Nissan vs Nissan

[Ext User(Andy)]

http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php

Interesting reading

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"Andy" <Pandermyandy@blogmog.com> wrote in message
news:444f5f59@news1.veridas.net...
> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>
> Interesting reading

Very interesting. I found that site a year or so back and sent a complaint
to Nissan. Nissan's reply pretty much convinced me never to buy their cars.


--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Ext User(Andy)]

What was their reply?

[Ext User(MrFlibble)]

In article <444f5f59@news1.veridas.net>, Andy
<Pandermyandy@blogmog.com> wrote:

> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>
> Interesting reading
>
>

In the US You MUST defend trademark violations or you lose it.

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"Andy" <lazarusandypandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146084951.606707.137700@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
> What was their reply?

From memory it was something to the effect that the computer people will get
everything they deserve because they have deliberately been cashing in on
the car makers name. It was a pretty long email. Looked like it was
pre-prepared for all the people who email after reading the computer site.

In my email I mentioned that I would never buy one of their cars now because
of the way they treated the computer company. I pointed out that the way
they treat the little guy is an indication of how they will treat customers.
They didn't address that point in their email. nor did they answer my
question of why they only targeted the company with the same name who
"coincidentally" had the .com domain name.

I didn't read through the new site very carefully, but the old one from a
few years back clearly showed the origin on the problem. The computer
company got the .com domain and was trading with it when the car company
decided they wanted it. They unsuccessfully offered money for the domain
before they tried to get icann to give it to them. Also unsuccessful. So
they tried to close down the computer business. Nasty pricks. I'll never
buy their car or even a rebadged one from their factory.

--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"MrFlibble" <figfhifih@fifihfg.com> wrote in message
news:270420060921305106%figfhifih@fifihfg.com...
> In article <444f5f59@news1.veridas.net>, Andy
> <Pandermyandy@blogmog.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>>
>> Interesting reading
>>
>>
>
> In the US You MUST defend trademark violations or you lose it.

You need to do more that just watch the video. The video has been edited a
lot. The real story is that the computer company registered the .COM domain
name before the car company. That was the origin of the fight. The
computer company will not give up the name, due to having a business that
uses that name. The car company wants to close their business so they can
get hold of the domain name.

--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"EnjoyDialup" <EnjoyDialup@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll never buy their car or even a rebadged one from their factory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
After owning and driving a 1984 Nissan Bluebird station wagon for a number
of years, I will never repeat the same mistake of owning another Nissan
vehicle ever again.

--
HorseTurd=RebadgedNissanBluebird

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

Andy wrote:
>
> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>
> Interesting reading

A typical Yank mess of a dog's breakfast and the usual
misunderstanding of the "first amendment". There are any number of
cases where the same name/word is used in part of the full business
name. Here we have the Nissan Motor Co and Nissan Computers - they are
not the same names and CAN co-exist quite happily as appears to have
been the final outcome. They do NOT impinge on each other's markets
either.

There is the FAB washing powder and then there is this:

http://www.fabmagazine.com/ (something a certain person might well be
interested in) but there is no conflict - nor is it with FAB teletext
& subtitling system.

One thing I would disagree with is the domain names - NEITHER business
should be able to use them as it infringes on each business equally as
much and they should be forced to use the FULL name if they wanted
"Nissan" in it.

Come to think of it, I did own a Daewoo computer monitor at one time
and it was not in a car....

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:44508A5C.6E6ECB12@not.com.au...
>
>
> Andy wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>>
>> Interesting reading
>
> A typical Yank mess of a dog's breakfast and the usual
> misunderstanding of the "first amendment". There are any number of
> cases where the same name/word is used in part of the full business
> name. Here we have the Nissan Motor Co and Nissan Computers - they are
> not the same names and CAN co-exist quite happily as appears to have
> been the final outcome. They do NOT impinge on each other's markets
> either.

Another person who only watched the video and didn't read the whole site.
All the legal documents from the court battles are on the site too. If you
read though them you will find the issue is far more complex than the TV
show presented it.



