The first suit, against Avalend and Intermark Media, alleges infringement of the Habeas trademark, including infringing use of the Habeas trademark in email in order to help ensure its delivery. The second lawsuit, against Heller, Stuchinski, Clickbank and Keynetics, includes a breach of contract claim against Heller, based on the signing of a Habeas license and then using the Habeas trademark in email which did not comply with the Habeas license. The companies advertised in Heller’s email are named as co-defendants.
Sweet. Sounds like the first two are alleged to have out-and-out forged the mark without a license, and the latter three are alleged to have gained a license and breached it. Habeas’ business model relies on successful enforcement, and actively being a threat against spammers who attempt to abuse their mark. I hope this goes well for them.
BTW, for folks who cannot countenance the idea of paying for a mark to send bulk mail: Habeas’ model is just like that of Underwriters Laboratories, which performs (physical) product safety testing, and provides a mark to certify that a product has passed those tests — and can therefore be judged ‘safer’ than products that do not have the mark. In Habeas’ case, instead of a product’s safety, they vouch for a mail’s non-spamminess.
It’s not a ‘mail protection racket’ — it’s a way for you to send a mail saying ‘this trustworthy agency has vouched that this is not spam’. And if I trust Habeas, it allows me to extend that trust to you, even if I’ve never heard of you before.
Comments closed