WaterParkz! The New Database for Water Parks!

[the12thworld]

Hey people, WaterParkz is the new Database for Water Parks

Anyone who is an Admin, Community Leader, or actively on Parkz will be able to be Admin.

THE website will be up by next week.

Users who are admin will be able to upload WaterParkz TV youtube videos and see Admin only forum topics

Thanks, LJ

[Gazza]

Quick question, but you got permission to use the name Parkz right?

[jjuttp]

Good chance that would be a no.

[Slick]

If Richard doesn't let you use Parkz, i'll let you use "waterdreamnova" - it's got a nice ring to it.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Slick

[Reanimated35]

If Richard doesn't let you use Parkz, i'll let you use "waterdreamnova" - it's got a nice ring to it.

I glanced at that and thought you wrote "whateverdreamova"

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Not far from the 'whatever dreamnova' that it fast became...

I don't know that he'd need permission to use the 'parkz' name. Has Richard bothered to register it as a trademark?

I mean i get this:

Parkz is an independent source for theme park news, photos and more. All content copyright ©2002-2013 Parkz and its respective copyright holder. Any unauthorised use of Parkz content is expressly prohibited.

But on my take, that only refers to the content being held under copyright by the respective holder. It doesn't refer to the name - eg: when you look at a bottle of coke for example, the fine print says something like 'Coca-Cola', 'Always' the dynamic ribbon device, the contoured bottle, etc etc are copyright of blah blah blah', so in the above quote, nothing asserts ownership or rights to the 'actual name' only the content on the site.

I'm not trying to be smart, or cause unnecessary debate, i'm just honestly interested. I read up a lot on case law in various fields, and receive monthly updates from the Australian Copyright Council, so i'm just trying to find where the actual name is protected?

Simple ownership of a domain name has been proven in the past to NOT exert rights over a specific name, which in this case is only an 'alternative spelling' and nothing more. I'll be interested to see the site. I don't think the copyright council would really care if the site looked completely different, however if it was attempting to emulate this site, and misrepresent itself as being part of Parkz, I think then you'd have a case.

On the other hand Gazza, if you did want to cause a stoush over rights of use, I believe the WSDB idea was yours... that'd be the case more likely to proceed forward.

[Richard]

While I'm always happy to discuss ways that Parkz can branch out into other areas such as this, I can't imagine any scenario in which we allow the Parkz name to be used where we don't maintain control.

Definitely nothing against the idea presented — it's a good one — but get in touch with myself or others on the team here if you'd like to discuss how it can fit in with Parkz.

On the topic of trademarks, there's trademarks and registered trademarks. In terms of registered trademarks it's expensive to register and astronomically expensive to enforce, particularly as a website that covers and has content from many different countries.

[kujotess]

Im looking at making a website called WildParkz!

[the12thworld]

Gazza, you don't mind me using the WSDB idea to make WaterParkz right?

[mba2012]

Gazza, you don't mind me using the WSDB idea to make WaterParkz right?

You really should have done a bit more work getting permission from people etc...

[JacobSibbald]

You really should have done a bit more work getting permission from people etc...

It did take a while for people to notice and speak up about any trademarking issues...

[Gazza]

Gazza, you don't mind me using the WSDB idea to make WaterParkz right?

Richard is the site owner, not me.

I'm just curious as to why you used the Parkz name without asking anyway?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Gazza I think he's asking that because I pointed out that the WSDB was your idea... he's asking permission to use your idea - not the Parkz name...