 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Mammals / Rats / May 2004TRU Update
It's been a while, but I thought I would update everyone on the saga of T "R" U and ratzrus.co.uk. It took so long for them to get back to me that I thought I was actually going to get off lightly. Alas, no, the solicitors are obviously just quite slow to respond (pity they don't give me the same courtesy when I have to reply to them!). At first I was downhearted, but have since got my fight back and am still not giving in, as I fully believe I am within my rights and am in no way "passing off" as they are now claiming. You can read their letter and my new response to them at http://www.ratzrus.co.uk/toysrus.htm. Nic > http://www.ratzrus.co.uk/toysrus.htm. > > Nic Glad to see you're still going. Did you get confirmation about the trademarks act only applying to businesses, or were we wrong? > Glad to see you're still going. Did you get confirmation about the > trademarks act only applying to businesses, or were we wrong? Hi Mark. To be honest I am still not sure, however from their last letter they are now saying this is irrelevant, which to me at least means there must be something in it. They are now trying for "passing off", which from what I can gather means they would have to prove that I have stolen profit and customers off them, which I can't do since I don't sell anything, so it will never be proved. I think they would also have to show that loads of their customers have confused my site with theirs. I suppose I could go up to the local store and ask people, but I know myself what the answer would be (ratzrus? never heard of it!) ;-). They are still claiming me to be a business ("change your company name"), so I still don't think they have thought it through properly. I'm now a bit more open-minded about going to the press, so if it *does* look like they won't back down, that is exactly what I am going to do... Nic > > Glad to see you're still going. Did you get confirmation about the > > trademarks act only applying to businesses, or were we wrong? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Nic The burden of showing guilt is on their part, not yours, you are innocent until proven guilty. Keep fighting Nic, we are behind you 100%!!!!!!!  SignatureJoanne Mom to 12 rats http://community.webshots.com/user/joanneb70 j-s.b@nospamsympatico.ca remove "no spam" > The burden of showing guilt is on their part, not yours, you are innocent > until proven guilty. > Keep fighting Nic, we are behind you 100%!!!!!!! > -- > Joanne Thanks, Joanne! Just knowing I have support is a big help - at least I know I am not on my own and have folk to talk to when it gets too much. Nic Long time no speak Nic - Have emailed you and copied you in on the letter I sent to TRU :o) SignatureTarn ............... Neptune, Pluto, Ulysses, Morpheus, Jerry & Smokie <:3_)~~~ At Rainbow Bridge: Buttons, Patch, Cookie, Fudge, Apollo, Zeus & Ben <:3_)~~~ http://community.webshots.com/user/tarn75 > > The burden of showing guilt is on their part, not yours, you are innocent > > until proven guilty. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nic > Long time no speak Nic - Have emailed you and copied you in on the letter I > sent to TRU :o) And replied to... :-) Nic > ....They are now trying for "passing off", which from > what I can gather means they would have to prove that I have stolen profit > and customers off them, which I can't do since I don't sell anything > I think they would also have to show that loads of > their customers have confused my site with theirs. Mmmm. Yes. LOTS of people worldwide who go online looking to buy their kid a train set end up getting confused and not-buying a rat from your site, because you don't sell anything.... Right? ;) (I bet the child gets it train set anyway... all they have to do is drive down the street to the nearest out of town shopping centre). Get all animal-rightsy on them and insist that anyone who confuses toys with living animals needs fire-bombing *cough* I mean forcibly re-educating. A rat is for LIFE, not just for a feint legal parry by a multi-international corporation. ...I'd like that bumper-sticker. > LOTS of people worldwide who go online looking to buy their kid a train set > end up getting confused and not-buying a rat from your site, because you > don't sell anything.... Right? ;) That about sums it, up yeah :-) > (I bet the child gets it train set anyway... all they have to do is drive > down the street to the nearest out of town shopping centre). More than likely! Why pay loads when you can get the same thing somewhere else for cheaper? > Get all animal-rightsy on them and insist that anyone who confuses toys with > living animals needs fire-bombing *cough* I mean forcibly re-educating. