EA unable to gain rights to SSX.com
43
EA, in an attempt to gain ownership of SSX.com ahead of the series' February relaunch, challenged Abstract Holdings International LTD's claim on the address, saying that the URL was registered in "bad faith." A panel at The National Arbitration Forum, however, has determined that EA's argument was insufficient.
"The EA allegations of bad faith in part are based upon the lack of due diligence conducted by retailers of domain names like Respondent," the Forum determined. "EA would seem to require that entities like Respondent conduct an international search for relatively obscure trademarks in order to determine whether a name is a registered mark. The Panel is not willing to go so far."
In this case, EA's claim of "bad faith" hinged on the fact that SSX.com briefly contained video game-related advertisements. Since these advertisements are now gone, there's nothing inherently malicious or misleading about the site, negating EA's ability to claim any misuse. For now, SSX.com remains the property of Abstract Holdings, although we imagine several zeroes and a few commas written on EA letterhead would change their minds.
"The EA allegations of bad faith in part are based upon the lack of due diligence conducted by retailers of domain names like Respondent," the Forum determined. "EA would seem to require that entities like Respondent conduct an international search for relatively obscure trademarks in order to determine whether a name is a registered mark. The Panel is not willing to go so far."
In this case, EA's claim of "bad faith" hinged on the fact that SSX.com briefly contained video game-related advertisements. Since these advertisements are now gone, there's nothing inherently malicious or misleading about the site, negating EA's ability to claim any misuse. For now, SSX.com remains the property of Abstract Holdings, although we imagine several zeroes and a few commas written on EA letterhead would change their minds.
Reader Comments (43)
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:23PM kvn7918 said
How about using ssxgame.com.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:23PM baby sea tuna said
Ah, standard domain squatting. I was hoping for something a little ssxier. (dot com)
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 8:27PM kentuckyfried said
@baby sea tuna
ssx.xxx is probably still available.
Dick move by the other company.
Reply
ssx.xxx is probably still available.
Dick move by the other company.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 9:12PM Morisato13 said
@kentuckyfried
One man's "dick" is another man's "good business practice". Wait that doesn't sound right.
Domain squatting can be very profitable if lucky. If you squat for the sole purpose of making money, why would you just give it away for cheap? It negates your whole purpose of squatting it in the first place.
Reply
One man's "dick" is another man's "good business practice". Wait that doesn't sound right.
Domain squatting can be very profitable if lucky. If you squat for the sole purpose of making money, why would you just give it away for cheap? It negates your whole purpose of squatting it in the first place.
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 12:51AM kentuckyfried said
@Morisato13
I know, I know, it's good business, but..it's opportunistic and unsavory to my moral sense of good. The U.S. government should put a stop to that domain squatting nonsense.
I remember picking up an extra PSP when it first came out, and I sold it at a $50 markup on Craigslist. Paid for my copy of Lumines basically. Anyhow, when I received the cash and handed the guy the PSP, he gave me the nastiest look, I can't ever forget.
Best to just practice capitalism on Ebay instead so I can turn a blind eye.
Reply
I know, I know, it's good business, but..it's opportunistic and unsavory to my moral sense of good. The U.S. government should put a stop to that domain squatting nonsense.
I remember picking up an extra PSP when it first came out, and I sold it at a $50 markup on Craigslist. Paid for my copy of Lumines basically. Anyhow, when I received the cash and handed the guy the PSP, he gave me the nastiest look, I can't ever forget.
Best to just practice capitalism on Ebay instead so I can turn a blind eye.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:25PM Stevetrop Man of Mystery said
That's one pretty sunset ssx has there.
Tough break EA. Better luck next time.
Tough break EA. Better luck next time.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:35PM Blay said
Game companies need to stop buying the domains from the aholes that do this for money. Just use something else and if they decide to use it to bash your game because they didn't get the payout they wanted then that is when you open the case and get the domain back.
Time to stop rewarding people who buy domains like that with only the intent on holding them ransom.
Time to stop rewarding people who buy domains like that with only the intent on holding them ransom.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 8:28PM kentuckyfried said
@Blay
I'm surprised that legislation hasn't been introduced to stop this practice from happening anymore.
Reply
I'm surprised that legislation hasn't been introduced to stop this practice from happening anymore.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 9:20PM Morisato13 said
@kentuckyfried
Because there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. If there was something wrong with it, then the second hand stock market should get shut down too as buying low and selling high is the exact same concept. The value of the domain is shit, so you buy it hoping that the price will rise for whatever reason. IF it does... and that's a pretty big if as no one is obligated to buy the domain from you, then you sell for a higher price than you bought it for plus the money it costs every year to hold on to it. There would be no point of buying a domain or stocks if it didnt have the chance to make money, but with that chance, also comes a chance to lose money. As the OP said, companies should just not pay, but there's no reason for it to be illegal.