> There is the FAB washing powder and then there is this:
>
> http://www.fabmagazine.com/ (something a certain person might well be
> interested in) but there is no conflict - nor is it with FAB teletext
> & subtitling system.
>
> One thing I would disagree with is the domain names - NEITHER business
> should be able to use them as it infringes on each business equally as
> much and they should be forced to use the FULL name if they wanted
> "Nissan" in it.

Not true. The computer business was using the name long before the car
company started using it. The computer business also registered and traded
with the .COM internet name first.

It was only when the car company wanted the domain name that the trouble
started. You should read more of the site. It is quite interesting. What
is really going on revolves around the car company trying to put the
computer company out of business so they can have the domain name.

At one point in the battle the computer company was prevented from selling
ANYTHING at all on the web site.


--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

EnjoyDialup wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44508A5C.6E6ECB12@not.com.au...
> >
> >
> > Andy wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
> >>
> >> Interesting reading
> >
> > A typical Yank mess of a dog's breakfast and the usual
> > misunderstanding of the "first amendment". There are any number of
> > cases where the same name/word is used in part of the full business
> > name. Here we have the Nissan Motor Co and Nissan Computers - they are
> > not the same names and CAN co-exist quite happily as appears to have
> > been the final outcome. They do NOT impinge on each other's markets
> > either.
>
> Another person who only watched the video and didn't read the whole site.

I didn't watch any video at all - nor the boring Yanks papers either.
The story was transparent in the results.

> All the legal documents from the court battles are on the site too. If you
> read though them you will find the issue is far more complex than the TV
> show presented it.
>
> > There is the FAB washing powder and then there is this:
> >
> > http://www.fabmagazine.com/ (something a certain person might well be
> > interested in) but there is no conflict - nor is it with FAB teletext
> > & subtitling system.
> >
> > One thing I would disagree with is the domain names - NEITHER business
> > should be able to use them as it infringes on each business equally as
> > much and they should be forced to use the FULL name if they wanted
> > "Nissan" in it.
>
> Not true. The computer business was using the name long before the car
> company started using it.

Not true. That URL for the Nissan Computers is inaccurate.

> The computer business also registered and traded
> with the .COM internet name first.

But it is NOT their business name - only part of it is, and it most
definitely is misleading and does infringe on Nissan Motor Co's trade
mark - it is totally irrelevant as to who registered the domain name
first - a trade mark is protected even if it was registered after the
domain name registration (which I doubt it was).

The name was changed to Nissan Motor Co Ltd from Jidosha Seizo Co Ltd
in 1934. In 1944 it was changed again to Nissan Heavy Industries Ltd,
but it was reverted back to Nissan Motor Co Ltd in 1949. In September
1960 Nissan Motor Corporation was established in U.S.A. In May 1966
Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd is established...... etc..
etc... Don't you think all this predates the registration of the
domain name?

I note the birth date for the "Uzi" (isn't that an Israeli machine
gun?) character is 18-8-51 and he didn't get to the USA till somewhere
between 1988 and 1989 when the US visa was valid - near as I can tell
from his passport. His father was born in Iraq and his passport was
issued in 1990 in Jerusalem. Where the father travelled is not known.
It was not until "June 4, 1994, I [Uzi] registered the domain name
"nissan.com"."

But then he goes on to say this:
"In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark [?] registration for
Nissan and my logo from the State of North Carolina" - something that
applies ONLY in North Carolina and could be disputed even there as to
its validity - if the claim is correct of course! Funny how the "Click
here for supporting articles" doesn't work on anything BUT the
passports (and to an insane rant at the bottom of the site)!

But research does pay off, this is what was found:

http://www.ncchelp.org/images/salesmark.jpg

And there we find that the Uzi character is telling PORKIES on his web
site: "In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark registration for
Nissan" no he didn't but he DID get a registration for his LOGO (it
was June 1991 not July 1995 as he claims) that is very specific and
cannot be used as a domain name.

So there we are! THEY don't tell the story as their own supplied
evidence shows (even if their links don't work)!

> It was only when the car company wanted the domain name that the trouble
> started. You should read more of the site. It is quite interesting. What
> is really going on revolves around the car company trying to put the
> computer company out of business so they can have the domain name.

That is not true - that was NOT their intent. Nissan Motor Co was
legitimately protecting their trade mark - and they ultimately failed
in getting that protection. If you want a conspiracy view - guess why
the motor Co failed! Nissan Motor Co is head quartered in Japan NOT in
the USA!

