Print

[112233]

the letter can be found here:
http://www.prosperreport.com/www.prosperreport.com.pdf

further discussion can be found here
http://prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=4670.0

thanks

[mofo]

the letter can be found here:
http://www.prosperreport.com/www.prosperreport.com.pdf

further discussion can be found here
http://prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=4670.0

thanks

I get an error when I click the 2nd link: "The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

Is this a private thread?

[112233]

it's in the verified lender's area. more details about getting access can be found here:

http://www.prospers.org/wiki/HowToGetLenderAccess

[mofo]

thanks

[misssalaska2000]

it's in the verified lender's area. more details about getting access can be found here:

http://www.prospers.org/wiki/HowToGetLenderAccess

Man, I'm tempted to dump $500 into prosper just so I can join. 

[HollowOak]

it's in the verified lender's area. more details about getting access can be found here:

http://www.prospers.org/wiki/HowToGetLenderAccess

Man, I'm tempted to dump $500 into prosper just so I can join. 

You'll be disappointed - ask Bama.

[skinglist]

Wow, this is an all low. They're that desperate to bury any bad press? And they expect to be respected?

[joezyz]

Are they going to go after all these people also....
They use prosper in their name too...

What a joke...I mean I can really see someone looking for prosper.com and mis-type prosperreport...

1.   1-800-prosper.com     
2.   1-800prosperity.com     
3.   1-minute-prosperity.com     
4.   1-prosperity.com         
5.   1111prosperity.com     
  1111prosperity.net     
  1111prosperity.org     
6.   123prosper.biz     
  123prosper.com     
7.   123prosperity.com     
8.   12keystoprosperity.com     
9.   1800prosper.com     
10.   1800prosperity.com     
11.   1minuteprosperity.com     
12.   1prosperity.com     
13.   1road2prosperity.com     
14.   1sourceorganizeandprosper.com     
15.   1stprosperityfunding.com     
  1stprosperityfunding.net     
  1stprosperityfunding.org     
  1stprosperityfunding.us     
16.   2-prosper.com     
17.   20prosperitybanktx.com     
18.   21daystoprosperity.com     
19.   21stcenturyprosperity.com         
20.   247prosperity4u.com

[PLP]

Man, I'm tempted to dump $500 into prosper just so I can join. 

I was thinking the same thing.  Maybe a $30 site donation instead would work?   

Are they going to go after all these people also....
They use prosper in their name too...

What a joke...I mean I can really see someone looking for prosper.com and mis-type prosperreport...

It is not about mistyping the names.  It is about using a trademark. No matter what you think of Prosper, they are certainly within their right to sue. However, they probably would not be able to take down any name with Prosperity in it that you mentioned.

Similar example was the Olympics, try registering a domain name with Olympiad or Olympics in the title and throw up a website there. Apparently, even though the Greeks started these games thousands of years ago, the name is actually trademarked.  They are on a rampage to try to get all these domain names back if anyone tries to use them for something.  The only exception being "Special Olympics."   If you just hold the name and don't do anything with it, they usually let you keep i because it does not interfere with their search engine results and they are happy to let you carry the annual domain name costs since they know if you ever use it they can force you to take it down. 

Olympics started their campaign all the way back in 2000 and continue until the year 2007. I don't believe that I have ever seen the IOC lose one of these cases.

[ira01]

It is not about mistyping the names.  It is about using a trademark. No matter what you think of Prosper, they are certainly within their right to sue. However, they probably would not be able to take down any name with Prosperity in it that you mentioned.

Well, if by "within their right to sue" you mean only to say that in America, anyone can sue anyone for anything (but winning is a different story), then of course they are.  But if you are suggesting that Prosper has a winning case, I disagree.  For the reasons xraider and I (and others) discussed in this thread, I think Prosper's case would be bordering on the frivolous if they were to file one.  The sine qua non of a trademark case is "likelihood of confusion."  Unless the use of a mark is likely to confuse the public into believing that the mark owner is the one using or endorsing the use of the mark, there is no case.  I think that would be an insurmountable hurdle for Prosper in this case, even aside from the various other defenses that would likely apply.  And cybersquatting requires bad faith, which I believe would also be fatal to Prosper's claim.  Clearly 112233 didn't register prosperreport.com in order to sell it to Prosper.  Your Olympics analogy is inapposite.  Among other things, I believe that there is a specific federal statute giving stronger protection to the Olympics than ordinary trademark law.