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ...I'd like that bumper-sticker. I'd love to put that on my site!!! However, it might be construed the wrong way by TRU (or the right way, depending on how you look at it!). The pettiness of it all just gets to me. It reminds me of a kid playing with another child, and kid no.1 wanting the toy belonging to kid no.2, and getting all pouty over it. And here was me thinking big companies were actually run by intellectual adults! Nic Nic wrote: > The pettiness of it all just gets to me. It reminds me of a kid playing > with another child, and kid no.1 wanting the toy belonging to kid no.2, and > getting all pouty over it. And here was me thinking big companies were > actually run by intellectual adults! Oooh. Here is where it starts to get interesting. Is it because they think only nutcases keep rats (possible! what is the likelihood that any of these fat cats have ever owned one?), in which case they don't want their name sullied by association with a couple of rat-loving tree-hugging lunatics. After all, only about 9 people in the whole world actually LIKE rats! OK... so if they think only 9 people in the world LIKE rats, why are they bothering about 9 people? Or... Have they actually read the website? To many people the word "rat" is derogatory, and if you wanted to slag off TRU, damage their reputation, you could do a lot worse than satirise their name into Rats R Us. (Well I'd be a bit more imaginitive myself, but there's no accounting for brain cells out there). Nic... I almost dread to suggest this because it could easily backfire, but have the UK press got hold of this yet? Someone once said "There is no such thing as bad publicity" and if this got into the tabloids they would definitely send it up, but it's so farcical to start with, it almost demands it. Yes, they would send up rat owners (or possibly not... my dealings with the media over the last 5 years have sensed a huge increase of respect for rat owners as compared with 20 years ago!). But also would they not take the piss out of this stupid fatcat multinational company that thinks a piddly little website (no offence Nic!) devoted to pet rats, that isn't even SELLING anything, could ever encroach on their billion dollar profits....???? And think of all the positive rat publicity it could generate... ;) Sue ---------------------------- pendragon fancy rats Portsmouth, England, UK www.pendragonrats.co.uk First established 1981 > Is it because they think only nutcases keep rats (possible! what is the > likelihood that any of these fat cats have ever owned one?), in which case [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > And think of all the positive rat publicity it could generate... ;) I haven't gone to the papers yet, for personal reasons, but if they really do threaten to take me to court I most certainly will. I already have a way of getting it into at least four national papers, which would be a good start. I've also considered going to a few TV programs about it, but doubt they would take it up (always an option to try though!). At the end of the day, the only way I can see any of this going is for TRU to end up looking like an over-bearing, petty company, with little or no credit left in their name (not just because of my site, but because of all the others they have attacked, and the bad publicity generated over them). My site, detrimental to their goodwill? Why should it be, when they are capable of doing that all by themselves? Nic > I haven't gone to the papers yet, for personal reasons, but if they really > do threaten to take me to court I most certainly will. I already have a way > of getting it into at least four national papers, which would be a good > start. Just let me know if/when you are ready to get the papers involved... I have a good contact in national journalism who might be able to help. Sue ---------------------------- pendragon fancy rats Portsmouth, England, UK www.pendragonrats.co.uk First established 1981 > Just let me know if/when you are ready to get the papers involved... I have > a good contact in national journalism who might be able to help. > Sue Thanks, Sue! Hopefully it won't have to come to that, but we shall see... Nic > It's been a while, but I thought I would update everyone on the saga of T > "R" U and ratzrus.co.uk. It took so long for them to get back to me that I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nic I was wondering how you were getting on with this. I still can't get over the pettiness of Toys R Us, particularly since you are not a commercial website or have anything to do with toys. I've been spreading the word about their ridiculous insistance for you to change your website's name, so they will be losing a few customers... Keep on fighting Nic, we are all behind you! Tracey > I was wondering how you were getting on with this. I still can't get over > the pettiness of Toys R Us, particularly since you are not a commercial [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Keep on fighting Nic, we are all behind you! Cheers, Tracey! In one way I hope they lose custom because of this, but in another way I don't - don't want it to be used as "passing off", if you see what I mean ;-). Nic This was addressed to the people (and I use the term lightly) at Toys R Us. Hope someone will back me on this one................... What the hell is wrong with you people? You remind me of O.J. Simpson tring to hassle the orange juice people for using his letters of the alphabet! Lay off http://www.ratzrus.co.uk or you will have a boycott on your hands from all the rat lovers in the world. Dave http://community.webshots.com/user/dieseldavo Run a spell check over that and you're good to go..:)) Good luck. Regards Kate Signaturehttp://community.webshots.com/user/ollieogg > This was addressed to the people (and I use the term lightly) at Toys R Us. