BRYSON BURKE
Home
Mission
Board
History
Business Plan
Latest Information
Building Our Drill
Innovation
Photo Album
Satellite Weather
Free News - Sign Guestbook

INVESTING
Investment
Stock Quotes

COMMUNICATION
Press Releases
Newsletter
Current Information
Contact

SITE GEOLOGY
Geology Reports
Site Geologic History
Magnetic Maps Index
Heavy Minerals Index
Grenville Province Index

DIAMOND POLITICS
Blood Diamonds
Kimberley Process

DIAMOND GEOLOGY
Indicator Minerals
Kimberlites
Decay of Kimberlites
Kimberlites & Magnetics
Placer Deposits
Magnetic Reversal
Crustal Thickness
How Diamonds are Made
Glaciation Issues
Mineral Transport Index
Doing the Map Work
Gathering Samples
World Mining Index
Excavation and Recovery
Mining Corporations
Mining News Magazines
Environmental Issues
Diamonds in Space
World's Only MineCam
Live Volcano Geo-Cams

EXPLORATION
Site Exploration History
Topography Map Index
Location Map
Claim Maps Index

DIAMONDS
Diamonds and Graphite
Diamond Formation
Grading Diamonds
Price of Diamonds
Industrial Diamonds
Drilling Equipment
Medical Use of Diamonds
Gemstones
Birthstones
Hall of Fame

DIAMONDS IN CULTURE
Good Books on Diamonds
Cremains to Diamonds
Diamonds in Lawsuits
Irish Diamonds
Unusual Diamond News
Diamonds in the Media
Famous Jewelers
In Advertisements
Top Twenty Cut Diamonds
Top Diamonds
Diamond Lore
Theft/Hoaxes/and Fraud
Religion Index
Diamond/ Culture Index
Television
Movies
Games - Play Now
Music
Weddings
Royals
Our Darlings
Diamond Animal Index

INTERACTIVE
Reflection/Refraction Index
Crossword Puzzle Index
Which Is A Diamond I
Which is a Diamond II
Become a Gemologist

of Florida, alleging unfair competition and defamation.

Specifically, the owner of Diamonds.com published an article on the web which analyzes the future of the B2C business model in the jewelry industry on the web, and stated that the owner of Diamond is "in our opinion illegally and unfairly encroaching on our proprietary use of Diamonds.com as a consumer site for and about diamonds."

Commentators have mischaracterized this action as a cybersquatting action under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy or under the Anti-Cybersquatting Act. However, this is basically a trademark lawsuit involving domain names and is essentially a cyber-turf battle for the exclusive right to use the word diamond in the domain name for purposes of retail diamond sales. The fact that a lawsuit contains a dispute regarding domain names does not mean that the suit necessarily deals with the issue of cybersquatting.

The unfair competition portion of the lawsuit will ultimately turn on the issues of whether the domains Diamond.com or Diamonds.com are protectable service marks, and if so, whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the
domains.

In order for either party to be entitled to trademark rights in the domains, they will likely have to demonstrate that the respective domains are protectable. Since both
domains are used to sell diamonds, arguably the domains at first blush are descriptive with regard to that portion of the business. If the domains are descriptive then both parties are going to have to demonstrate that their use of
the respective domain has acquired distinctiveness. If the domains are in fact generic, then neither party will likely be able to stop the other party from using their respective domain.

Assuming the domains are protectable, then the issues will turn on whether there is a likelihood of confusion and which party used the domain first. In this regard,
Diamond.com was first registered by Diamond.com, LLC, an industrial user of diamonds, who sold the domain in 1993 to a domain name speculator, who ultimately sold the domain in May of this year to the current owner. On
the other hand, Diamonds.com was registered in August of 1994 and was assigned to the current owner in April of 2000. The issue will likely turn on which party used
the wording first and whether their use was continuous.

Source Reuters:2000