Walmart Trademark Rights Infringement ? (13)
Hey guys,
I am running a walmart coreg for a while and yesterday I received this message:
We note you have not responded to our request that you remove all metatags, keywords, visible or hidden texts including the trademarks "Walmart" and "Wal-Mart" presently appearing on the following URLs associated with [URL]. Please note that your use of this trademark constitutes trademark infringement. Walmart has prevailed in similar matters and has been awarded damages and costs.
[URL]
We therefore repeat our demand that you discontinue use of the trademark Walmart. We expect your prompt response and compliance with our demands.
Sincerely,
Walmart Brand Protection
What shall I do?
its pretty simple.....remove the trademarks...
uhhh... remove it! also, read up a bit and learn about trademarks as well. Shoemoney has a free legal course I think. I can't remember if he addresses trademarks but I imagine he does
Anytime any major company sends you a letter I suggest you do what it says. I know a major retailer I worked for had an entire department of lawyers whose only job was to protect the brand. All they did all day long is look for anyone misusing their brand/trademarks and they would start with letters and if person didn't respond they would sue for damages and generally settle.
I still can't believe the huge number of affiliate landers I see brearing trademarks such as "New York Times", "CNN", "Bing", "McAfee" or fake facepile widgets etc desperately trying to make their page more legit to the prospect. However this is IMHO a MAJOR FAIL.
Why? Because a buddy of mine in the US had done this and had a young lady call at his home bearing a subpoena for a $270,000 lawsuit. Evidently, a company who spiders the 'net on behalf of brands looking for infingements, found him despite his WHOIS guard and let the junk yard dogs off the lead. It's still in motion and he's (understandably) really worried.
So, don't do it kids unless your ready to stump up serious coin for the consequences.
How did they manage to find this? Usually big corps like that rarely find anything going on on PPV traffic.. is this organic traffic?
Originally Posted by vidivo
These companies all have lawyers on retainer that just contact web sites using their logos/names non-stop. They will usually just look up your whois information to send out the legal docs (one by email, and one through postal). The best bet is to just remove their stuff asap and keep them happy. All part of the marketing industry...
one reason I always use whois privacy and for the whois I put in fake info.
that way, once they get through the privacy, they now how the wrong info to send the c+d too.
also, all emails connected to whois bounceback so no receipt of me getting it.
This doesnt stop them from contacting the hosting company who can shut me down or the registrar who can take the domain from me, but there are plenty of hosting companies and plenty of registrars. I also dont worry about the hosting company or registar giving up my info, you would be surprised how many hosting accounts and domain names you can buy on prepaid Amex's with fake billing info.
The only other footprint is money trail. Generally by the time they get this far ( sometimes its the first place they start ) I have taken everything down/changed what I needed and still have remained anon.
Haha, you will know when they are serious when C&D's are delivered to your home address via recorded mail. Most of these law firms have their own nameservers which will show up in your stats.
Hm, just to clear that up, I should not say stuff like "as seen on [tv channel]", for example? Would that be a trademark infringement already?
And how about dynamic URL insertion ("welcome visitors from [walmart.com]") -> infringement as well?
The as seen on tv channel bit is fine if that is actually true, i mean your not lying, it is fact. Although quite often it's actually "as advertised on" since the advertiser will just buy up some inventory on that site and use the ads presence there as some sort of indication of authority. However some trademark owners may get irate if people use their logos etc without permission.
Dynamic URL insertion I would think is fine - again, if you're stating facts then I don't see the problem.
Despite my opinion, it's highly likely you can get C&D's for use in any way shape or form. Period.
OK, I'll say it as nobody else will: many of the 'problems' the IM industry whines about are self-inflicted. bait and switch, cloaking, trademark infringements and just plain lying in the race for the green stuff is what causes platforms like Google and facebook to bring down the ban hammer or despise affiliates. It's a double-edged sword. Those participating in such practices probably think their being pretty smart at the time, until the knock on the door comes. Then they find out that said sword can be fucking sharp. I'd wager that 100% of them thought "It'll never happen to me".
Stay ethical, stay safe kids.
Home > > Coreg