Hot answers tagged

38

I'm not sure of the term but it's similar to coming out with a soda and calling it Koka-Kola and hoping you can get away with it. You won't. If you are going to compete, compete with superior products and service instead of trickery.


27

Let me be clear. There is one thing I know fairly well, it is copyright law. I am not a lawyer, however, knowledge of copyright was a constant requirement of my consultancy for 30 years. As an added bonus, I consulted primarily to telecos and often worked with subscriber data and data analysis and presentation of said data for sale and re-use. I am at least, ...


23

First, as already pointed out, it's trickery and unlikely to serve you well. Someone typing in a specific domain name knows what site they want, and it isn't yours; how do you suppose they'll react to being duped? I certainly can't imagine it'll be a positive reflection on your business. And do enough people actually type a URL into the address bar to ...


22

I've been on the other end of this scenario. It was a couple of years ago, but I can't imagine much has changed. We held the trademark on the domain name—let's say we were ExtraSpecialVeeblefetzers.com, so a competitor opened up ExtraSpecialVeeblefetzers.co.uk. So I dashed off a letter that we were going to file a complaint, not with the trademark office, ...


20

Copyright applies to content. So copyright would not apply here since the content is uniquely yours (assumption) and that the theme is available for use by many. Trademarks should be registered (generally). Unless you are using a trademark that is not yours, this does not apply. However, too much similarity may still be considered trade infringement ...


17

Okay. This is a rather odd one, but not as tragic as you would think. I am not sure what the payoff would be. This makes absolutely no sense to me as to why someone would do this. I cannot see an advantage for the hacker at all. The good news is the visitor is reaching your site. However, there will be a hit from an SEO standpoint so you want to fix this ...


14

From the "Gov Internet Program Guidelines" on DotGov.gov: No Political or Campaign Information: The Gov Internet domain is for the operation of government, not the political, political party, or campaign environment. No campaigning can be done using .gov domains. However, I'm pretty sure that GOP.gov doesn't put forth a purely unbiased viewpoint. In my ...


14

You've really got two licenses there: The Apache License 2.0 and the MIT License. Both have restrictions that require copyright and other notices to remain intact. As indicated here for the Apache License under Licensing conditions: in every licensed file, any original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices in redistributed code must be ...


12

Unless you had a pre-existing contract with them that required you to renew the domain or notify them of cancellation, then they cannot charge you. AT domain registration So basically, it depends on whether or not there were explicit terms from your registrar about this occurring; which if there are, you should be able to find them on your registrar's site....


12

The UK Information commisioner says in their guidance document on cookies: "An organisation based in the UK is likely to be subject to the requirements of the Regulations even if their website is technically hosted overseas." So it depends on where you are based, not where you are hosted.


12

I know you said the client doesn't want to get lawyers involved, but um, your client needs to get a lawyer involved. An SEO slap fight just isn't going to fix this, and if it's the route they want to go then they don't get to complain about promotions sending business to the competitor since that's kind of the core of the entire problem. Everything from here ...


12

Ends up with a message saying it's blocked by Adobe. FontSquirrel allows font publishers to request to be put on a blacklist. Not only that sometimes if the font can be converted, it often looks like crap when viewed in a browser. Sometimes automated conversion doesn't turn out perfectly and adjustments or alterations to the fonts are needed. (This is ...


12

This completely depends on your contract. If you have a contract with them stating they will build a website and manage it for you, but they retain the rights, then no you can not rebuild it. There are two separate issues. One is the code to build the website, and one is the design. It is the Design related contract that determines if you can rebuild ...


11

It's potentially illegal and also morally wrong. Basically, if you would be unhappy for someone to read your private messages then it's wrong (morally) and I suspect it would be considered criminal under one of these Canadian Laws (technically the crime would be committed at the location of the server):- Section 342 of the Criminal Code of Canada (deals ...


11

Yes it is a legal requirement to display company registration details on a UK based website. It's also good practise - it'll will reassure the company's customers that it's a serious organisation. Out-Law site contains the relevant information. The name, geographic address and email address of the service provider. The name of the organisation with which ...


