November 3, 200619 yr YouTube's popularity is proving to be a headache for a company with a similar Web address. Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment is suing the viral video site recently acquired by Google, according to a news report on WTOL-TV in Toledo, Ohio. The lawsuit alleges that Youtube is confusingly similar to Universal Tube's uTube.com, which sells tube, pipe and rollforming machinery. Universal Tube said its Web site traffic jumped from 1,500 users a month to more than 2 million, paralyzing the site. "This is an enormous expense and distraction for us. Contact with our customers has been disrupted, so I fear we have lost sales," Universal Tube owner Ralph Girkins said in a statement. "We have even been contacted by police in Australia accusing us of having child pornography on our Web site. I resent this personally and this confusion is hurting our business." The lawsuit asks that YouTube stop using the youtube.com domain name or reimburse Universal Tube for the cost of establishing a new corporate identity. "We were there first--by 10 years. Now I see a potential re-branding that could take years to complete," Girkins said. "I'm not the kind of person who looks for lawsuits, but my business is being threatened by this situation." The suit comes about three weeks after YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion in stock. A YouTube spokeswoman said the company declined to comment on the matter.
November 3, 200619 yr do they know that this will only bring more visitors to their site out of curiosity and further 'paralyze the site'?
November 3, 200619 yr What the hell is youtube supposed to do about it? I'm going to visit utube just to be an ass.
November 3, 200619 yr What the hell is youtube supposed to do about it? I'm going to visit utube just to be an ass. Same
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself!
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! ahh i rememeber that case, that does make a good point too.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! different animals....that was personal injury. This isnt. they will have to prove some type of infringement on their name. the only case i can think of off the top of my head was the wwf v the world wildlife fund. but even still, we arent talking about the same letters here, so it will be extremely difficult to prove.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees. not that open and shut. You are talking about you v u essentially. It will all depend on how utube is able to present their case and how the u in universal is intergral in their product for one. Since you are not talking about the same 'trademark' the date of creation isnt all that of a huge issue, but it will be played up greatly by universal tube and rollbar equipment or whatever their official legal name is. They have a tough case to prove, far tougher than the world wildlife fund had against the world wrestling federation, which was a case where you had exact same abbrevations. The burden of proof is without a doubt on utube and they have a very difficult case ahead of them. The only way youtube settles out of court is if they have a horrible legal council or if they want to do some type of name change already with the buyout by google.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees. not that open and shut. You are talking about you v u essentially. It will all depend on how utube is able to present their case and how the u in universal is intergral in their product for one. Since you are not talking about the same 'trademark' the date of creation isnt all that of a huge issue, but it will be played up greatly by universal tube and rollbar equipment or whatever their official legal name is. They have a tough case to prove, far tougher than the world wildlife fund had against the world wrestling federation, which was a case where you had exact same abbrevations. The burden of proof is without a doubt on utube and they have a very difficult case ahead of them. The only way youtube settles out of court is if they have a horrible legal council or if they want to do some type of name change already with the buyout by google. If 'utube' was there first (as in site established, trademarked, etc) then they have a cleaner stake to the intellectual property of __tube. Their success will depend greatly on the requested damages they seek. I see no reason a judge wouldn't side with utube if their contention is that the existence of 'youtube' increases their cost in an unnecessary and preventable way. As such, the responsibility falls on youtube to subsidize utube because of the expenses created and unfairly passed to utube by youtube. You can't go in there guns a blazing and asking for both, but a simple request of transfer payment would be met with success, and likely a decision from a judge, rather than an out of court settlement. Google/youtube has the money to burn and won't sweat a court date since it's highly unlikely that the doomsday scenario hits (name change, 7-8 figure damage settlement). Put it this way, if utube is honest in saying that they were there in name and existence first, and that they can prove that their bandwith has been exceeded sizably, I don't see how they don't win a settlement in which youtube is somehow held slightly responsible. A name change is borderline impossible, though, as the two are unrelated, are not in competition with each other and provide distinctly different services. However, utube does have a leg to stand on, if the facts given in this article are accurate.