Does anyone else think that this is rude

[Squeak 17]

Royal lens has taken the URL http://www.cookiecomposite.com and redirected it to their site
so if someone makes an error in the spelling of http://www.cookiecomposites.com and leaves of the "S" in CompositeS it will redirect to Royal instead.
That seems deceptive to me

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[tunnelfly 0]

It does seem deceptive and even rude.
But look at it from the positive side. You do end up at a page for a good lens, rather than a shady directory site or even worse...

No.1 reason NOT to be an astronaut: ...You can't drink beer at zero gravity...

[PharmerPhil 0]

Guerilla net marketing 101. Yes it is rude, but smart companies buy their own misspelled domains. I used to work for Boston Acoustics, and it seemed nobody knew how to spell acoustics,... so we bought a lot of domains. My guess is that Cookie could challenge the ownership of that particular domain, but I don't know how much that would cost....

[Squeak 17]

Quote

It does seem deceptive and even rude.
But look at it from the positive side. You do end up at a page for a good lens, rather than a shady directory site or even worse...

the way i look at it is, that it leaves me felling as thought they as a company cant be trusted.
They cant stand on their own merits so that steal a name to help compensate.
I would never deal with a company like that, regardless of how good some say their product is

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[DSE 5]

Squeak, I completely agree with you. It's a small community, and that is a very inappropriate action, IMO. It's been done to me, too.
I'm hopeful that there is some reasonable explanation for this, such as maybe a third-party company managing a website/marketing is responsible or something. I'd hate to think that any skydiver would stoop this low (although I've definitely seen unethical and dishonest people around a DZ) to win business.

for the time being, I'm going to lock this thread until Max/Royal has the opportunity to step forward and comment on it. There may be a story there, maybe there isn't. If there is, then it's not right to crucify anyone without them having the right to comment, and if there isn't, I guess that'll come out too.
Please PM me if there is anything pertinent to be added to this story.

[DSE 5]

After having spoken with both parties concerned, I've reopened this thread. I'd encourage anyone with questions to contact Royal Lens via their website, or via GenFreefly here on DZ.com.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

After having spoken with both parties concerned, I've reopened this thread. I'd encourage anyone with questions to contact Royal Lens via their website, or via GenFreefly here on DZ.com.

Thanks DouglasI would like to hear peoples opinions on this, but without it turning into a slagging match.
I'm very interested in hearing what the guys at Royal have to say

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[pilot-one 0]

The early bird gets the worm.
This why some people get ahead and some people don't. Although seemingly deceptive if you look around this is how a lot of advertising works. Ever see a Cabela's billboard in front of a Bass Pro Shops and the Cabela's is 100 miles away?
I don't like it either but I don't see anything wrong with it. If somebody is looking for Cookie they'll find them. Royal is just showing that they're out there too.

[DSE 5]

Quote

The early bird gets the worm.
This why some people get ahead and some people don't. Although seemingly deceptive if you look around this is how a lot of advertising works. Ever see a Cabela's billboard in front of a Bass Pro Shops and the Cabela's is 100 miles away?
I don't like it either but I don't see anything wrong with it. If somebody is looking for Cookie they'll find them. Royal is just showing that they're out there too.

I disagree, and if Cabela's were to surreptitiously divert a road that indicated a turn to BassProShop, they'd be in serious legal trouble, aside from the obvious issues of deceptive intent with regard to a trademark.
The law is pretty clear on this, actually. If you read the link I provided to the legal action my company was forced to undertake when this was done to us, you'd be aware that there is a very broad legal precedent that could turn this into a very big issue.
If I think I'm going to Walmart and walk in and find that it's really a Sears...I've been mislead and a victim of fraud.

[bigway 4]

Edited this because something feels fishy about this thread being re-opened after i noticed that the forum moderator DSE is sponsored by Royal or 'part of the team'.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[pilotdave 0]

I think it's rude, but not deceptive. If royal had a complete "cookie composite" website and tried to confuse people (the skyride method), that would be really wrong. But instead, they just forward straight to the royal site. They're hoping that the visitor is looking for a lens and now he'll know that there's another option. I'm not saying it's right... but at least nobody could reasonably think they're buying a cookie lens when in fact they're buying a royal. I don't like it, but I don't see it as being so bad that I'd boycott royal. Course, I own a waycool anyway...
If you're tossing your royal, put it in the mail to me. I can return it to him in person for ya. Or maybe just hang on to it...
Dave

[bigway 4]

I understand everyone will feel different about it but i have watched cookie work hard to build their business from the sidelines and then to see other skydivers try and jump in on their hard work is just disgusting.