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dave http://community.webshots.com/user/dieseldavo > This was addressed to the people (and I use the term lightly) at Toys R Us. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dave http://community.webshots.com/user/dieseldavo Thing is with name calling threats don't usually work. And yep, I'm backing you up with SignatureJoanne Mom to 12 rats http://community.webshots.com/user/joanneb70 j-s.b@nospamsympatico.ca remove "no spam" the boycotting, I've already sent them my letter letting them know just how childish they are and they will no longer have my business. > ... I fully believe I am within my rights and am > in no way "passing off" as they are now claiming. > You can read their letter and my new response to them at > http://www.ratzrus.co.uk/toysrus.htm. This is interesting: http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/198-4.htm#PassingOff You might like to ask them under what article they would sue, since their letter doesn't seem to mention it. In America there is a trademark dilution act, which doesn't really work over there, (http://news.com.com/2100-1017-220934.html?legacy=cnet), and we haven't even got one on this side of the pond. http://www.rru.com/rru/ is another one to look at, which had nasty calls from hopeful lawyers, and emerged unscathed. It also carries a list of R-Us sites (http://www.rru.com/rru/tru/sitelist.html) so it looks like you're in good company at least. Have fun. :) > This is interesting: http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/198-4.htm#PassingOff > You might like to ask them under what article they would sue, since their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (http://www.rru.com/rru/tru/sitelist.html) so it looks like you're in good > company at least. Have fun. :) *blinks* How come you're reading the rabbit newsgroup, Triffid???? (He's my sort-of other half, so I am a bit surprised!) Sue & the Currant Machines - Floyd & Mrs. Floyd & family & the horde of fancy rats Portsmouth, England, UK Even more surprised you're reading a RAT newsgroup!!! LOL I thought you didn't like them much?? (That's what you've always told me, anyway). *big grin* Sue ---------------------------- pendragon fancy rats & rare breed rabbits Portsmouth, England, UK www.pendragonrats.co.uk I've only seen some of the traffic on the newsgroup, but I had a question. Have you offered to put a disclaimer on your website? Perhaps that would satisfy them, and end the dispute. Jim Veale > I've only seen some of the traffic on the newsgroup, but I had a > question. Have you offered to put a disclaimer on your website? Perhaps > that would satisfy them, and end the dispute. AFAIK the problem is that they don't appear to realise that the site is not a commercial site, and thus the Trademark Act 1994 or whatever it is doesn't apply. The only way they can succeed in their dastardly act is if the owner turns around and says 'would you like to buy it off me then?' This can be construed as an act of bad faith - having the website simply to make money selling it to someone else (i.e. cyber squating). Not sure whether it has been tested to quite this level of ridiculousness tho. Disclaimer: I'm not a legal bod, and thus this is probably all wrong. Even if it's right, I only checked out the UK law. > AFAIK the problem is that they don't appear to realise that the site is not > a commercial site, and thus the Trademark Act 1994 or whatever it is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm not a legal bod, and thus this is probably all wrong. > Even if it's right, I only checked out the UK law. They are now trying to back away from the copyright side of things and are just going for the goodwill and harm bit. Mind you, without invoking the copyright it is pretty hard to prove in court, so they are kind of biting their own behinds with that one. And they would STILL have to prove that I am either trying to trade in their name, or stealing their customers and causing a loss of profit, and since I don't trade or actually have customers it will be even more difficult. To be honest, I think they were hoping I would panic at that first letter and cave in to them, but what they didn't realise is that I don't think I am doing anything wrong, and therefore shouldn't have to give up the site, so I am not for folding so easily, if at all. It's my site and has been now for three years - why did they pick now to attack me, when it would have been so much easier at the beginning? By leaving me alone till now, and trying it on after so long, would also not be seen