6 thoughts on “Take Back Urban Homesteading: Video Action Day”

1. Take Back Urban Homesteading is guilty of misrepresenting the facts. At no time did the Dervaes state that the TM terms could NOT be used for not for profit bloggers. To imply that something needed to be taken back is also wrong as that statement totally misrepresents the facts of what the Dervaes actually said. When asked, Take Back Urban Homesteading will NOT produce FACTS to support its allegations. However, the Dervaes Institute can point out facts refuting Take Back Urban Homesteading ‘s unfounded allegations, How responsible is Take Back Urban Homesteading to promulgate a misrepresentation of the facts?

2. Well, yes, actually they did, by sending one of their “not a cease-and-desist” cease -and-desist letters to a blogger. Specifically, since you seem to have glossed right over it in a previous post right here and in the wealth of information available all over the place, and to cement your status as a shill for the incomprehensible actions by the Dervaes, you can see it at http://urbanhomesteadx.com/wordpress/?p=1625 just like anyone else.

   What allegations you think need to be supported by TBUH is a complete mystery, given that the support for the allegations – that the Dervaes are acting like corporate attention whores rather than the pillars of the community they like to believe they are – is plainly documented, most of it by the Dervaes family itself via their incessant need for attention and control. What “facts” you think the Dervaes have pointed out is also an oddball statement, given that the Dervaes pretty much refuse to talk to anyone at all who is asking them the questions they should be answering.

   Good luck with your continued defense of those people. Both their actions and yours are shameful.

3. The problem as I see it and from some research is that she is using the trademark “urban homestead” in her domain name which is NOT allowed under trademark laws. The rest of your comment is merely your unsupported opinions.

4. Wrong again, on all accounts. But by all means, keep flogging that chicken.

5. Just one example of possible infringement using another’s TM in domain name. Even “noncommercial ” websites have to be careful. Courts disagree, you and I disagree but at least I do research and base my conclusions on facts. In the long run, t he public does not know why (or exactly who) the Dervaes sent the letters to and the reasons as such are speculative.

   http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Use_in_commerce

   Excerpt:

   However, while trademark law distinguishes commercial and non-commercial activity, the courts have disagreed on how on-line content falls into these categories. In some instances, courts have interpreted the use of a mark “in connection with the sale of goods or services” language broadly, and have sometimes ignored the definition in Section 45 altogether, to find that domain names and corresponding websites are used in commerce even if the website does not sell goods or services.

   Under the “broad” approach, if the website content somehow affects commerce (e.g., including mere “plugs” for another), or affects the commercial value of the other’s mark or the owner’s interstate activities, some courts have found the “use in commerce” requirement satisfied for Lanham Act purposes. Other courts have rejected this “expansive” approach.

   This tension has arisen, for example, in the context of hyperlinks to non-commercial websites. Links from a non-commercial website to a commercial website have been held to satisfy the “use in commerce” requirement. Thus, where a website operator uses another’s trademark in a domain name used for a parody of the mark, or to “cybegripe” about the mark’s owner, this use loses its non-commercial status if the website contains hyperlinks to commercial websites.[19] Expanding on this reasoning, some courts have held that if hyperlinks or other webite content somehow affects commerce, the commercial use requirement is met.[20]

6. Wrong again, white knight: the public does in fact know some of the recipients of the “not a cease-and-desist cease-and-desist” letters and we do in fact know precisely why the Dervaes family sent them out. Because they said so, right in the leters and in public postings that they removed (but not before some of us captured them for posterity). It’s one thing to accuse others of being blind and ignoring things because you happen to either have some relationship (or think you do) with someone or because you may think they’re right. It’s completely another to charge in defending those people while spouting off absolute untruths like “nobody knows” or claiming it’s all speculation. It isn’t, and never has been in this case. You may like them, and that’s perfectly fine, you’re entitled to it. Some of us don’t, care even less for their ham-handed nonsense, and say so. That’s the beauty of life, really.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.