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees. not that open and shut. You are talking about you v u essentially. It will all depend on how utube is able to present their case and how the u in universal is intergral in their product for one. Since you are not talking about the same 'trademark' the date of creation isnt all that of a huge issue, but it will be played up greatly by universal tube and rollbar equipment or whatever their official legal name is. They have a tough case to prove, far tougher than the world wildlife fund had against the world wrestling federation, which was a case where you had exact same abbrevations. The burden of proof is without a doubt on utube and they have a very difficult case ahead of them. The only way youtube settles out of court is if they have a horrible legal council or if they want to do some type of name change already with the buyout by google. If 'utube' was there first (as in site established, trademarked, etc) then they have a cleaner stake to the intellectual property of __tube. Their success will depend greatly on the requested damages they seek. I see no reason a judge wouldn't side with utube if their contention is that the existence of 'youtube' increases their cost in an unnecessary and preventable way. As such, the responsibility falls on youtube to subsidize utube because of the expenses created and unfairly passed to utube by youtube. You can't go in there guns a blazing and asking for both, but a simple request of transfer payment would be met with success, and likely a decision from a judge, rather than an out of court settlement. Google/youtube has the money to burn and won't sweat a court date since it's highly unlikely that the doomsday scenario hits (name change, 7-8 figure damage settlement). Put it this way, if utube is honest in saying that they were there in name and existence first, and that they can prove that their bandwith has been exceeded sizably, I don't see how they don't win a settlement in which youtube is somehow held slightly responsible. A name change is borderline impossible, though, as the two are unrelated, are not in competition with each other and provide distinctly different services. However, utube does have a leg to stand on, if the facts given in this article are accurate. you cannot own every thing with _tube in front of it, no matter if you had it first or not. it will depend on how much google wants to fight this. if they want to fight it all the way to court, utube will have a very hard time to prove things. I'm not sure how the laws work on the internet and with idiot users typing in u instead of you for a url domain. Or in this case, lazy users using internet lingo of u instead of you. Regardless, if utube were actually smart they would find a way to profit off it without taking a handout. They probably arent though. They can probably prove that their bandwidth has jumped since the explosion of youtube. How strongly they can prove that its youtube's responsibility, I am not sure. Can you hold youtube liable for users typing in a slang term instead of the real term?
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees. not that open and shut. You are talking about you v u essentially. It will all depend on how utube is able to present their case and how the u in universal is intergral in their product for one. Since you are not talking about the same 'trademark' the date of creation isnt all that of a huge issue, but it will be played up greatly by universal tube and rollbar equipment or whatever their official legal name is. They have a tough case to prove, far tougher than the world wildlife fund had against the world wrestling federation, which was a case where you had exact same abbrevations. The burden of proof is without a doubt on utube and they have a very difficult case ahead of them. The only way youtube settles out of court is if they have a horrible legal council or if they want to do some type of name change already with the buyout by google. If 'utube' was there first (as in site established, trademarked, etc) then they have a cleaner stake to the intellectual property of __tube. Their success will depend greatly on the requested damages they seek. I see no reason a judge wouldn't side with utube if their contention is that the existence of 'youtube' increases their cost in an unnecessary and preventable way. As such, the responsibility falls on youtube to subsidize utube because of the expenses created and unfairly passed to utube by youtube. You can't go in there guns a blazing and asking for both, but a simple request of transfer payment would be met with success, and likely a decision from a judge, rather than an out of court settlement. Google/youtube has the money to burn and won't sweat a court date since it's highly unlikely that the doomsday scenario hits (name change, 7-8 figure damage settlement). Put it this way, if utube is honest in saying that they were there in name and existence first, and that they can prove that their bandwith has been exceeded sizably, I don't see how they don't win a settlement in which youtube is somehow held slightly responsible. A name change is borderline impossible, though, as the two are unrelated, are not in competition with each other and provide distinctly different services. However, utube does have a leg to stand on, if the facts given in this article are accurate. you cannot own every thing with _tube in front of it, no matter if you had it first or not. it will depend on how much google wants to fight this. if they want to fight it all the way to court, utube will have a very hard time to prove things. I'm not sure how the laws work on the internet and with idiot users typing in u instead of you for a url domain. Or in this case, lazy users using internet lingo of u instead of you. Regardless, if utube were actually smart they would find a way to profit off it without taking a handout. They probably arent though. They can probably prove that their bandwidth has jumped since the explosion of youtube. How strongly they can prove that its youtube's responsibility, I am not sure. Can you hold youtube liable for users typing in a slang term instead of the real term? I was using __tube to imply any homonym/homophone for the trademarked name, since I'm pretty sure that'd fall under an umbrella intellectual category. As for the bolded part, liable is a strong word. If you're seeking punitive damages, then the only way they'd be found liable is if it was believed they existed to defraud customers of 'utube.' That is likely what utube will be seeking (since there's more money in that) and will be unable to prove, making this lawsuit entirely winnable, yet likely to be overmanaged.