Reply
Because there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. If there was something wrong with it, then the second hand stock market should get shut down too as buying low and selling high is the exact same concept. The value of the domain is shit, so you buy it hoping that the price will rise for whatever reason. IF it does... and that's a pretty big if as no one is obligated to buy the domain from you, then you sell for a higher price than you bought it for plus the money it costs every year to hold on to it. There would be no point of buying a domain or stocks if it didnt have the chance to make money, but with that chance, also comes a chance to lose money. As the OP said, companies should just not pay, but there's no reason for it to be illegal.
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 12:52AM kentuckyfried said
@Morisato13
The stock market is different though, right, b/c it doesn't involve shafting somebody else in the process when you guy X numbers of shares of stock in that company?
Reply
The stock market is different though, right, b/c it doesn't involve shafting somebody else in the process when you guy X numbers of shares of stock in that company?
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 10:33AM Morisato13 said
@kentuckyfried
Someone gets shafted on stocks too. In order for a stock to be sold, there must be a buyer. When you want to sell, you're assuming that the stocks will tank once you get rid of it, so you're essentially betting on the next person who holds those stocks you're trying to get rid of to lose money.
Reply
Someone gets shafted on stocks too. In order for a stock to be sold, there must be a buyer. When you want to sell, you're assuming that the stocks will tank once you get rid of it, so you're essentially betting on the next person who holds those stocks you're trying to get rid of to lose money.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:35PM Faceless Troll said
horns.aiff
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:41PM Vcize said
Suck it, EA.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:43PM whatkey said
@That One Guy
Snowboard Super Cross
Snowboard Super Cross
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:44PM whatkey said
@whatkey
Or Super Sexy Xylophone
Or Super Sexy Xylophone
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:44PM TheBatman4141 said
@That One Guy
Super Snow Cross?
Super Snow Cross?
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:45PM Jamvaan said
SSX comes out next month? I seem to have lost some time.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:48PM DarkSonata said
Ok so here's the deal people:
Abstract Holdings business is to buy and resell generic domain names, they bought this domain name (ssx.com) as part of a portfolio with a total of 40 domain names.
This domain name was actually registered about 4 years before EA filled the SSX trademark (anyways that's irrelevant to the domain name dispute rules because the domain name was resold, but just so you know, the domain name was not squatted)
The reason they are holding the domain is because there was not enough evidence of "bad faith" in the use of this domain, and because AH has legitimate interest on this domain (quoted from the resolution letter found at http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/1415905):
"The domain name, , is comprised of common or generic letters. Complainant clearly does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term. The number of other persons or entities holding identical if non-competing marks and the number of other users with rights in the name are clear evidence of the limited ownership claims of the Complainant. Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ΒΆ 4(a)(ii)."
So there you have it.
Abstract Holdings business is to buy and resell generic domain names, they bought this domain name (ssx.com) as part of a portfolio with a total of 40 domain names.
This domain name was actually registered about 4 years before EA filled the SSX trademark (anyways that's irrelevant to the domain name dispute rules because the domain name was resold, but just so you know, the domain name was not squatted)
The reason they are holding the domain is because there was not enough evidence of "bad faith" in the use of this domain, and because AH has legitimate interest on this domain (quoted from the resolution letter found at http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/1415905):
"The domain name, , is comprised of common or generic letters. Complainant clearly does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term. The number of other persons or entities holding identical if non-competing marks and the number of other users with rights in the name are clear evidence of the limited ownership claims of the Complainant. Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ΒΆ 4(a)(ii)."
So there you have it.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:05PM Unarmed Turkey said
@DarkSonata
Well that's one way to kill an opionated discussion on an open forum.
Lock this article nothing else left to see.
DarkSonata please turn out the lights.
Reply
Well that's one way to kill an opionated discussion on an open forum.
Lock this article nothing else left to see.
DarkSonata please turn out the lights.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 4:24PM DarkSonata said
@Unarmed Turkey why is it not thanksgiving? I want turkey, and if they don't have a weapon to retaliate, it's even better
Reply
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 2:57PM Warlock234 said
I surprised they didn't have this like 10 years ago.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:14PM baby sea tuna said
@Warlock234
You mean back when the brand was actually kind of relevant?
Reply
You mean back when the brand was actually kind of relevant?
