Because $7 Million a Year Isn't Enough for Them
Partners at top investment bank Goldman Sachs take home an average of $7 million a year. But not content with that, they've decided to chase after a small businessman, who's just trying to make an honest living.
From the WSJ Law Blog:
[Goldman Sachs is involved in an] ongoing battle with Goldman Advertisement BV, a Netherlands-based adult-entertainment directory.... Goldman argued [in a National Arbitration Forum proceeding] that goldmansex.com would cause confusion and contained links to objectionable “adult” material. The NAF agreed with the investment bank, and goldmansex.com is no more.
Say it ain't so! Who would confuse the world's leading investment bank with a porn providers' directory? (Our big brother blog, which covered this story back in July, agrees.)
"Goldman" is a last name that strikes us as pretty generic, and "sex" is, well, sex. GS's position strikes us as weak, whether viewed from a cybersquatting or trademark law perspective. And there's more:
Rob Muller, the owner of goldmansex.com, tells the Law Blog in an email that the name has nothing to do with the investment bank; instead, it came from his nickname “Goldman,” which his friends gave him because they “thought I was always lucky in my life.”...After the NAF ruling, Muller pressed his luck and continued to use another domain name it owned — goldmEnsex.com (emphasis added). Last week, according to Muller, he received a fax from the NAF informing him that Goldman Sachs had started a new proceeding against his company.
Frivolous litigation arbitration. Why can't the banking behemoth just laugh it off, and let poor Rob Muller go on his merry way? Consider this:
“Goldmansex was in a completely different business than GS, with no chance of confusion, we were not referring to Goldman Sachs on our website, the site had a complete different look and feel and we own a valid trademark in the domain name,” says Muller. “The only similarity between Goldman Sachs and Goldmensex is the verbal equivalence.” He adds: “Furthermore Goldmensex is not a porn site; it is an advertisement portal for adult entertainers offering information very similar to information offered by Google and Yellow Pages.”
And the verbal equivalence isn't even that great. "Goldman Sachs" sounds like "Goldman Sex" only if you pronounce it with a really heavy Russian accent.
This is so wrong. Rob Muller needs your help, ATL readers. Anyone looking for a good pro bono [sic] project?
After Taking Down Goldmansex, Goldman Takes On Goldmensex [WSJ Law Blog]
There Is No Sex in Goldman Sachs [DealBreaker]
(6) Comments
How can the whitehouse porn site be fine, but goldmensex not? Call the ACLU!
It's not frivolous litigation because its not litigation, it's arbitration.
He's going to lose: 15 U.S.C. 1125 (d).
(I'm having deja vu because I think I've posted on this topic before.) Though not an IP lawyer, I believe that holders of trademarks have to pursue these things (even if unlikely to prevail) because if they simply let them pass, their standing could be weaker when pursuing later (more legitimate) actions. So, it's not frivolous or a case of throwing their weight around. Of course, this makes for good work for TM lawyers.
I don't know much about IP law, but if Muller's claim that he has a trademark in the domain name is true, then how can Goldman Sachs do this to him?
Isn't it correct that you can use the same name, or a similar-sounding name, if the fields in question are very different (so that there's no danger of confusion)?
Isn't that what the Lexis vs. Lexus litigation was about? Sure they sound the same, but nobody would confuse the legal research company with the auto maker.
Same with Goldman Sachs and Goldmensex. You'd have to be a MORON to think they're related.
I think you couldn't make a standard trademark infringement claim easily, but you could probably make a cognizable dilution claim.