|
Edited on Sun Jul-18-04 09:38 PM by livinginphotographs
Rob said it better than I ever could. The history of this situation arose from the following synopsis of what has occurred to date between Clear Channel Communications, Inc. and RadioAid.com. The domain name of ClearChannelSucks.net was purchased on January 22, 2002 by RadioAid.com founder, 26 year old Rob Vining. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. contacted Rob on December 9, 2003 via e-mail from Hamlet T. Newsom Jr., Senior Corporate Counsel for Clear Channel Communications, Inc.The following is text of Mr. Newsom's original email: Hamlet T. Newsom Jr.
Senior Corporate Counsel
Direct Line: 210-832-3320
Direct Fax: 210-832-3428
hamletnewsom@clearchannel.com
December 9, 2003
Mr. Robert Vining
VIA EMAIL
11282 Taylor Draper Lane, Suite 327
Austin, Texas 78759
Re: Infringement of Trademark of Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
Dear Mr. Vining:
It has been brought to my attention that you have registered the domain name clearchannelsucks.net (the “Domain Name”) for your website radioaid.com that offers online radio subscriptions. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel”) is the owner of the trademark CLEAR CHANNEL, federal registration number 2,361,253 (the “Mark”) for various services, including radio and television broadcasting and programming, outdoor advertising, and other related services. In that regard, Clear Channel has used this Mark since at least 1973 and is also the owner of many common law and registered trademarks that include the term CLEAR CHANNEL, including CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS. As you may know, under state and federal trademark laws, Clear Channel has a legal obligation to police its trademarks or it risks losing its trademark rights.
It is our policy to vigorously enforce our trademark rights and we are currently investigating potential cybersquatting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition claims against your company, RadioAid.com. Upon a cursory inspection of your website, it is clear that there is no connection between the company RadioAid.com and the term Clear Channel. Rather, it appears you are using the term “Clear Channel” to unfairly divert consumers to your RadioAid.com - a site that directly relates to radio broadcasting. Our initial impression is that your company is trading off of the goodwill that Clear Channel has established in the Mark. Please be assured that we will complete our investigation and take immediate action as warranted.
While we are committed to taking all necessary action upon completion of our investigation, we are interested in addressing this issue now in order to avoid confusion and future litigation. Please inform me if you have any authorization from Clear Channel to register the Domain Name. Absent any such authorization, it is our opinion that your company should abandon the Domain Name and cease using the Mark.
Nothing contained or omitted in this letter is intended to be, nor should be deemed to be or construed as, a waiver or relinquishment of any of Clear Channel’s rights, remedies, claims, and contentions in respect to the matter, whether legal, equitable, or factual; each and all of which are expressly hereby reserved.
I look forward to receiving a reply and anticipate reaching an amicable resolution to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Hamlet T. Newsom Jr.
Senior Corporate CounselThe following is Rob's response to Mr. Newsome: February 2, 2004
Mr. Hamlet T. Newsom Jr.
Clear Channel Worldwide
200 E. Basse Road
San Antonio, Texas 78209
Dear Mr. Newsom:
In response to your email dated December 9, 2003, you are correct in your discovery of my ownership of clearchannelsucks.net, however clearchannelsucks.net in no way trades off the “goodwill that Clear Channel has established in the Mark” as you put it. In fact, clearchannelsucks.net trades only off the fact that many consumers are not satisfied with the Clear Channel “goodwill” and therefore are looking for other avenues of entertainment to pursue. Avenues such as RadioAid.com.
RadioAid.com is an online streaming radio site for unsigned and independent artists. RadioAid.com owns its own proprietary streaming software that in no way relates to Clear Channel’s “radio and television broadcasting and programming, outdoor advertising, and other related services”. As I am sure you will agree, the differences between RadioAid.com and Clear Channel make them what the courts would find “unrelated goods”.
RadioAid.com will not relinquish rights to clearchannelsucks.net. Clearchannelsucks.net states RadioAid.com’s stance on Clear Channel’s position in the music industry and is in no way violating the Clear Channel trademark.
As I’m sure you are aware, trademark infringement occurs when a non-owner uses another’s trademark in a way that causes actual confusion or a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Specifically, the U.S. Trademark Act prohibits the use of marks that are “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person”. I think you would agree that clearchannelsucks.net would not cause confusion with clearchannel.com. Had RadioAid.com registered the domain name of clearchannel.net, that would be an infringement on Clear Channel’s trademark and I would be bound legally to concede the name.
I look forward to receiving your response. However, I will reply only to correspondence received through the US Postal Service on the Clear Channel letterhead. Email contact will no longer be an acceptable form of correspondence between Clear Channel and RadioAid.
Sincerely,
Rob Vining, President
RadioAid.comcontinued... Obviously, these threats of legal action from the Senior Corporate Counsel, Mr. Newsom, against Rob if the domain ClearChannelSucks.net was not handed over immediately. Or, as Mr. Newsom mentions, "It is our policy to vigorously enforce ...potential cybersquatting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition claims against your company, RadioAid.com.
As shaky and daunting as the next few weeks were for Rob, the decision was made to keep the website and not give it up. He felt that he was in the right to keep the website and decided to continue to direct artists and listeners to a site that provided information on the corruption of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. He continued to show how Clear Channel Communications, Inc. was degrading the music industry, and dulling listener's ears to the sounds of paid programming for songs played through under the table deals with the major record labels. RadioAid has always played advertisements in it's streaming radio that point listeners and artists in the direction of an outstanding series of articles that shined a light on the truth of the underhanded business practices of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel /)
Rob has been a stout protester of the business practices of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. since the inception of RadioAid.com on October, 2000. He was able to spread the word to others who were looking for alternate forms of radio. He and several independent artists created a streaming radio consisting of 100% unsigned and independent musicians. This caught hold and slowly gained popularity, as music fans have grown tired of 'repeat radio' and prefer the music of otherwise unknown artists. As RadioAid grew in popularity, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. also decided to enter the ring of unsigned and independent artists 2 years down the road in late September of 2002 (Clear Channel owns and operates www.clearchannelnewmusicnetwork.com and bearadiostar.com - registered on January 28th of 2004).
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. used their website www.clearchannelnewmusicnetwork.com and stated that we were in direct competition with this website, which is affiliated with bearadiostar.com, the website that was only registered earlier this year. RadioAid.com has been online and operating since October, 2000.
Competition is a bad thing to conglomerates such as Clear Channel, and one way to get rid of your competition is to scare them with legal action.
This seems to work a majority of the time, as few individuals have the funds available to take a billion dollar corporate company such as Clear Channel Communications, Inc. to court.
RadioAid.com has decided to take legal action against Clear Channel Communications, Inc. and we are asking for monetary assistance from any of those who would like to keep the freedom to criticize a Corporate Monopoly such as Clear Channel Communications, Inc. This company has been sued for being an illegal monopoly (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2004/05/31/daily20.html), brought to court on counts of illegal Payola practices (paying radio stations to play music from major labels), and continues to be brought to court by individuals and small companies who have been wronged directly from Clear Channel Communications, Inc.I repeat: PLEASE HELP!!!!! Even if you can't donate, just spread the word. Rob needs hits on his website, so post this wherever you can. Thanks DU'ers!!! www.radioaid.com/sucks.asp |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
