Blatant TMs

[randomo]

I receive Pool's daily "hotlist," which shows about 20 of the most promising deleting domains.

Yesterday, I sent them this email:

----------
I know you don't check every domain for possible TM violations ... but it still reflects badly on Pool when your daily "hotlist" of deleting domains includes things like verizonaccountonline.com (on today's list). I'd suggest that you at least check the lists before you email them to people, to ensure that you're not advertising blatant TM-violating domains.
----------

Today I received from them a reply, basically stating:

----------
Thousands of domains are deleted every day and we do not have the resources to review each one [...]
----------

And look what showed up on today's "hotlist": verizonbillpay.com

Does anybody else think this makes Pool look bad? Or is it just me? (I'm sure they're not alone in listing TM domains, but those are some ridiculous examples to be selecting as "quality domains that will be deleting tomorrow.")

[biggedon]

namejet sends out similiar lists, that contain similiar names.....which have "already" received bids from other people.

i wouldn't make it my biz to police a drop catcher

[draggar]

And to add in an automatic rejection script probably isn't that hard to make - just have it look up to see if a domain contains certain keywords when it is submitted.

KW like:
microsoft
verizon
google

Etc.. - although some TMs like windows and dell might be harder to catch.

[sdsinc]

I completely agree with you. They should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.dnforum.com/f31/pool-enco...ad-259445.html

If they decide to feature so-called hot domains (which could be construed as an endorsement), the least they could do is to review them manually.
It's no wonder most people would consider domainers unethical people. Do we really need that kind of publicity

Maybe one day they will get sued like onlinenic and put out of business

[Onward]

Their response to you is typical of what I have found with pool...

I continue to avoid them at all cost.

[Marketing Guru]

They won't change it because they are, in part, in the business of selling other peoples trademarks.

- MG

[Pool.com]

Filtering on TM names is not a bad idea but is difficult to implemetn oni a grand scale. You should all remember of course that the names in the hot list are just that "hot" which means thay have been ordered by customers. We don't go after domains for ourselves we only go after domains that custoemrs place orders for and some customers may have valid rights tot he domains they are ordering.

[Acro]

I find it refreshing that Pool.com is actually responding to posts - unlike the NameJet guys.

[Raider]

Pool has been doing this for as long as they have been in business, This is nothing new. Pool can easily edit out the hotlist but they wont, Their in business to make money even it includes selling domains that infringe on corporate trademarks.

Unless drop catchers are sued for peddling in trademark domains, it will be business as usual.

[Pool.com]

Hey Raider, I appreciate your comments but you are missing one very important point, we are only going after domains that our customers place backorders for. If our customers order TM domains, we will try to get them. Our business is not to mediate on trademark disputes and believe me we have acquired names in the past where we acquired a TM name that was UDRP'ed, and our customer WON the dispute! I only provide this to exemplify that not all TM orders are as bad as you suggest and who should be the arbitrator? Well, ICANN has said the arbitrators are those who have been authroized to conduct UDRPs and such.

[Doc Com]

The technology does exist to purge the lists of TM violations.

No one will start using it until a lawsuit is filed making these drop catchers culpable for facilitating the sale and transfer of Trade Marked property much like pirated DVD's etc.

And, these drop cathers, auctions, and so on know it.

No point in taking these names down when business is good...or bad!

[draggar]

Originally Posted by Raider

Unless drop catchers are sued for peddling in trademark domains, it will be business as usual.

But can they get sued / charges pressed against them?

Say I backorder CocaCola.com though Pool (someone was really asleep at the wheel).

I pay Pool $60 for the domain (many more people asleep at the wheel).

But, Pool has a registrar, usually something like BobtheRegistrar.com to get it for them. They pay Bob some money and I get an account with Bob the registrar.

Pool didn't actually do anything illegal (as far as I can tell), they just told us what domains were becoming available and acting like a middle man for the money.

Seems like the only person who would be guilty of anything would be the new owners of the domain. Pool just waved the domain in their face and the registrar registered it at their request.

I think a legal case would be a hard sell against any drop-catch service.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by theinvestor

...who sell guns are responsible for the deaths.

How can that be?

Most NRA members vote GOP?

Oh, I see.

It is only democrats, liberals, and other third party members that smuggle guns, commit crimes, and homicides.

No God fearing, flag waving, conservative, Rush Limbaugh listening republican voting person would ever think of committing such an offense.

[Pool.com]

But, DocCom, you miss the most important point and that is what if the legitimate TM holder wants to order the domain? Shouldn't they be allowed? And what if there is more than one person that owns the TM? Shouldn't they all be allowed? And who is to decide which TM owner has more validity over another? This is not the job of the drop catcher.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by draggar

But can they get sued / charges pressed against them?

To my knowledge, thus far no charges against drop catchers or registrars have stuck regarding TM violations, etc.

This was attempted back about 10 years ago.

There is an attorney on this forum who discussed this very issue with me quite some time back. The discussions were email correspondence. Very rarely makes a post here.

Although that was the case several years back, times have changed and new litigation is pending regarding registering, selling, transferring domain names. The TM and brand holders realized that the money is in the registrars and such and not typically the domainer. I think it is a realization that you have to go to the source of the problem, much like the drug war and Reading is Fundametal programs, which obviously on this forum both have failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Pool.com

But, DocCom, you miss the most important point and that is what if the legitimate TM holder wants to order the domain? Shouldn't they be allowed? And what if there is more than one person that owns the TM? Shouldn't they all be allowed? And who is to decide which TM owner has more validity over another? This is not the job of the drop catcher.