I dont think they need to be sued or anything. Australians deal with things in a more traditional manner. Ever watched State of Origin?

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[DSE 5]

So, you've spoken directly with the people at Royal lens? You know first-hand why/what/how this occurred?

I'm equally disgusted with how quickly folks will crucify. I'm impressed as hell with Cookie's silence on the matter.
Your examples don't ring similar, IMO, to this particular discussion. Everready vs Duracell doesn't lead the consumer down a false road to a different destination, nor does it trade on the reputation of one product to switch for another. And yes, in America the same cell and battery ads air.
Regardless of whether you believe Jason would "have a leg to stand on" it is an indication of your lack of knowledge in this matter. It's an international issue, and even were it not, Cookie, as a registrant with ICANN, is protected in the US by the Lanham Act. End of story. Jason already knows this.
I've spoken with all parties concerned. Can you say the same? If not, then comments like "My Royal Lens is going in the trash." You've got a fair number of posts exhorting why people should talk to manufacturers before crucifying them on the web. Since I know of several of those posts, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've spoken with Royal lens (who happen to have been outside their office and USA for the past 2 weeks) somehow. Took me a while, but I did speak with Royal directly. Even though he was out of the USA.

[bigway 4]

DSE, I was actually asking you about the law as i was unsure if he had a leg to stand on with cookie being in the Australia. and royal being in the usa

I gave you my examples and why i intepreted that i dont think he would have a leg to stand on.

I also said tried to say i was disgusted by it and would remain that way until Jason had said different as he may have an agreement with Royal or some sort of deal going with them.

No, I have not spoken to either parties involved at all. I was writing under impression and that is why i deleted my post because after looking around i realised you are sponsored by royal and had reopened the thread and that seemed a bit strange to me.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[DSE 5]

A-not sponsored by Royal.
B-if you thought about it as well as you thought out your earlier post, you'd probably realize that leaving the thread locked would be in Royal's best interest, not opening it.
I opened it, because I did take the time to speak with Jason and Max both. I've also made my position on this sort of a situation very, very clear, as it's happened to me.
I'd urge you to actually consider the implications and inferrences you've made in your edit, Gary.

[bigway 4]

DSE, I was actually asking you about the law as i was unsure if he had a leg to stand on with cookie being in the Australia. and royal being in the usa

I gave you my examples and why i intepreted that i dont think he would have a leg to stand on being an australian companies where companies can make adverts that rubbish their competitors products. My examples were from a person who watches television and the presumption i have taken from that in the regards to the law. I was seriously askign you a question about that.. I love how you have to bash my lack of knowledge because i have made an opinion on something, even though in the same post i was telling you my knowledge was not fact and that i was hoping you could explain to me the law as you knew it AS FACT after going through it. There are parts of my post you obviously hate and that is fine but i believe you did not understand that i was asking you a question and again that is fine as my education level is poor and my way pf phrasing things in writing is also very poor that it is easy to get what i was trying to say wrong. That does not mean you got it all wrong, but to more or less tell me to shut up and keep my voice to myself cause i dont know the facts while asking you a question i hope you can understand i dont find fair.

I also said tried to say i was disgusted by it and would remain that way until Jason had said different as he may have an agreement with Royal or some sort of deal going with them.

No, I have not spoken to either parties involved at all. I was writing under impression and that is why i deleted my post because after looking around i realised you are sponsored by royal and had reopened the thread and that seemed a bit strange to me.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[pilotdave 0]

I can't figure out your point here. Are you trying to get everybody that reads this thread to call Max and ask him his motivations? I don't see why anybody should have to talk to anyone before they post their feelings on the subject. Did you learn anything interesting by talking to both parties involved? I bet they'd both prefer not to get 100 phone calls on the subject, so why don't you tell us the story?