> At one point in the battle the computer company was prevented from selling
> ANYTHING at all on the web site.

Yes I noted that - It was odd, but then there is a hell of a lot of
things that are odd about the Yanks and their take on the law - it was
something that should only have applied as an interim order, awaiting
a final ruling in my view.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(MrFlibble)]

In article <44507756_1@x-privat.org>, EnjoyDialup
<EnjoyDialup@gmail.com> wrote:


> You need to do more that just watch the video. The video has been edited a
> lot. The real story is that the computer company registered the .COM domain
> name before the car company. That was the origin of the fight. The
> computer company will not give up the name, due to having a business that
> uses that name. The car company wants to close their business so they can
> get hold of the domain name.

I understand that. I was giving a reason why Nissan was appearing so
heavy handed. They basically have to in order to keep their trademark.
If they didn't they would lose it.

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"MrFlibble" <figfhifih@fifihfg.com> wrote in message
news:290420060838228796%figfhifih@fifihfg.com...
> In article <44507756_1@x-privat.org>, EnjoyDialup
> <EnjoyDialup@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You need to do more that just watch the video. The video has been edited
>> a
>> lot. The real story is that the computer company registered the .COM
>> domain
>> name before the car company. That was the origin of the fight. The
>> computer company will not give up the name, due to having a business that
>> uses that name. The car company wants to close their business so they
>> can
>> get hold of the domain name.
>
> I understand that. I was giving a reason why Nissan was appearing so
> heavy handed. They basically have to in order to keep their trademark.
> If they didn't they would lose it.

That may be fair of an upstart car business that used it. But this guy was
using it before them and works in a difference industry. Effectively the
car company are treading on his trademark.

If the little computer business had the cash to fight, I think they could
take the trademark away from the car company. This si what I think is
unfair. The car company is winning because they have more money, not
because they are in the right.

--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[Ext User(EnjoyDialup)]

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:4451C552.19F8174B@not.com.au...
>
>
> EnjoyDialup wrote:
>>
>> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:44508A5C.6E6ECB12@not.com.au...
>> >
>> >
>> > Andy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
>> >>
>> >> Interesting reading
>> >
>> > A typical Yank mess of a dog's breakfast and the usual
>> > misunderstanding of the "first amendment". There are any number of
>> > cases where the same name/word is used in part of the full business
>> > name. Here we have the Nissan Motor Co and Nissan Computers - they are
>> > not the same names and CAN co-exist quite happily as appears to have
>> > been the final outcome. They do NOT impinge on each other's markets
>> > either.
>>
>> Another person who only watched the video and didn't read the whole site.
>
> I didn't watch any video at all - nor the boring Yanks papers either.
> The story was transparent in the results.

I know you didn't look through the provided information. Your incorrect
conclusion makes that painfully obvious.

The rest of your comments are based on your incorrect assumption and have
been flushed.

--
EnjoyDialup@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[VYBerlinaV8]

Who cares if some shitbox car company and some piss ant computer shop are having a fight? Really?

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

EnjoyDialup wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4451C552.19F8174B@not.com.au...
> >
> >
> > EnjoyDialup wrote:
> >>
> >> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:44508A5C.6E6ECB12@not.com.au...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Andy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting reading
> >> >
> >> > A typical Yank mess of a dog's breakfast and the usual
> >> > misunderstanding of the "first amendment". There are any number of
> >> > cases where the same name/word is used in part of the full business
> >> > name. Here we have the Nissan Motor Co and Nissan Computers - they are
> >> > not the same names and CAN co-exist quite happily as appears to have
> >> > been the final outcome. They do NOT impinge on each other's markets
> >> > either.
> >>
> >> Another person who only watched the video and didn't read the whole site.
> >
> > I didn't watch any video at all - nor the boring Yanks papers either.
> > The story was transparent in the results.
>
> I know you didn't look through the provided information.

You can "know" no such thing as it is evident that I HAVE used their
own information, meaning YOU never "look through the provided
information" - but then I added readily available FACTS to expose
their BULLSHIT for what it is.

