Topic: [DSH] Dashcoin (Cryptonote, automated source) - page 6. (Read 216674 times)

Ok. There are whole WWWRRROOONNNGGG worlds around us.

Why Evan Duffield need dashcoin codebase?

bump from darkcoin thread

edit: must be pressing the right buttons here 

You are 100% wrong here.  The IP rights for the Dashcoin mark belong to the creator of the coin as well as anyone running businesses using that mark (i.e. websites to promote the coin, etc.) prior to any file for trademark.  Multiple people or parties can have rights to the Dashcoin mark, and any of them can sell their rights to it.  You should consult with an attorney before discussing these matters, as it's clear from your comments you do not know trademark law.

I've got a solution to all your "boo hoo Drk coin is bad" bullshit...i'm looking at you mainly arielbit

The dashcoin community stay the hell out of the Darkcoin/DASH threads and the Darkcoin/DASH will stay out of your thread.

Then we can all focus on things that are important and you guys can do whatever the hell you want with whatever the hell name coin you choose.

I urge any other Darkcoiners to leave this thread and to ignore any trolling/fud on the darkcoin thread.

thanks for your time.

In reality with case b) there is little that the larger franchise can do unless they make a deal with pre existing burger king. In fact the existence of of the pre existing commercial use of the name puts the national trademark in jeopardy. A very good example is the Lindows / Windows case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc. Microsoft’s hold on the Windows trademark in the United States is actually on very shaky ground. What saved Microsoft's position is that Lindows was also doing business in jurisdictions where Microsoft's Windows trademark was on solid ground such as the Netherlands, in effect Microsoft was using its strong trademark rights in the Netherlands to support its weak trademark rights in the United States. So one gets a settlement where the alleged victim, Microsoft, actually pays money. Hmm ...

There a two issues here. First the rights to the Dashcoin name are not the devs to sell. This is the point that MyFarm is making although I am far from convinced that acquiring a certain percentage of the Dashcoins will buy the rights to the Dashcoin name. What the Darkcoin Foundation may have acquired here is enough of an interest in the Dashcoin name to prevent the trademark registration by a third party, if and that is a big if they can show they have acquired a bona fide interest in the Dashcoin name. It may be the case is that simply owning some Dashcoin may be a better way to prevent the third party registration of Dash. This brings me to my second point there is a good possibility that any holder of Dashcoin may be able to prevent the registration of Dash by Darkcoin foundation in the event the Darkcoin Foundation succeeds in blocking the third party registration of Dash.

In conclusion the Darkcoin Foundation may be able to use the name Dash; however it also may not be able to get the exclusive rights to the name. Preventing someone else from getting trademark rights to a word is a lot easier that obtaining those rights for oneself.

This is simply not true.  Again you don't know what you are talking about, and should really consider getting some legal advice in this matter.  

Anyway, here is a real world case that is analogous and can shed some light on the matter.  There exists a Burger King in the florida that operates under the same name as the large national franchise.  They existed prior to the national franchise Burger King being awarded a trademark (I think they might have even been the original), yet they continue to operate just fine.  There are two reasons for this.  a.) they had IP rights as they were in existence prior to the national franchise filing for the trademark and b.) they pose no threat as far as confusion goes to the larger franchise so it wasn't worth trying to buy out and/or shut down (which they could so easily do).  

With that being said, do you seriously think Dashcoin could ever present a threat against DRK?  Absolutely not, which is why there has been no mention ever about shutting down the coin.

It's obviously to me you haven't gotten actual legal advice on this.  

I've dealt with a number of trademark attorneys in the past for different reasons, and am fairly knowledgable.  For the record, you can have IP rights to the Dashcoin name even from operating web sites that use the name Dashcoin for business as long as they were in operation prior to the filing, it doesn't only belong to the coin originator.  And for the record, coin purchasers / holders don't have any IP rights.  The originator and people actively doing business with that mark are entitled to these rights (assuming the originator or others don't oppose each other co-existing).  As far as dashcoin goes it wasn't just the git-hub repo that was purchased from what I understand.  