[onthefence]

Similar example was the Olympics, try registering a domain name with Olympiad or Olympics in the title and throw up a website there. Apparently, even though the Greeks started these games thousands of years ago, the name is actually trademarked.  They are on a rampage to try to get all these domain names back if anyone tries to use them for something.  The only exception being "Special Olympics."   If you just hold the name and don't do anything with it, they usually let you keep i because it does not interfere with their search engine results and they are happy to let you carry the annual domain name costs since they know if you ever use it they can force you to take it down. 

Olympics started their campaign all the way back in 2000 and continue until the year 2007. I don't believe that I have ever seen the IOC lose one of these cases.

Free speech trumps VVV
http://olympicssuck.com/

[PLP]

I had not heard about a federal law singling out Olympic trademarks.  I found an article on Canadian law offering special protection in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1812/159/  DO you have reference to a similar law in the United States?

Yes, I mean they can reasonably sue although I thought that he might have less chance than you indicate.  Prosper is either 1) attempting to scare him into caving or 2) bury him under a mountain of legal bills forcing him to give up the name prosperreport long before a court can ever determine fairly that the name is being used reasonably.   For example, there are many criticism websites that use trademarked names such as:  http://themacsucks.com/  http://www.mychryslersucks.com/   http://paypalsucks.com/  which are long in existence, so it must be possible legally.

I highly recommend checking out the EFF's webpage:  http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/  They may have some good advice for how to defend against this.  The fact that prosper chose a generic name will obviously hurt the case (see FAQ):

A generic mark rarely receives protection because it is naturally associated with something in consumers' minds. An ordinary description is not special enough to warrant protection. However, if consumers connect the mark and its source in a way that would not exist without the mark's use in commerce, then the mark can be protected.

Sorry, but I can't check out the other link that you provide. 

I wish him luck in keeping the name.  The lawsuit may just generate more publicity against Prosper so it could backfire.  Maybe I'll add a blog post on the situation to try to drum up more attention. 

[ira01]

I had not heard about a federal law singling out Olympic trademarks.  I found an article on Canadian law offering special protection in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1812/159/  DO you have reference to a similar law in the United States?

Ok.  36 U.S.C. section 220506(a)(4) states: "Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation [the United States Olympic Committee] has the exclusive right to use-- . . . the words 'Olympic,' 'Olympiad,' 'Citius Altius Fortius,' 'Paralympic,' 'Paralympiad,' 'Pan-American,' 'America Espirito Sport Fraternite,' or any combination of those words."  This is much stronger protection than provided by normal trademark law.  In the leading case on this subject, SF Arts & Athletcs, Inc. v. USOC, 483 U.S. 522, 530 (1987) (involving the "Gay Olympic Games"), the United States Supreme Court stated: "In sum, the language and legislative history of § 110 [of the Amateur Sports Act, the statute I cited above] indicate clearly that Congress intended to grant the USOC exclusive use of the word 'Olympic' without regard to whether use of the word tends to cause confusion, and that § 110 does not incorporate defenses available under the Lanham Act."

[PLP]

36 U.S.C. section 220506(a)(4) states: "Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation [the United States Olympic Committee] has the exclusive right to use-- . . . the words 'Olympic,' 'Olympiad,' .... does not incorporate defenses available under the Lanham Act."

Amazing! Thanks for looking that up because I was not sure where to check it out. I had no idea that they had been written specifically into the law.  Does that happen often or is this a specific case? 

[xraider]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/notice.cgi?NoticeID=16017#QID51

According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, "the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 ("FTDA") and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 ("ACPA"), Congress left little doubt that it did not intend for trademark laws to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators. The dilution statute applies to only a 'commercial use in commerce of a mark,' 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1), and explicitly states that the '[n]oncommercial use of a mark' is not actionable. Id. § 1125(c)(4)....Congress directed that in determining whether an individual has engaged in cybersquatting, the courts may consider whether the person’s use of the mark is a 'bona fide noncommercial or fair use.' 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV)" One should be careful in this area, however.