11

Kim Dot Com was a German operating servers in New Zealand and yet the FBI still raided him. Despite the raid being deemed entirely illegal in hindsight, that data and business was destroyed regardless. Basically you can not avoid the US claiming jurisdiction wherever they please unless you work in countries like China because the US has no regard for ...


11

You may not use embedded YouTube videos behind a paywall. That is prohibited by YouTube in section 4 of the YouTube terms of service: D. You agree not to use the Service for any of the following commercial uses unless you obtain YouTube's prior written approval: the sale of access to the Service; Youtube does make exceptions for using the ...


10

They are technically all correct because the proper usage of a copyright notice is to inform its users there is a copyright license or agreement on the website in question, therefor regardless of the usage they are all correct assuming they all mean the same thing... i.e these are all the same: © Business Name Copyright Business name 2015 © Business Name ...


9

First off, how are you going to get traffic to that domain? Google aren't going to index it if it simply redirects to your domain. If you use any other means to promote traffic to your site through this other domain you're running the risk of being guilty of fraud. Secondly, Nominet (the UK registry) have strict rules about malicious domain registration; ...


9

1) Yes ii - Unknown, but it may help to keep the information under seal in the court records instead of being accessible to anyone who requests the records of the case. c. I wouldn't at this time. This has very little to do with you personally. The plaintiff is attempting to show that Google acted in an arbitrary or capricious fashion when they closed his ...


8

The Facebook platform policy explains the rules. In particular: You may cache data you receive through use of the Facebook API in order to improve your application’s user experience, but you should try to keep the data up to date. ... By “basic account information” we mean: name, email, gender, birthday, current city, and profile picture URL....


8

So long at it is a summary/review, and it doesn't plagiarise the book directly i.e. include large sections of it simply cut and pasted text, then it should come under fair use. The key things are the amount of copy used, credit and the context. If it's presented as a review or summary and a small amount of the book i.e. a sentence or two is used word for ...


8

According to Judge William A. Fletcher's opinion on Office Depot v. Zuccarini, the jurisdiction over a domain name is dependant on the jurisdiction of the domain name registry. The registry for .com domains is VeriSign, which is headquartered in Virginia, USA. Assuming that the judge's opinion is still applicable, this means the jurisdiction of .com domain ...


8

No it is not legal. It is copyright infringement to copy and republish any article without the proper license to do so. Noting the source and adding a canonical does not in any way limit your legal liability. It sounds like you want to republish all articles as if they were licensed under the Creative Commons attribution license. Content that is ...


7

If its a clear and up-front trademark infringement, they probably by law, already own it. These cases don't turn out well if you decide to attempt to get money out of a corporation that's spent money on a lawyer to protect their IP rights on trade/service marks they own. Protection of trademark and patent rights gets pretty aggressive as they don't like to ...


7

Your designer should supply fonts with their license agreements, or be able to link to the agreement on the web that makes it clear whether or not the fonts can be used online. For example, the bundled fonts included with Photoshop and other Creative Suite applications are only licensed for use on the computer they were installed on [source]; you can't use ...


7

Here is a list of policies: Permissions. If your issue isn't covered in these, I suggest you Contact Them via email.


7

As per my comments, it would be unwise to solicit the sale of example.com directly to the owner of example.net, as that might be interpreted or argued as a sign of bad faith, and/or that you don't have any legitimate interests in example.com, which are two of the three elements necessary for successfully wining a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy ...


6

First, I am not a lawyer and if you continue to receive legal threats then you should definitely lawyer up. There is nothing wrong with posting direct, measurable facts as a comparison. For example, "our product costs x dollars, whereas Company B's costs y dollars". Stick to that and you'll be fine. Don't forget to add a date disclaimer (e.g. "* All ...


6

Magnet links are legal just as any other link. Magnet links created for the illegal distribution of copyrighted content is another matter. There are no laws against hosting torrent trackers, torrent hubs/aggregators, or even hosted file sharing services. Just because copyrighted content can be illegally distributed via HTTP or FTP doesn't mean those ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible