parody?? #
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:28 GMT
I thought parody was an acceptable use of trademark?
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:28 GMT
Yesterday I still had the chance to read some of this, but today it's gone. But good to see that the stimulus money has been effectively deployed in the suppression of the truth, and that the ever vigilant NY Times, noticed in a timely manner that also this bit of news was NOT fit to print.
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:28 GMT
I thought parody was an acceptable use of trademark?
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:28 GMT
Might not tip off Goldman customers, since Goldman Sachs's reputation is that it is pure evil. And incompetent.
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:28 GMT
Are there satanist supply stores? I guess there probably are.. they should have big-box retail satanist supply stores. Satans-n-Things, or Evil Buy.
Or something. I don't know.
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:39 GMT
...to use a domain name that remotely resembles your victim. Anyone wanting to find your site will use a search engine anyway, and then there's the useful service at www.sucks.com if people are just looking for a moan.
Still, Goldman Sachs are pretty much proving their opponent's point, so I hope they lose. Have these idiots ever read the US consitution. Elsewhere on the globe it is well-known for its protection of free speech. Apparently in America itself this fact is less well appreciated.
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:39 GMT
In light of your news article the dark lord himself has also decided to issue a take down notice to the site owner as even he isnt as dangerous as the muppets from the US banking system and doesnt want his mark to be associated with them!
Paris, better the devil you know
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 11:39 GMT
So that's how Goldman-Sachs makes so much money, by having very easily confused customers. :-)
Customers so easily confused, apparently, that they must be protected from any possiblility of even accidentally seeing any criticism of Goldman-Sachs.
How is it that these people haven't been "confused" out of all of their money years ago?
Oh, speaking of which, "Goldmansucks.com" seems to be for sale.
It seems that we need a "WTF" icon.
Posted Sunday 12th April 2009 20:51 GMT
Best buy lost when they tried this with bestbuysucks.com
Fry's lost with fryssucks.com
Yeah those lawyer need to sue them selfs for being stupid
Posted Monday 13th April 2009 09:07 GMT
The lawyers? Stupid? If somebody told me I could get paid 1'000$ an hour for threatening legal action which would obviously fail, I'd do it. And if they'd say I have to dance in the courtroom in a tutu, I'd ask which color the tutu.
Of course, maybe they could have TOLD Goldman that they would lose, and spare them the expense... But that would have been integrity, and lawyer swear off integrity when they get their degree.
Posted Monday 13th April 2009 20:21 GMT
The site is still there.... http://www.goldmansachs666.com/
The link in the story was missing the 's' before 666.
Paris... because she's bound to be better than this company.
Posted Monday 13th April 2009 20:21 GMT
Frankly I had no idea about this site till it became newsworthy. I guess they take themselves too seriously [but not their jobs].
PH, coz she might dig gold but she sucks diggs.
Posted Monday 13th April 2009 20:21 GMT
1) So much for free fucking speech
2) If their clients are that easily confused, then perhaps that's why they are up shit creek
3) WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CONSTITUTION?!
Here in the UK we're not even allowed to think bad things about companies or the government or our wired collars will explode
Posted Monday 13th April 2009 20:21 GMT
Yes but lawyers can get in trouble for bring suit that they know will fail or should know will fail. The fact that no one in the US has won these types of suits puts the lawyers on notice that they can't win .