I merely asked why .org - if you look carefully you can see it is is question and not a staement by the use of the questions marks. I did put 4 of them so I didn’t have to quote the Harvard Law school definition of what is admissable as a question.

The point I was making was (and wont bore everyone by making it again in depth) is that the inference of a .org site is that it is non-profit making.

I hope the parties can now h andle it and stop fighting

Citing the Harvard Law School website, trademark infringement occurs when: “If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is “likelihood of confusion.” To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant’s intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).” http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#7

The company “Designs On Demand” the dot com business cannot even claim trademark dilution, because, also citing Harvard, to meet the standard for dilution: “Under federal law, a dilution claim can be brought only if the mark is “famous.” In deciding whether a mark is famous, the courts will look to the following factors: (1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness; (2) the duration and extent of use; (3) the amount of advertising and publicity; (4) the geographic extent of the market; (5) the channels of trade; (6) the degree of recognition in trading areas; (7) any use of similar marks by third parties; (8) whether the mark is registered. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Kodak, Exxon, and Xerox are all examples of famous marks. Under state law, a mark need not be famous in order to give rise to a dilution claim. Instead, dilution is available if: (1) the mark has “selling power” or, in other words, a distinctive quality; and (2) the two marks are substantially similar. Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989).”

This is a situation that has not only been blown WAY out of proportion, it’s one that should have been h andled between parties.

Why the .org extension???? The definition of a .org is :

.ORG: Short for .organization. Originally designated for non-profit firms and any other organizations that did not fit under the .com or .net extension, any individual or business may now register a .org domain name

Whilst, as the description says, these are now available to individuals and companies these were originally for non-profit making organisations and still have an inference that this is the case. Why not .biz or .net as a more suitable extension? I can only assume from looking at their site they are a profit making company?

Finally, if they are brand new and truly genuine, it would not impact on them to change the name to something markedly different. They will not have any deep linking or search engine indexing that will be affected - I checked on Google and they only have a total of 5 back links logged.

Why all the fuss??? I would change my name to something completely different and then the existing company and I could get on with our respective businesses rather than engaging in a playground type squabble.

We tried our best to come to a compromise with Margaret and we did offer to add a link on our site advertising theirs but they turned us down.

All three of us have worked hard for many years to develope our sites. We came together to offer a place for other designers to sell their patterns at a decent profit. It’s not like we’re trying to sell adult toys or downloadable porn. If this were the case, I could understand Margaret’s outrage. As it is, I truly believe that working together we could have driven some traffic to their site and it would have benefited them. They couldn’t see it this way, however. It is sad, too.

Thank you, Heather, for letting me comment and explain my thoughts on the situation.

Karen