While you are insistent, your position is flawed.  I'm sorry but you have yet to be correct in any legal assessment I've seen from you regarding this situation.  It's clear to me you got impulsive and felt clever and opportunistically ran in to buy some coins without really understanding what the legal situation was.  Simply foolish.    

This is slightly wrong. Policing infringement is a requirement and a reasonable expectation, but pre-existing users who do not expand into a new market are not infringing.

At least in one jurdisdiction, I'm reasonably sure that if you don't enforce it, you increase your chances of losing the trademark. The reasoning is that since a trademark's intent is to associate a name with a particular product/company, the dilution caused by the use of that mark for another product/company in the same field (this bit may be a bit fuzzy) causes the trademark to be mooted (this bit is also fuzzy).

Sometimes, you see companies sending cease and desist letters to fan clubs etc. This is why. There may be some overeagerness in order to preempt any possible challenge, but the idea is there.

Now, this is not cut and dry, failure to enforce your trademark doesn't automatically your mark is forfeit, but it is one of hte things that a court would look at when there is a challenge to the mark. Though I believe the main issue for this is genericization, and the dashcoin thing is more about infrigement.

There is a misconception that you have to constantly monitor all forms of communication and raise hell each time your trademark is even lightly infringed.  You don't.  However, for there to be a DASH cryptocurrency and a Dashcoin cryptocurrency would create such confusion (as posts in this and the Darkcoin thread have already shown) that there's no way Darkcoin (DASH) could allow Dashcoin to continue under the name.  Have I checked with an attorney on this?  No.  But I'm quite certain I am correct.

Is this your opinion based on your logic or is that actually true? I just have to ask because people often talk as if things were absolute facts even if they are just their opinions.



The smartest thing for Darkcoin to do is to get legal advice and act accordingly, which they did.

A.  You HAVE to enforce your trademark.  There is no way Darkcoin can become Dash without sending a cease and desist to Dashcoin if they are somehow granted ownership of the Dashcoin trademark (doubtful in my opinion).  If they don't enforce their trademark, it will become null and void.

B.  The other company's trademark application will potentially be denied because of the earlier existence of Dashcoin.  

The smartest thing for Darkcoin to do is what it should have done (and would have done if there was a competent business executive) initially.  BUY OUT Dashcoin holders.  And do it before the other company starts bidding as they potentially will if they really want the DASH name and worry that the existence of Dashcoin would hinder their trademark app.  Could I be wrong about all of this?  Yes.  Could I be correct?  Yes.  We shall see.

Make no mistake, this story has the potential to get much, much bigger...

Actually i already understand you guys. You just come up with different words again and again.

I'm just enjoying being here.trolltalking you guys from time to time

edit: Darkcoin/DASH = Duffield's Cash

Most people who use cryptocurrencies don't bother to think about what a decentralized cryptocurrency is.  If they did, they wouldn't talk about someone being able to "buy it".

Dashcoin is a network, the network is the nodes, and the nodes are us. 

People have spent years talking about how "the government can never shut down Bitcoin", but for some reason they think some guy named Evan can shut down a coin.

You're a twit arielbit.

Then good for him, shove his dick somewhere else..skipping dashcoin again for the claim eh?....

Let's say Evan comes up with a better name than DASH or for any other reason (competing coin's fans pay/extort him enough or w/e) decides to drop pursuing the DASH trademark => the competing company gets the trademark => they will come after you.

c) If dashcoin wants DASH for itself..is it okay for you and evan?

 
That's what we call a shitstorm.

Dunno what Evan's intent is exactly, but I'm just assuming here (and playing with the possible outcomes):

a) If Evan manages to trademark DASH in the field of virtual currencies (or w/e the field's gonna be), he is going to let Dashcoin be Dashcoin, no problems for anyone.

b) If the other company is admitted the trademark to DASH, then it might not allow Dashcoin be Dashcoin as it's just been proven to operate in the same market/field.

Thoughts?