Doesn't this law change depending on the rules in the country the owner lives in?DracoSuave said:"Bad faith" has specific meaning under the laws that govern things like domain names and such. The corporation that controls that is held accountable under those laws. Bad faith means if you take a website for the express purpose of infringing on a trademark, for example... say you were taking a company's registered trademark, and using the domain to link to competing products.
Does this apply if the person bought the domain before modern warfare 3 existed?See, the thing is, whoever owns the domain name aside, Activision owns the 'modernwarfare3' part of it, and unless the buyer of the domain can prove fair use (which linking to a competitor is NOT, by the way), then they can get screwed under trademark law.
Also, hypothetically, if I were to buy the domain name modernwarfarecomplaints.com that Activision could charge me for creating a site that criticizes them just for having 'modernwarfare' in the title?
Or is it just because it now redirects to the Battlefront website?Logan Westbrook said:Before the redirect took effect last week, the site featured links to anti-Call of Duty videos, along with a rant calling Modern Warfare 3 a "copy and paste sequel" to the "lackluster" Modern Warfare 2.
edit: above and beyond all of this how is "modern warfare" trademarkable? Seems as generic as "Shredded Wheat"
Trademark of the term "shredded wheat"
"In the United States Supreme Court case Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938), National Biscuit Co. sued Kellogg, attempting to enjoin Kellogg from using shredded wheat as a trade name and from manufacturing the cereal in its pillow-shaped form. The Supreme Court ruled that shredded wheat was generic and not trademarkable..."