Legal battle over 4Chan nickname

Chris Poole has been known as 'Moot' online since 2003 Continue reading the main storyRelated StoriesAre 'geek' and 'nerd' now positive terms?Lifting the lid on Anti-SecWhat is this thing called Reddit? Chris Poole, founder of the image-sharing site 4Chan, has clashed with a US start-up over using the word "moot".

The row has blown up because Mr Poole has been known online by his online alias of Moot since 2003.

Oregon-based Moot.it said it chose the name because it plans to set up discussion forums for businesses and online communities.

Mr Poole has sent a legal letter to Moot.it saying its use of the name will cause confusion.

The alias "Moot" had become part of Mr Poole's "protectable right of publicity" said his lawyer in the letter, which was published on the Betabeat website.

The letter said confusion was "unavoidable" as there was a "strong association" among many internet users with Moot aka Chris Poole and discussion on 4Chan.

The 4Chan bulletin board on which people share images and post comments has a reputation for being raucous and anarchic - the Anonymous hacktivism group emerged from one of its forums.

Given that Moot.it had yet to launch, the letter "respectfully suggests" the company pick a name that cannot be confused with Mr Poole's online identity.

If Moot.it stuck with the name through to its launch and start to use the name as a trademark, Mr Poole would investigate "all options" available to him, it said.

Lawyers acting for Moot.it told Betabeat that it refuses to give up the right to use the name. Any further letters from Mr Poole and his legal team would be met with a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, they warned in comments given to Betabeat.

View the Original article

Lord of the Rings slots land Warner Bros. in legal adventure

The estate of J.R.R. Tolkien has embarked on a new quest -- this one in the courtroom.

The Tolkien estate and LOTR book publisher HarperCollins have sued Warner Bros. and other parties, claiming they've breached their contracted agreement to sell merchandise based on the famous book series.

Filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the $80 million lawsuit asserts that a prior agreement allows Warner Bros. to sell only "tangible" merchandise and not digital items, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Also tagged in the suit were Warner's New Line subsidiary and Rings/Hobbit rightsholder Saul Zaentz Co.

Tolkien's estate says it first learned of the alleged contract breach in 2010 when its attorney received spam for the "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: Online Slot Game." That triggered the estate to examine the original agreement, leading it to conclude that Warner Bros. was planning to create products outside the guidelines of the contract.

"Defendants also have asserted and continue to assert that they have rights relating to a wide variety of goods and services beyond 'articles of tangible personal property' and have registered trademarks and/or filed 'intent to use' applications in those same categories, including without limitation. hotels, restaurants, travel agencies, ringtones, online/downloadable games, and housing developments -- categories of rights which plainly have not been granted to them," the complaint said.

View the Original article