> Your incorrect conclusion makes that painfully obvious.

The published conclusions were "incorrect"?? Indeed it was as I have
proven - but if you claim the alleged COURT conclusions are incorrect
that may well be another story - *I* haven't made that allegation and
merely reported on them as they were detailed on the page.

>
> The rest of your comments are based on your incorrect assumption and have
> been flushed.

Hmmmm.... an apprentice to Rod Speed I see...... But then You were
embarrassed as it showed that YOU had NOT done the research and were
comprehensively SUCKED IN by the crap they posted. No wonder you had
to delete what I wrote, it was too embarrassing for you to even
address!

[restore text]
I didn't watch any video at all - nor the boring Yanks papers either.
The story was transparent in the results.

> All the legal documents from the court battles are on the site too. If you
> read though them you will find the issue is far more complex than the TV
> show presented it.
>
> > There is the FAB washing powder and then there is this:
> >
> > http://www.fabmagazine.com/ (something a certain person might well be
> > interested in) but there is no conflict - nor is it with FAB teletext
> > & subtitling system.
> >
> > One thing I would disagree with is the domain names - NEITHER business
> > should be able to use them as it infringes on each business equally as
> > much and they should be forced to use the FULL name if they wanted
> > "Nissan" in it.
>
> Not true. The computer business was using the name long before the car
> company started using it.

Not true. That URL for the Nissan Computers is inaccurate.

> The computer business also registered and traded
> with the .COM internet name first.

But it is NOT their business name - only part of it is, and it most
definitely is misleading and does infringe on Nissan Motor Co's trade
mark - it is totally irrelevant as to who registered the domain name
first - a trade mark is protected even if it was registered after the
domain name registration (which I doubt it was).

The name was changed to Nissan Motor Co Ltd from Jidosha Seizo Co Ltd
in 1934. In 1944 it was changed again to Nissan Heavy Industries Ltd,
but it was reverted back to Nissan Motor Co Ltd in 1949. In September
1960 Nissan Motor Corporation was established in U.S.A. In May 1966
Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd is established...... etc..
etc... Don't you think all this predates the registration of the
domain name?

I note the birth date for the "Uzi" (isn't that an Israeli machine
gun?) character is 18-8-51 and he didn't get to the USA till somewhere
between 1988 and 1989 when the US visa was valid - near as I can tell
from his passport. His father was born in Iraq and his passport was
issued in 1990 in Jerusalem. Where the father travelled is not known.
It was not until "June 4, 1994, I [Uzi] registered the domain name
"nissan.com"."

But then he goes on to say this:
"In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark [?] registration for
Nissan and my logo from the State of North Carolina" - something that
applies ONLY in North Carolina and could be disputed even there as to
its validity - if the claim is correct of course! Funny how the "Click
here for supporting articles" doesn't work on anything BUT the
passports (and to an insane rant at the bottom of the site)!

But research does pay off, this is what was found:

http://www.ncchelp.org/images/salesmark.jpg

And there we find that the Uzi character is telling PORKIES on his web
site: "In July of 1995, I obtained a service mark registration for
Nissan" no he didn't but he DID get a registration for his LOGO (it
was June 1991 not July 1995 as he claims) that is very specific and
cannot be used as a domain name.

So there we are! THEY don't tell the story as their own supplied
evidence shows (even if their links don't work)!

> It was only when the car company wanted the domain name that the trouble
> started. You should read more of the site. It is quite interesting. What
> is really going on revolves around the car company trying to put the
> computer company out of business so they can have the domain name.

That is not true - that was NOT their intent. Nissan Motor Co was
legitimately protecting their trade mark - and they ultimately failed
in getting that protection. If you want a conspiracy view - guess why
the motor Co failed! Nissan Motor Co is head quartered in Japan NOT in
the USA!

> At one point in the battle the computer company was prevented from selling
> ANYTHING at all on the web site.

Yes I noted that - It was odd, but then there is a hell of a lot of
things that are odd about the Yanks and their take on the law - it was
something that should only have applied as an interim order, awaiting
a final ruling in my view.
[end restore]


As an apprentice to Rod Speed, it is understandable if you did not
comprehend that I have in fact used their own provided information to
show that the site is full of CRAP.......


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------