in a good light by the courts, so I am NOT GIVING IN!!!! I don't want their money, and I am certainly not selling my site, I just want to be left alone. After all, I haven't built up my own goodwill just to have it taken from me. Nic > I've only seen some of the traffic on the newsgroup, but I had a > question. Have you offered to put a disclaimer on your website? Perhaps > that would satisfy them, and end the dispute. > > Jim Veale I *had* thought about doing that. However, after advice I decided not to, for the fact that they probably would use that AGAINST me, by saying that I am now using TRU as a keyword to draw people to my site (since google crawls all of the page, it would probably get counted). That, and the rru site (rru.com mentioned in a previous post) also asked about that (as did another one, I think it was toysrgus) and got turned down big style :-). Even putting a link to direct people to their site (if by some extremely small chance someone *did* get confused, although I really don't see it happening) would probably get turned down as well. Nic Since this " R Us" has come up in the posts I have noticed more and more places here in NZ that are called that. I think they have a major problem on their hands if they wish to stop anyone from using it..:)) Signaturehttp://community.webshots.com/user/ollieogg > > ... I fully believe I am within my rights and am > > in no way "passing off" as they are now claiming. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (http://www.rru.com/rru/tru/sitelist.html) so it looks like you're in good > company at least. Have fun. :) > Since this " R Us" has come up in the posts I have noticed more and more > places here in NZ that are called that. I think they have a major problem > on their hands if they wish to stop anyone from using it..:)) Indeed, pity saying that doesn't actually get me anywhere ;-). The only reason they go after the little people is because they think we scare easily, and have no money to fight them, so will hand it over with no arguments. Can you imagine them gong after one of the bigger companies that would have money to fight it? Not a chance! However, since I don't actually earn any money, I should be entitled to most or all of my fees paid, so in the end it would be them losing out. So far it's just costing me for the stamps ;-). Nic It sounds like bully tactics for if they were that sure of themselves they would have sued you by now and given up doing the spam act..:) Regards Kate Signaturehttp://community.webshots.com/user/ollieogg > > Since this " R Us" has come up in the posts I have noticed more and more > > places here in NZ that are called that. I think they have a major problem [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nic > This is interesting: http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/198-4.htm#PassingOff > You might like to ask them under what article they would sue, since their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (http://www.rru.com/rru/tru/sitelist.html) so it looks like you're in good > company at least. Have fun. :) At the moment we are just asking for the copyright proof, since they made such a big deal of it in their first letter. That first article is pretty good, but it points out that "nobody has any right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else", which again is pretty useless to them since I am not a company, nor do I trade or sell goods on the site. I am not trying to pass myself off as TRU in order to make money, or as the article later says "to injure business and goodwill". They would also have to prove (again from the article) that I am using their goodwill as my own - yeah, right, no thanks! It all comes down to commercial stuff, which is something they keep bringing up to (i.e. my "company", even though I don't have one). If they ever tried to take it to court I think they would have a tough time winning as it would be really difficult to prove anything. Another thought I had was this - in the UK there is a pet shop called Pets R Us, and also a very well known tile seller, Tiles R Us. They have both made their goodwill and names in their own right, and their mark is well known. Now I wouldn't argue that TRU should be shutting them down and suing them, because they DO have the name in their own right and I know I wouldn't get them confused, although many people use that tact (if they are suing me, why not all these other sites?Doesn't work that way in court, though!). What I would wonder, though, is what extra right do TRU have to my site than these two would have (or any of the other well known trademarked companies that use the same name basis). Quite frankly, I think if anyone should be upset or annoyed it would be the pet store, NOT TRU. Still, if nothing else, it gives me something to look forward to - the postie arriving with their next letter to give me a laugh ;-). Speaking of which, they always give me 7 days to reply. We gave them 14 in the last letter, but they still haven't replied. Nice, huh? Nic |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.