Dave

[pilot-one 0]

Quote

I disagree, and if Cabela's were to surreptitiously divert a road that indicated a turn to BassProShop

They don't divert anything other than your attention. That's what advertising is all about; Getting your attention.

Quote

aside from the obvious issues of deceptive intent with regard to a trademark.

I'm not sure where this comes in. I don't see any trademark infringements or any deceptive use of a trademark. Does the Royal website use the Cookie name or copy their products?

[alge 0]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typosquatting#Typosquatting_and_the_law - looks like Royal's infringing Cookie's trademark because they are in competition. But IANAL.

Edit: clicky.

[DSE 5]

You're welcome to disagree. You might change your position if you were to read case law related to the Lanham Act.
had I not had a dishonest person do exactly this to my business, I would never have had need to be in a court of law, nor hired an attorney, nor learned the process involved.
It's piracy in a unique sense. You see a ship with a US flag on it, you follow that ship. You cross the gangway, because you're boarding a ship known to be familiar because of the flag (brand) she's flying.
Once you're over the gangway and on the US-flagged ship, the US flag comes down and the flag of Umudica Cadinsuza is raised and you realize you're not where you thought you were.
That's not lawful. Not according to ICANN, and not according to US law.

[pilot-one 0]

Quote

You're welcome to disagree. You might change your position if you were to read case law related to the Lanham Act.
had I not had a dishonest person do exactly this to my business, I would never have had need to be in a court of law, nor hired an attorney, nor learned the process involved.
It's piracy in a unique sense. You see a ship with a US flag on it, you follow that ship. You cross the gangway, because you're boarding a ship known to be familiar because of the flag (brand) she's flying.
Once you're over the gangway and on the US-flagged ship, the US flag comes down and the flag of Umudica Cadinsuza is raised and you realize you're not where you thought you were.
That's not lawful. Not according to ICANN, and not according to US law.

I'm pickin' up what you puttin' down bro'. But I don't think they're being dishonest. It very well may be illegal I really don't know. I'm a lot of things but I'm not a lawyer. To me it's doing business in the free world. Like I said: If you don't want someone else to have it then you better get up early to get it first.
It would be nice if they would relinquish the URL to Cookie. But very rarely does the nice guy finish first.

[DSE 5]

Congress originally enacted the Lanham Act, including § 43(a) (which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), in 1946 and amended it in 1988, but in both instances provided scant guidance on how courts should construe § 43(a). This provision prohibits any use of a false or misleading description or representation in commercial advertising or promotion that "misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of. . . goods, services, or commercial activities." Courts have formulated the following elements for a claim under § 43(a):

The defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising.
That statement must have actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the audience.
The deception must have been material, in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decision.
The defendant must have caused its goods to enter interstate commerce.
The plaintiff must have been or is likely to be injured as a result.

United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1180 (8th Cir. 1998).

To obtain monetary damages - as opposed to simply injunctive relief - a Lanham Act plaintiff must also demonstrate actual consumer reliance on the false advertisement and a resulting economic impact on its own business. Finally, although § 43(a) appears to be aimed at protecting consumers, the Lanham Act provides no cause of action to consumers, only to business competitors. Barrus v. Sylvania, 55 F.3d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1995); Serbin v. Ziebart Int'l Corp., 11 F.3d 1163, 1169-70 (3d Cir. 1993).

Lanham is separate from any action that may arise from tarnishing a name, blurring the association of a mark/tradename, or diluting a trade name. "Cyber-squatting cases have used dilution protection laws as part of their foundations and won.

I've moved this to Bonfire in part, so that Lawrocket or TheCaptain may read and comment upon it. I'm not a lawyer, I merely pay a couple of them and sometimes actually learn something in the process.
And who knows....maybe the lawyers in our bunch will find me way off the mark here.

[popsjumper 2]

So you've spoken with the Royal people...what did they have to say about the situation?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Squeak 17]

Quote

So you've spoken with the Royal people...what did they have to say about the situation?

He wont tell us
I have contacted Jason at Cookie Composites, his reply is
"I have no comment on this matter"

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[DSE 5]

I'll say that he had a reasonable explanation that didn't stink of BS.