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 1:46AM ThatGuyFromTV said
@Warlock234 yeah, the brand hasn't been too relevant in a while, so continuing to invest money in the website would have been a waste. This isn't the same as the modernwarfare3.com fiasco either, where the guy used it to slam MW3 and promote BF3. ssx is more or less a sequence of random letters without the EA franchise giving it relevance, not to mention it's disturbingly close to "sex". That alone gives it a bit of value as a domain name.
Reply
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:02PM Lerkero said
I guess it would be nice to have ssx.com redirect to ea.com/ssx, but so many people use search engines to find websites these days that anyone interested in SSX would probly search google first then go to ea.com/ssx
Google is still reporting that facebook.com is one of its most frequent searches. If people don't bookmark or type Facebook.com into their url bar then I doubt ssx.com would be much different
Also, don't pay domain squatters. It reinforces their behavior. I don't know why this company wants ssx.com, but if they are asking for too much money then they probly don't deserve it.
Google is still reporting that facebook.com is one of its most frequent searches. If people don't bookmark or type Facebook.com into their url bar then I doubt ssx.com would be much different
Also, don't pay domain squatters. It reinforces their behavior. I don't know why this company wants ssx.com, but if they are asking for too much money then they probly don't deserve it.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:26PM Scuffles said
GOOD .... I'm getting tired of everything under the sun needing its own freaking domain ..... what the hell is wrong with ssx.ea.com? eh?
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 1:50AM ThatGuyFromTV said
@Scuffles actually that's a good point. Don't they do that for Battlefield and Skate already?
Reply
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:26PM ChaosBladez said
Is ssx.xxx open?
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 8:30PM kentuckyfried said
@JasonA
It should feature everybody in the buff, just to be fair, guys and girls.
Reply
It should feature everybody in the buff, just to be fair, guys and girls.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:44PM Mcmax3000 said
I agree that the company that owns the domain isn't doing anything malicious or intentionally confusing with it but at the same time, I don't agree with the wording in the decision that calls EA's trademark "obscure".
It's an internationally released game series that has existed for over a decade, on multiple platforms.
I realize that it's not a horrendously mainstream game or anything but I wouldn't call that an obscure trademark.
It's an internationally released game series that has existed for over a decade, on multiple platforms.
I realize that it's not a horrendously mainstream game or anything but I wouldn't call that an obscure trademark.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 10:03PM Mcmax3000 said
@Scuffles - I'm well aware that there are a lot of non-gamers that probably have no idea what SSX is...
However, a quick two second Google search of the letters yields nearly all results for the game so that's why I don't consider it an obscure trademark. It's not like it was used for one single item 15 years ago that nobody has ever heard of.
The statement implies that it would take significant effort to have found out that SSX is something that's under trademark.
Reply
However, a quick two second Google search of the letters yields nearly all results for the game so that's why I don't consider it an obscure trademark. It's not like it was used for one single item 15 years ago that nobody has ever heard of.
The statement implies that it would take significant effort to have found out that SSX is something that's under trademark.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 3:47PM Ectoplasm said
I'm pleased to see them utterly fail at acquiring something they have no right to. Anyone ever read up on the Nissan domain? Go to it. Yeah, it's been like that for almost 13 years.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 4:47PM Hookah said
This makes me so happy.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 4:56PM Protege420 said
im afraid to goto said website at work
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 5:00PM sigma8 said
"although we imagine several zeroes and a few commas written on EA letterhead would change their minds."
I will pay you 000,000,000,000 dollars for the domain!
I will pay you 000,000,000,000 dollars for the domain!
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 7:37PM TubaDude49 said
@TheBatman4141 The guy two posts up was right.
Snowboard Super Cross
Snowboard Super Cross
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 7:55PM Bakabakabaka said
This is why I can't wait until we start using domain names such as
ssx.ea, halo.xbox, etc.. so that we can finally move on and not have "limited domain names" as we do now.
ssx.ea, halo.xbox, etc.. so that we can finally move on and not have "limited domain names" as we do now.
Posted: Jan 6th 2012 9:22PM Midnitte said
As much as I hate EA.... this is pretty lame: who the hell thinks of Abstract Holdings? SSX is associated with the damn game in people's mind
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 1:38AM ThatGuyFromTV said
@TubaDude49 I thought it was something like Super Snowboarding Xtreme. Thank god, Snowboard Supercross is way better.
Posted: Jan 7th 2012 2:43PM (Unverified) said
Naw... "Abstract Holdings" couldn't possibly have an interest in holding such abstract concepts as web domain names...