To suggest that a TM holder wants to order or backorder something that is already theirs is absurd.

Simply WIPO/URDP and end of game.

One or more than one person/entities own the word or have rights to the domain? Again, if it is known TM irregardless of holder or rights then it should be pulled.

If one or more make a claim and that claim is backed by a simple TM database check then private auctions.

These systems and checks are already in place. Drop catchers act like it is too expensive or time consuming to implement. That is total bull.

Why dropcatchers/registrars/auctions do not want to clean up their own act or be subjected to ICANN oversight is beyond me.

It does not matter if the Snowe Bill is a bunch of crap. It does not matter that the Department of Commerce has issued a statement strongly urging ICANN to reconsider its position. It does not matter if there are Senate hearings and Congressional subcommittees ongoing as we type regarding these very issues.

It does not matter if there are now at least two systems in place to block all parked pages, typo and brand squatting and one of those systems has identified 42 million sites/pages that fit this description.

What matters is the industry has turned a blind eye to all of this while the money is good and flowing, even in a downturn economy.

What matters is due to poor over site and policing of self, now congressional members and internet commerce enforcement organizations feel compelled to make an issue out of it.

Call it grandstanding or a ploy for the headlines or campaign fodder.

The fact remains that it is an issue, a big issue, and these very commitees, organizations, and lawmakers represent the global consumer and not domainers interests.

The problem with domainers is they are domainers. They think the control the internet and every thing on it.

Domainers in fact make up a minute portion of the nearly 6.5 billion people on this planet.

Is a member running for congress going to appease the 47,000 members of this forum by voting down any attempt to regulate the industry? Or do you think that congressional member may want to represent the 30,000,000 voters in his home state?

All of this is a signal, a strong signal in my opinion, that it is past time to clean up your own act before your act is banned and shut down.

I am getting ready to have a TM finalized as we speak. All is a go and I should be hearing any day that the TM is registered.

You can damn well better believe that if a name is registered after the fact and it is sold, traded or auctioned off that it will be a clean sweep of the registrar who permitted the registration, the person who registered the name, and the auction company that facilitated the sale and trade of trademarked material. And I feel confident that I could find an attorney or even someone from the State Attorney General's office to take the case on a pro bono basis. Controversy makes great publicity and it is free press coverage that most could not afford to pay.

A statement in the TOS does not release any one involved of any wrong doing. Some think it does, others don't think so.

Am I guilty of violating these issues?

Yup.

Its a matter of time for me and all involved in the domaining business.

Time for domainers to quit thinking and speaking like a domainer and act more like a consumer and see things from that perspective.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by draggar

I think a legal case would be a hard sell against any drop-catch service.

You would think so, but I wouldn't rule it out since any trademarked domain could be allowed to drop instead of pushing it to auction, which the Registrars would also be liable.

[Pool.com]

The problem with UDRP and/or WIPO is expense. If a TM owner can reclaim their domain by simply placing a $60 bacorder, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? And it is simply not practical for a drop catcher to maintain a constant up-to-date TM database for all TM offices world wide. There are companies that provide that service at a fee of course. But with 50,000 domains dropping each day do you really think someone has the resources to idenitfy daily what domains pose a TM violation? As I said some companies do that but they charge a feeto make that determination.

Indepent of the issue of making dropping TM domains available to TM owners, DocCom you seem to think the problem of monitoring dropping domains against a TM database is an easy enough task to do, why don't you do it? And offer the service for free to all potential purchasers so that they can assess the possible TM issues before placing an order.

[biggedon]

i think "pool.com" is doing a service by trying to explain, but some keep comparing domains to oranges

they are not comparable

it's no point in arguing, because pool has the right to place a backorder and no TM owner, owns a domain until he/she pays for it

TM owners don't have any pre-guaranteed rights or ownership to a dropping domain.
they must go thru the same channels to get it like we do or go thru legal means to take possession.


and Please keep the topic on the topic

Thanks

[whitebark]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

The problem with UDRP and/or WIPO is expense. If a TM owner can reclaim their domain by simply placing a $60 bacorder, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? And it is simply not practical for a drop catcher to maintain a constant up-to-date TM database for all TM offices world wide. There are companies that provide that service at a fee of course. But with 50,000 domains dropping each day do you really think someone has the resources to idenitfy daily what domains pose a TM violation? As I said some companies do that but they charge a feeto make that determination.

Indepent of the issue of making dropping TM domains available to TM owners, DocCom you seem to think the problem of monitoring dropping domains against a TM database is an easy enough task to do, why don't you do it? And offer the service for free to all potential purchasers so that they can assess the possible TM issues before placing an order.

Yes that all makes sense but the issue is with the daily email hotlist. How hard is it to prescreen it before sending it daily? It would take all of ten seconds... Same goes for the weekly hot .ca dropping domains. Someone is picking those out by hand are they not?

[randomo]

Originally Posted by theinvestor

Raider has twisted thinking.

She also thinks people who sell guns are responsible for the deaths.

Originally Posted by Doc Com

[...]
Oh, I see.

It is only democrats, liberals, and other third party members that smuggle guns, commit crimes, and homicides.

Guys, can we please not turn every single thread into a political flame war? Stay on topic!

Originally Posted by Pool.com

And what if there is more than one person that owns the TM? Shouldn't they all be allowed? And who is to decide which TM owner has more validity over another? This is not the job of the drop catcher.

This actually contains some interesting points, which I hadn't considered before starting this thread. There may be good counterarguments (e.g., some TMs are readily identifiable as the property of only company), but I'm glad Pool is at least making a good discussion out of this.