New Bill Threatens Domain Registrants and Poses Risks to Internet Commerce

[lordbyroniv]

Trademark Registration is $325 per filing for the chance at a registration

Examining Attorney has to approve and also no opposition at Publication

[afloat.com]

Trademark Registration is $325 per filing for the chance at a registration

Examining Attorney has to approve and also no opposition at Publication

please explain why I should have to give the US government $325 for the fair use of each of my domains.

you guys are off the planet!

[lordbyroniv]

please explain why I should have to give the US government $325 for the fair use of each of my domains.

you guys are off the planet!

Here's why........(drum roll please).................

YOU WANT TO WIN IF AN ENTITY ATTEMPTS TO STEAL YOUR DOMAIN !!! Pure and Simple.

And, please don't whine and cry that , its not fair that you should have to register a TM to protect a domain that you already supposedly own

To quote a famous line : "There's no crying in domaining"

[afloat.com]

Here's why........drum roll please.................

YOU WANT TO WIN IF AN ENTITY ATTEMPTS TO STEAL YOUR DOMAIN !!!

And, please don't whine and cry that , its not fair that you shouldn't have to register a TM to protect your domain

To quote a famous line : "There's no crying in domaining"

yes, and this is exactly why control of the registry needs to be taken out of Americas greedy corrupt corporate hands as soon as possible.

theres an old saying here "you guys couldn't manage a root in a brothel"

[lordbyroniv]

Well, you might be right about American corporate culture, but

if you treaat domaining as a business, instead of a hobby, then just be prepared to pay your "taxes" or your "insurance" via protection against having your domain hijacked in the form of TM registrations

[Corwin]

who should i contact? do we know an attorney doing trademark registration? again the upso website is not very helpful

thank you for your help

[EJS]

Let's say you paid for a TM and a corporation still wants your name. You are still going to have to pay big bucks to defend it. The new bill could give them more tools to tie you up in courts, whereas now it would be more difficult to do that.

[sunroof]

A short time ago, I decided to start experimenting with selling email addresses on all my names that weren't developed sites, and given the news in this thread, I'm glad I did.

In 1999, a US Appeals court ruled that Avery Dennison could NOT take avery.net and dennison.net away from the owner, even though Avery had trademarks on both names. The owner of avery.net and dennison.net was Mailbank, and had registered the names for the purpose of selling vanity email addresses.

The Appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that awarded the names to Avery, ruling that selling email addresses is a valid business purpose, and let Mailbank keep the names.
Here's a link to one news article about the decision:

Avery vs. Mailbank. There are many other articles on the subject if you search for avery and "vanity email addresses".

The one problem with selling email addresses is that when you want to sell the domain name, the email address owners probably won't like losing their email address. But, I've decided to let them know when they sign up that they may lose the address in the future, and, to help sweeten the deal, I tell them that I will give them a percentage of the sales price if the name is sold and the new owner does not want to continue offering email addresses. This kind of gives the email address owner an investment interest in the name, similar to what FUSU.com is doing. I'm still experimenting with pricing and working on the details of the sign up agreement, and the design of the site is still rudimentary.

There are ways to keep names parked and sell email addresses too, which means you don't have to lose your parking revenue.

I set up the site VanityEmailAddresses.com to sell email addresses for my names. I hadn't planned to list names that I didn't own, but if anyone here is interested in listing their names on my site to sell email addresses using their names, let me know. If there is enough interest, I will do some programming to let others list and manage their names. I would have to charge something, but it shouldn't cost too much.

And, with the Avery vs Mailbank precedent in place, it provides another way to make money from your names, and gives you what the US Appeals court has already declared is a valid business purpose for owning your names. This probably won't protect names that are blatant infringements on trademarks, but for most other names, it should keep away those who might attempt a reverse hijacking under any new laws.

If you are interested in listing your names on my site, or have any questions, please PM me. Thanks.

[Adonis]

A short time ago, I decided to start experimenting with selling email addresses on all my names that weren't developed sites, and given the news in this thread, I'm glad I did.

Interesting, Sunroof. I have been thinking about such service for a while already. Extra income on your domains, and as added bonus some possible legal protection. Do you get many signups for this?

[Focus]

Again, why does anyone have to weasel around and try to find tricky ways to justify owning a domain? You own it because it's your f*cking domain!

[Gerry]

reg a mobi. No one likes them or uses them so you will never get caught.

[Adonis]

You own it because it's your f*cking domain!

I'm not entirely sure about that. It seems to me that you lease the domain from the registry that controls the TLD. You therefore, for as long as you pay up the lease fees, have the exclusive right to use the domain. Basically you don't own anything. That doesn't mean tho that they can mess around with their customers.

[katherine]

TMing your domains is an added layer of security but you need to actually use them. It's like home insurance and a gun on the bedside table.
If a perfect world we wouldn't need any of this.
But procastinating always makes one an easier prey in this litigious world.

[lordbyroniv]

But procastinating always makes one an easier prey in this litigious world.

hear hear

[Focus]

So I guess if you never "own" your domains then legally you should'nt be liable for infringing on any trademarks because they don't own their domains? In essence it should be registrar against registar for allowing domains with the tm string in the url to begin with...but don't get me started on that dark winding road..

[Dave Zan]

So I guess if you never "own" your domains then legally you should'nt be liable for infringing on any trademarks because they don't own their domains? In essence it should be registrar against registar for allowing domains with the tm string in the url to begin with...but don't get me started on that dark winding road..

