Internet auction site EBay has blocked retailer Perfumebay.com from using a Web site address ending with "ebay" after an appeals court ruled it was trademark infringement. Perfumebay, a seller of designer perfumes over the Internet, now is no longer able use the domain name "Perfumebay.com" because the presence of "ebay" in the address confuses consumers, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in Pasadena. San Jose-based eBay had earlier accused Huntington Beach-based Perfumebay of redirecting customers who did Internet searches for "Perfume eBay." Ultimately, the court rejected Perfumebay's argument that the terms weren't alike; "perfumebay.com" still goes to the company's website but it looks like the company will soon need to find a new digital home.
News source: SiliconValley
News source: SiliconValley
Anyone who types 'perfume ebay' into Google, rather than searching for 'perfume' on ebay, deserves to be "confused".
Perfumebay.com have been robbed. Ebay should be made to buy the name from them for a considerable sum.
edit:
Just tried googling "perfume ebay" - the first page of hits were all eBay links.
So claims that perfumebay is redirecting customers are false.
Since when did eBay rely on perfume sales to bolster their profits anyway?
The judgment, or lack of..., remains bollocks.
Last edited by Shiranui on 07 Nov 2007 - 04:35
Canada has had a retailer called "The Bay" (thebay.com) for hundreds of years, perhaps the judge can rule against them as well and get a 5th Posche for his collection as well...
bad point, because this might have only been the beginning.
eBay might want to use this as a precedence case, in order to be more safe for future similar suits.
imagine doing 20 suits at once, lose em all and youre ****ed!
Glassed Silver:mbl
this is a stupid decision really... i seriously don't trust american justice anymore.
its perfume bay.. not perfume ebay.
wow that just as stupid as britney spears having to pay kevin federline lawyer 160grands
The judge was probably some 75 year old who doesn't even know what a computer is.
This isn't as ridiculous as the MikeRoweSoft case, where the address was phonetically idential, but there is room for confusion and trademarks exist for a reason.
1. any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner.
2. a distinctive mark or feature particularly characteristic of or identified with a person or thing.
PerfumeBay could be considered the perfume business of eBay, hence the confusion. TheBay, on the otherhand, is different because take away "Bay" and you're left with "The", something that can't be confused as a business venture from eBay. The point is that a trademark is used to identify a brand and there was deemed to be a potential for confusion with the website address. To suggest that it must be a bribe is slander to the judge and the US judiciary and is without merit.
I don't know the full details, only the court does, but I can see that there is room for confusion. Obviously it was deemed enough to strip the company of their web address. As I said before, if the business was established BEFORE eBay then the decision is unfair and restrictive - if it wasn't then I can understand the decision. Without knowning the details it's hard to make a fair assessment of the ruling.
I mean, really, it's no different than a site named "therapist.com" which can be confused with "the rapist". eBay's just splitting hairs, and it's ridiculous. How you find a way to justify it is beyond me, honestly.
1. any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner.
2. a distinctive mark or feature particularly characteristic of or identified with a person or thing.
PerfumeBay could be considered the perfume business of eBay, hence the confusion. TheBay, on the otherhand, is different because take away "Bay" and you're left with "The", something that can't be confused as a business venture from eBay. The point is that a trademark is used to identify a brand and there was deemed to be a potential for confusion with the website address. To suggest that it must be a bribe is slander to the judge and the US judiciary and is without merit.
I don't know the full details, only the court does, but I can see that there is room for confusion. Obviously it was deemed enough to strip the company of their web address. As I said before, if the business was established BEFORE eBay then the decision is unfair and restrictive - if it wasn't then I can understand the decision. Without knowning the details it's hard to make a fair assessment of the ruling.
either A) it's 2 diffrent words. thus can't violate the copy right unless it has the word eBay. which it does not. it has 2 words, Perfume and Bay. no where is the word "eBay"
or B) the name of the company is one word. in which case eBay is claiming copyrights on a buisness company title that isn't theirs. they don't have a copy right on PerfumeBay as one word
fixed that for ya
this is rediculous, plain and simple. They have a copyright on the word "eBay", as a single entity, and that's it. if i were the company i'd appeal it all the way up the the supreme court and then counter-sue the hell out of eBay for lost business
Yup, only in America...
http://www.janebay.com/
It's down to Ebay's users what they sell (ebay users = us) on the site. Answer me this...what if nobody was selling Perfume on ebay at that time. How is is misdirecting users. (lame argument perhaps, but I've only been up an hour...still struggling)
I think that's utterly pathetic!!
I've been wondering if eBay are slightly too big for their boots recently, and this kind of completes my argument.
In the name of justice I'd like to politely ask the mods to remove this link as embedded in it is the word eBay...we wouldn't want to confuse anyone!
Glassed Silver:mbl
so if i'm searching for "pirate ebay", i'll get redirected to that? eh?
sheesh, so now i understand eBay's concept.. let's see how they play this game
This is of course notwithstanding the fact that they shouldn't have to in the first place...
Edit: perfume-bay.com is already registered to them, so at least they don't have to deal with cybersquatters.
Be afraid Neowin..
Anyways, perfumebay can create a "fake" russian or chinese company and give the ownership of the nic, later this "fake" company can rent the use to the real company. Who must respect the law is the nic owner not the nic user.
Last edited by Magallanes on 07 Nov 2007 - 13:25
Too bad they didn't name the url: perfume-bay.com (or did they?)
Or does that even matter? Can you have "lowe-b-a-y.com"?
Hmm, bay.com may get some visits.
Microsoft case: Mike Rowe built software and explicitly chose the name MikeRoweSoft knowing full well of an existing software company with the same phonetic sound. He's an idiot.
eBay case: Perfume Bay is a perfume company who's URL consists of two independent words put together; much like circuitcity.com, bestbuy.com, and newegg.com. The name wasn't chosen to purposefully look or sound like an existing company's name, and it doesn't look like eBay, nor would it confuse people.
I hope they appeal; this is obviously a bad decision.
eBay was only doing what it had to do. And the judge made the right decision.
eBay was only doing what it had to do. And the judge made the right decision.
The ENTIRE trademark system needs to play catch up with the times. There are so many laws that need to be updated now that we are in the internet age. Our legal system and laws are lagging way behind.
Anyone who can spell the word perfume would know that perfumebay is not perfum+ebay but perfume+bay. Totally stupid lawsuit, I hope this gets appealed and the judge slapped with a wet trout. Well, unless getting "slapped with a wet trout" is somehow trademarked and/or copyrighted by someone...
Trademark is something and other things is to prosecute companies domains that "may" affect some search engines results.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.