Visa vs. evisa.com In Vegas

wessman writes "In October 2002, Visa (the credit card company) convinced a Las Vegas federal court to prevent the small business JSL Corp. from using the term 'evisa' and the domain 'evisa.com' for its website offering travel, foreign language, and other multilingual applications and services. The court ruled that the website--run by Joe Orr from his apartment-- 'diluted' Visa's trademark, even though the site uses the word 'visa' in its ordinary dictionary definition, not in relation to credit card services. Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is helping JSL with an appeal. The EFF has a press release available."

That's absurd.

[mindstrm]

I mean, I know this is slashdot, and a million people are going to say the same thing...

but that's rediculous. A VISA is a very, very common international term NOT related to credit cards.
If the site was about any kind of financial transaction providing, I'd say this was completely justified.....

Well

[damiam]

I hate to say it, but I think Visa's got a case. My first thoughts when I see evisa.com are "electronic Visa". There is legitimate potential for confusion here (unlike the Lindows case). Now, you can argue that Visa shouldn't be allowed to trademark dictionary words, and you're probably right, but legally Visa's on solid ground.

No case needed

[erpbridge]

...unless Visa (credit card corp) is planning on going into the travel visa business with a one-card system (all your info is based on the numbered tracks on your card, which reference a central database). Even then, there is no case at current until Visa owns the travel visa process.

I can't believe they convinced a Las Vegas federal court that it was a legit case. It should have been laughed out by the judge in less than 10 minutes. There is no way this should have gotten this far.

Visa will lose

[kitzilla]

Visa will lose on appeal. Though eVisa provides SOME services also provided by Visa credit cards, their core business is entirely different and they are using the term "visa" in its common, not proprietary, sense. Unless Visa can produce some proof of eVisa's *intent* to derive value from the Visa mark (through internal communications or similar graphics), they'll lose.

I, for one, cannot imagine how someone might be mislead into thinking that they were utilizing Visa's credit services.

Re:Well

[Tyler Eaves]

Frankly, bullshit.

That's like saying Microsoft could sue 'ewindows.com', a site that sells windows, of the glass variety...

Trademarks only apply to specific trades

[rcw-home]

Visa owns the trademarks to both E-Visa and to eVisa.

Only in the credit card trade, I would imagine. Visa would have to either prove that their eVisa trademark is 'famous', or prove that evisa.com is in the credit card business to win this suit.

Re:Well

[damiam]

They could, if they already owned e-windows.com [e-visa.com].

Re:Of *course* Visa owns the evisa trademark

[xingix]

Exactly. evisa.com has been around since 1997. If I open a store called epillows.com and don't trademark the name and some big pillow company decides to trademark epillows and e-pillows, there's no way in hell they're taking my domain without a fight.

Re: The AC is full of it here

[LuxFX]

While USPTO.gov does state that Visa's Trademark application was roughly 2.5 weeks prior to the defendant's, the JSL (the defendant) application includes dates for first use and first use in commerce:

Visa's application: August 19th, 1999
JSL's application: October 6th, 1999
JSL's First Use/in Commerce: December 27, 1997

This handily beats out Visa's information, which doesn't include these dates at all. IANAL, but as far as I know the date of established use trumps date of application.

In fact, it could even be argued that JSL Corporation (the defendant) could sue Visa for dilution of trademark.

-----------------

Re:Overzealous...

[mbogosian]

That's like San Fransisco suing eBay...

Actually, it's more like eBay suing San Francisco. The term visa was here long before the corporation of the same name was.