Neteller tries to delay Youteller Launch

God I hate lawyers….

So why would a Law office in Canada make a complaint against a website in Germany on behalf of a company located in England??? Most “TradeMarks” are Nationally Bound. Yes there are some “International Trademark” Laws, but based on the research I have done Neteller’s Trandemark is registered in England and is not International. You would think Neteller would just use their English council to go after an English company for Trademark infractions. Smells bad!

But this does give me a great idea. Now since we all know what Council represents NT maybe we can all give them a call and find out when NT will pay us our money!

Keep in mind that the only reason Youteller got any attention is because Neteller was mentioned in the very first paragraph of their press release. Hardly professional if you ask me.

Then, of course, they post this PDF file – also not very professional. What reputable company do you know of goes and posts cease and desist orders on its website?

The name of the processor doesn’t matter much to me. As long as the system works well, I’m happy. YouTeller could change their name to something else and they would probably be just as successful, since the demand for a good NETeller replacement is so high right now.

Here’s the main part of the letter…

It has come to our client’s attention that Seed Capital Ltd. operating as YOUTELLER is operating or preparing to operate a business providing services which are similar or identical to those provided by our client. Accordingly we hereby demand on behalf of our client that Seed Capital Ltd. Cease to use or display the trade marks YOUTELLER or YOUTELLER.COM in the promotion or provision of services which are similar or identical to those provided by our client. Such use by Seed Capital Ltd. Causes confusion, including initial interest confusion leading to persons familiar with the TELLER-suffixed brand of services to believe Seed Capital Ltd. is somehow affiliated with, related to or endorsed by our client. It is not a defense to suggest that after applying for an account it may be the ordinary consumer’s conclusion that the source of the YOUTELLER brand services is different. By then, Seed Capital Ltd. has benefited from our client’s reputation and goodwill.

Unless you immediately take steps to transition to a brand that is not infringing, Neteller will instruct counsel to immediately review all legal remedies against Seed Capital Ltd., including all available remedies to prevent impending harm, to enjoin further use of the infringing marks and to seek an order for damages, legal costs and other remedies commensurate with your brazen attempt to launch a new brand coat-tailing on Neteller’s reputation and goodwill.

We require correspondence from you indicating that you will comply by no later than Monday, March 5, 2007.

There have been people posting for months that youteller is affiliated with neteller therefore the confusion has already been established.

I think neteller is just giving them an opportunity to change their branding before laying the hammer down. They will lose on the basis that it is confusingly similar and registered in bad faith with the intent to profit on the neteller name.

This is a great website for disputes involving trademarks and domain name disputes etc.. http://www.chillingeffects.org

Now my opinion of youteller – It is simply is not a viable solution to problems in the United States. The DOJ allegedly interfered with payments via automated clearing houses.. This is 55 million dollars in a matter of a few days. Youteller, if they are indeed licensed, is very limited per the small e-money issuer licensing agreement. Maybe I’ve read the application wrong, but it seems that they have to meet all of the following requirements.

The first condition applies if:
(1) the small e-money issuer does not issue e-money except on terms that the electronic
device on which the monetary value is stored is subject to a maximum storage amount of
not more than 150 euro; and
(2) the small e-money issuer’s total liabilities with respect to issuing e-money do not (and will
not) usually exceed 5 million euro and do not (or will not) ever exceed 6 million euro.

A20 The second condition applies if:
(1) paragraph (1) of the first condition is met;
(2) the small e-money issuer’s total liabilities with respect to the issuing of e-money do not (or
will not) exceed 10 million euro; and
(3) e-money issued by the small e-money issuer is accepted as a means of payment only by:
(a) subsidiaries of the small e-money issuer which perform operational or other ancillary
functions related to e-money issued or distributed by that small e-money issuer; or
(b) other members of the same group as the small e-money issuer (other than subsidiaries
of that small e-money issuer).

A30 The third condition applies if:
(1) paragraph (1) of the first condition and (2) of the second condition are met; and
(2) e-money issued by the small e-money issuer is accepted as a means of payment, in the
course of business, by not more than one hundred persons where:
(a) subsidiaries of the small e-money issuer which perform operational or other ancillary
functions related to e-money issued or distributed by that small e-money issuer; or
(b) those persons have a close financial or business relationship with the small e-money
issuer such as a common marketing or distribution scheme.

And finally at the end of the form they ask this: A40 Have the relevant provisions referred to in A10 to A30 been met throughout the YES NO
reporting period? (please tick appropriate box)

I know that I’m ranting right now, but it’s twenty five cent pint night at the pub tonight, and I’m a little wasted. (yeah..I live in texas, and I use the word pub..dated quite a few scottish women LOL)

as always, just my two cents.