Microsoft Takes On MikeRoweSoft
from the ah,-trademark-law dept
I'm surprised this one hasn't gotten more attention yet (though, it probably will). A kid in Canada named Mike Rowe needed a name for his website design business, and picked the somewhat obvious choice: MikeRoweSoft.com. The legal folks at a company you might have heard of, Microsoft, didn't take too kindly to that, and sent the typical threatening legal letter. They offered Mr. Rowe a whopping $10 for the domain. He wrote back saying $10,000 seemed more appropriate - and now Microsoft is accusing him of holding the domain hostage to try to get money out of Microsoft. I read the story a few times before I actually believed it. Even the name of the Microsoft law firm involved in this case (Smart & Biggar) made me wonder if it's all a big hoax - but it all seems real enough. Before the legal beagles chip in with the point that Microsoft needs to do this to protect their trademark, I'll respond by saying that this should be a perfect example of why that rule doesn't make much sense. How many people are actually going to confuse MikeRoweSoft with Microsoft? If anything, Mr. Rowe is going to have more trouble getting people to remember what his domain name is - as he's going to need to spell it out to everyone. However, as a publicity stunt for Mr. Rowe's web design business, this is probably going to help him out quite a bit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"MIkeRoweSoft" is not 'the obvious name' for this
So MikeRoweWebsites would be a good name.
This really looks like a case where Mike Rowe chose a name because of its similarity to Microsoft. He should have tried to be less similar (I think he could have gotten away with "MikeRoweHard"). He gets no sympathy from me.
It's a pity Microsoft doesn't take the semi-high road in these cases though. They could offer Rowe (instead of taking away his domain name) to let him use it for 1% of his gross plus a disclaimer that he is not affiliated from Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, you miss the point that Microsnot does NOT own MikeRoweSoft.com so I don't see how they could charge him.
It's his name & since when do Microsoft own names like Mike Rowe ?
Why should he try to be less similar ?
The spellings are not even close.
Microsoft take the high road ???? All they have done is to HELP this man INCREASE his traffic by sueing !
Its an insult they offered him less money than he spent to register it.
Go suck some corporate lawyers patootie ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Rowe Soft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Rowe Soft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Rowe Soft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
much noise about little mike
precision blogger said "mikerowehard" would be more obvious, is HTML a microchip variety, or is it code, (aka software)? If you don't think people name a company after thier full name you might not have heard of J.C. penny
second, here in the US it is perfectly legal to use your name for the name of a business, without publishing a dba (aka FICTITIOUS name statement)
third, is your spelling that bad? my spelling might not be very good, but I haven't been directed to mike's site once, or even been asked by the "helpful" search engines if I'd like to buy the domain, which happens alot when you type a domain name that doesn't exist(and nobody has paid off the search engines to re-direct you)
the only people that seem to be confused are the smallnsoft lawers, who appear to be worse at spelling than I am, and whose firm is probably named for the lead attorney, or senior partners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have Similar case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]