Your registrar's agreement defines one another's responsibilities, relationships
and limitations. There's a clause in yours dealing with trademark infringement.

And correct, one doesn't "own" a domain name. Brett and John touched that
a bit threads ago.

OTOH, that topic of owning and what not isn't probably as urgently important
as the main topic of this thread.

[Gerry]

SenatorOlympiaSnowe.com is a parked page.

Should forward it to a dominatrix/femdom site.

The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse ("CADNA") is a 501(c)(6)
non-profit organization dedicated to ending the systemic domain name abuses
that plague the Internet today. Its members include the following global
corporations: American International Group, Inc.; Bacardi & Company
Limited; Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA; Dell Inc.; Eli Lilly and
Company; Hilton Hotels Corporation; HSBC Holdings plc; Marriott
International, Inc.; Verizon Communications Inc.; and Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation. For more information, please visit cadna.org

Isn't the 501(c)(6) the same organization that launched the "Swift Boat" attack ads against John Kerry?

CADNA™

see www.cadna.com

Sometimes I think domainers shoot themselves in the foot.

After the Virginia Tech shootings, more domain names were registered at a faster pace than any other time in history. Tens of thousands of domain names were registered in a matter of hours relating to this tragedy breaking a previous record set by Hurricane Katrina.

Many on this and other forums were steadfast in preaching their right to reg what ever the hell they please and used the nonsensical rationale "if the media is profiting off of it then so can I."

The issue, as it was repeated time and time again, was that it is the media's task and responsibility to report the news and follow-up. It was not domainers' responsibility to reg the tens of thousands of domain names for the sake of being the first one to get it.

Within hours, bogus memorial funds were established and set up seeking donations. One particular individual came on this very forum to sell his VT domain names with a heart wrenching sob story while all the domains were forwarded to adult and penis enlargement sites.

I can not recall so much press given to domain names, domaining, registrars, and web sites in the week that followed. Story after story regarding the BS sites, the money made off of a name, parking, and what was on Cho's arm made headlines and the news on the internet and local and national television media. Not a single word of it was good or in a positive light.

But yet many on this forum continued to insist that it was their right.

Myself and a couple of other members warned that this would only bring intense scrutiny on the domainers and domaining industry especially going into an election year.

It did not matter if anyone felt it was their "right" and "it is no different than the media making a buck off of it mentality." Those same sharp witted domainers forgot one thing. Mass media is powerful and influential. Domainers are not.

The media had the ability to pick up this story and broadcast it all over the planet followed by the domain registration fiasco also broadcast all over the planet.

Call it grand standing or what ever you want to call it, this has all the markings of exactly what I was referring to. Senators attempting to pass a bill limiting the use of domain names in attempts of curbing phishing scams and illegal activity. In an election year. Imagine that.

Sure, we can say this new bill is all directly related to commerce and industry. But we know its not. We can say that the VT massacre has nothing to do with this but we know that isn't true.

Not all pit bulls are bad dogs.

But it is what people do with pit bulls that give pit bulls a bad name.

I live in a county where they are now trying to pass an ordinance outlawing the breeding of pit bulls along with 4 other breeds that are deemed dangerous.

Hey, not all domainers are bad folks.

But it is what domainers do with domains that give domainers and domains a bad name.

[darkNstormy]

This thread bummed me out when I started reading it. I have yet to read through all posts to the original thread, and the entire Bill, but I wanted to leave this post anyhow. This Snowe Bill actually threatens the core of GoDaddy I feel. If the masses were reluctant to register domains because of stories about domain owners having their generic TLDs taken from them, registration would decrease and affect Bob Parson's pocket. He won't let that happen. I believe Godaddy CEO Bob Parsons is very smart, powerful and I imagine he will take some sort of action swiftly. If not, he should certainly be urged to. -- Perhaps a parking system can implement a quick blog in to their system and the domain owners can "publish" an occasional blog, hence creating copyrighted intellectual property (and rank better in the SERPS). I'm not sure if this sounds idiotic, it very well might, but there's has to be a way to outsmart them (Unless you have TLDs with other company's TMs.) But in the end maybe that's what is at the core of this Bill... stopping true TM violation and increasing ownership transparency, which is what Google wants. Blah blah blah. I'm off to read this Bill. peace.

[EJS]

This thread bummed me out when I started reading it. I have yet to read through all posts to the original thread, and the entire Bill, but I wanted to leave this post anyhow. This Snowe Bill actually threatens the core of GoDaddy I feel. If the masses were reluctant to register domains because of stories about domain owners having their generic TLDs taken from them, registration would decrease and affect Bob Parson's pocket. He won't let that happen. I believe Godaddy CEO Bob Parsons is very smart, powerful and I imagine he will take some sort of action swiftly. If not, he should certainly be urged to. -- Perhaps a parking system can implement a quick blog in to their system and the domain owners can "publish" an occasional blog, hence creating copyrighted intellectual property (and rank better in the SERPS). I'm not sure if this sounds idiotic, it very well might, but there's has to be a way to outsmart them (Unless you have TLDs with other company's TMs.) But in the end maybe that's what is at the core of this Bill... stopping true TM violation and increasing ownership transparency, which is what Google wants. Blah blah blah. I'm off to read this Bill. peace.

I agree, but as domain owners we should have to rely on Godaddy stepping up. We need to unify and not rely on the efforts of someone else to help preserve our rights.

[Nameluxe]

Domain Name Wire just posted a nice piece on the Bill with some comments from GoDaddy's Chief Counsel: http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03...g-in-disguise/