November 3, 200619 yr they wont ever win. sure....just like the lady at mcdonald's who spilt hot coffee on herself! Apples to oranges. I know you think that simply "hey, it was stupid, and this is stupid, so they muzt be the same!111!" Well, they're not. The McDonalds thing was a personal injury where the chain overheated the coffee and did not take the necessary precautions to ensure safety. This is an intellectual property suit. Whichever trademarked their name first and got the domain first is going to have a stronger case, but I have a hard time believing that this utube company will have the financial clout to counter google's legal team, since you know the damages they'll be seeking are way out of whack...my hunch: a name change for youtube, seven figures as well as reembursement for the bandwith overages they've had to pay, plus legal fees. They'd probably win if all they did was sue youtube to cover the cost of their required expansion of bandwith plus legal fees. not that open and shut. You are talking about you v u essentially. It will all depend on how utube is able to present their case and how the u in universal is intergral in their product for one. Since you are not talking about the same 'trademark' the date of creation isnt all that of a huge issue, but it will be played up greatly by universal tube and rollbar equipment or whatever their official legal name is. They have a tough case to prove, far tougher than the world wildlife fund had against the world wrestling federation, which was a case where you had exact same abbrevations. The burden of proof is without a doubt on utube and they have a very difficult case ahead of them. The only way youtube settles out of court is if they have a horrible legal council or if they want to do some type of name change already with the buyout by google. If 'utube' was there first (as in site established, trademarked, etc) then they have a cleaner stake to the intellectual property of __tube. Their success will depend greatly on the requested damages they seek. I see no reason a judge wouldn't side with utube if their contention is that the existence of 'youtube' increases their cost in an unnecessary and preventable way. As such, the responsibility falls on youtube to subsidize utube because of the expenses created and unfairly passed to utube by youtube. You can't go in there guns a blazing and asking for both, but a simple request of transfer payment would be met with success, and likely a decision from a judge, rather than an out of court settlement. Google/youtube has the money to burn and won't sweat a court date since it's highly unlikely that the doomsday scenario hits (name change, 7-8 figure damage settlement). Put it this way, if utube is honest in saying that they were there in name and existence first, and that they can prove that their bandwith has been exceeded sizably, I don't see how they don't win a settlement in which youtube is somehow held slightly responsible. A name change is borderline impossible, though, as the two are unrelated, are not in competition with each other and provide distinctly different services. However, utube does have a leg to stand on, if the facts given in this article are accurate. you cannot own every thing with _tube in front of it, no matter if you had it first or not. it will depend on how much google wants to fight this. if they want to fight it all the way to court, utube will have a very hard time to prove things. I'm not sure how the laws work on the internet and with idiot users typing in u instead of you for a url domain. Or in this case, lazy users using internet lingo of u instead of you. Regardless, if utube were actually smart they would find a way to profit off it without taking a handout. They probably arent though. They can probably prove that their bandwidth has jumped since the explosion of youtube. How strongly they can prove that its youtube's responsibility, I am not sure. Can you hold youtube liable for users typing in a slang term instead of the real term? I was using __tube to imply any homonym/homophone for the trademarked name, since I'm pretty sure that'd fall under an umbrella intellectual category. As for the bolded part, liable is a strong word. If you're seeking punitive damages, then the only way they'd be found liable is if it was believed they existed to defraud customers of 'utube.' That is likely what utube will be seeking (since there's more money in that) and will be unable to prove, making this lawsuit entirely winnable, yet likely to be overmanaged. thats stretching it a lot....
November 3, 200619 yr Congratulations! The following domains are available:universaltube.org universaltube.us universaltube.biz
November 4, 200619 yr universal tube would also have to somehow prove that utube is somehow a greatly known abbrevation of the company as well. forgot about that.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.