,000 domain names: I am serious here, *thirty-seven THOUSAND domain names*.
These are simply not people who have some legit operation with a name they've been using for a while that I am trying to "take": these are people who just spam the domain name system attempting to prey on people who may later accidentally fall into their minefield.
08-24-2011, 07:46 AM #31
As much as you guys may WANT to disagree with saurik, he is 100% correct. The law is the law. This is what I specifically do for a living. I spend my entire day finding such infringements for companies. If you own a business, which many of us do not, you HAVE to do everything in your power to make that business successful. Otherwise you end up like the rust of us, working for the man
08-24-2011, 09:39 AM #32
I recall a lawsuit from Apple records (the Beatles label) suing Apple (the computer company) when they got into music/itunes. Apple records defending their trademark because now there would be possible confusion between Apple records and Apple music/itunes. Anybody know what happened with that?? Similar type of case!
08-24-2011, 09:45 AM #33
posted in the wrong thread (the article's front-age thread)
so moot point.
Last edited by raduga; 08-24-2011 at 09:51 AM.
08-24-2011, 11:27 AM #34
Still stand by my original comment. Sue them to stop confusion, change the web site focus. You have no right to sue them to take something that they own.
08-24-2011, 12:05 PM #35
08-24-2011, 12:39 PM #36
08-24-2011, 01:25 PM #37
Except that he does and you thinking he doesn't just reinforces that you don't know the law you are commenting about. After working 10+ years in a law office I still get laughs from people who don't "feel" something should be the way it is. Can't help them or you, know the law whether you agree or not, then comment on it.
Last edited by tekwiz; 08-24-2011 at 01:28 PM.
08-24-2011, 05:51 PM #38
08-24-2011, 08:48 PM #39
Internet Archive Wayback Machine
These people do this for a living, registering domains by the thousands (37,057 to be exact), and there are many out there like them. If you use the internet for more then 5 min you will no doubt run into at least 1. They serve no purpose, they are simply a lottery ticket for the d-bags who do this. If you want to waste A LOT more time getting relevent results when you use google, by all means, support Cykon Technology Limited. As for the rest of us who understand the problem, we hope Jay wins this suit. Its not a David vs. Goliath type of thing. Domain squatters add nothing of value to the internet, only clutter, confusion, and brand dilution.
08-24-2011, 09:13 PM #40
I Thought if they bought the domain name they own it, isn't it that simple, so in turn if someone wants it they should have to pay for it regardless of the price they put on it(Not trying to be a smart azz just wondering isn't that how it goes).....
Last edited by bigliquid530; 08-24-2011 at 09:15 PM.