View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
Reply With Quoteclear cut typosquatting... yes
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the largest domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 105,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Register Today on DNForum IT'S FREE!
BuyCom.co vs. Buy.com - Would you consider this Trademark infringement?
RFC Case Number: T-B12-3T
Court Case Number: 8:12-cv-00003-AG-RNB
File Date: Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Plaintiff: Buy.com Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael L. Rodenbaugh, Erin D. Vivion of Rodenbaugh Law
Defendant: Think Tank Group LLC
Ryan Douglas Sirbaugh
Cause: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement
Court: California Central District Court
Judge: Judge Andrew J. Guilford
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block
clear cut typosquatting... yes
Yes 100% ,sorry about that no way out of that.
DG
It's a bad typo and it would be hard to brand if you develop it.
Did you have anything running on the site? Was it parked?
I'm currently buying NNN.US and NNN.INFO names! PM me if you got them!
It is parked with sedo now, but I just had it redirected to my home page for a long time. Suggestions?
---------- Post added at 06:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 AM ----------
It is parked with sedo now, but I just had it redirected to my home page for a long time. Suggestions?Originally Posted by rngrdanny22
---------- Post added at 06:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 AM ----------
You say 100%??? Why? Please explain.
---------- Post added at 06:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 AM ----------
Could you please give me some more details as to why you think so?
Though I am sure I have a strong case, I opted out of all of the drama and monopoly Buydotcom seems to have online and deleted the domain names. Does anyone know how to scrub the web of all marketing pages and links online?
Ryan, if you can't see the issue here, they'll spell it out for you in court.
Common sense... BuyCom is a typo of Buy.com. Buycom.co is a weak "late to the party" typo of the same thing. .co domains are routinely stripped on almost a daily basis through UDRP for even less egregious examples... the whole .co extension has become and example of TM squatting in this fashion. Throughout the years it has been clearly established that adding "www" to the beginning or "com" after a famous TM is not acceptable...
Is your business named Buycom? Is that your family name? No, you intentionally registered the domain BECAUSE of Buy.com's fame and the (probably misguided) idea that it would get traffic as a direct result of that mistaken connection. Sure, you can try to come up with some ridiculous excuse why that is not the reason you did it, but nobody is going to believe you. Basically, it is indefensible. The name isn't worth the registration fee, are you really planning on shelling out the $$$$$ to defend this in court? Seems they are primed to make an example out of you and are definitely prepared to spend the money to do just that.
---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------
What possible defense could you have that makes you so sure of your "strong case" pray tell? Seriously, I'd like to know your thinking on this.
oh... and you're not likely to get out of it by doing the deletion thing either, just an FYI...
Now I'm really curious..."Buy.com (Plaintiff), by its attorneys, seeks relief related to Defendants'
registration and use of the domain names <Buycom.co>, <Buycom.me>, <Buycom.mobi>,
<Buycom.ws>, <Combuy.co> and any other domain names confusingly similar to the
Buy.com trademark (hereinafter "the Domain Names") for trademark infringement, unfair
competition, and cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act and the Anti-cybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), California state law, and/or common law."
"Buy.com was founded in 1997 by Scot Blum. Mr. Blum also founded a holding
company named ThinkTank Holdings, LLC (registered in the state of Wyoming) to
house various business entities in 1999. Not by chance, Defendant Sirbaugh, in
addition to registering buycom.co and combuy.co in February 2011, registered in
November 2010, an LLC in the state of Arizona by the name of Think Tank Group LLC."
"Defendant subsequently redirected traffic from buycom.co to Buy.com and on May
4, 2011, approached Plaintiff with an offer to lease the domain name buycom.co, to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has refused to purchase rights to the Domain Names from
Defendant, and instead has maintained that Defendant is violating the law and the
Plaintiffs rights, and must cease all use of the Domain Names and transfer them to
Plaintiff."
"Defendants own registrations for a number of other domain names that are similar
to (or typos of) and potentially may be confused with, other well-known brands.
For example: Adoby.mobi, AZCardinalsCharity.org and AZCardinalsCharity.com,
CharityTimes.org and CharityTimes.info, CharityTwitter.com,
DomainsWildWest.com, FiestaBowl.us, N-B-A.info, TopMLBpicks.com,
TopNBApicks.com, and Tupperware.ws. Defendants advertise on their website at
thinktankgroup.org that their domain names are available to "buy," "rent," or
"lease" and that they are "FOR SALE."
"Defendant has used the Domain Names primarily in connection with websites that
offer domain name registration services. Defendant further used the domain name
Buycom.co, in an attempt to extort money from Plaintiff, by redirecting its
subdomains to Plaintiffs own site at buy.com, then offering to "lease" those
subdomains to Plaintiff for a "reasonable" sum of money."
They already explained to you exactly what the problem is, in far more detail than just the bits quoted above. Yet, you honestly believe you have a "strong case"?
Really?
The bolded parts are especially curious... and indicate your intentions from the start.
Yet, you knew all this already and still you come in here and ask?
My advice? Settle. Fast. Your supposed "deletion" at BloDaddy is not going to just make any of this just "go away"
Just let them waste a few grand with a UDRP......
that's the thing... they are not doing a UDRP
They filed in Federal Court, each name $100k under the Lanham act
oh... plus attorney fees.
If the OP is foolish enough to not defend himself, he's screwed $500k plus...
If he does defend, he's still screwed but maybe less.
You really should look carefully at the Trade Mark website http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...008:4digdq.2.6 and read all the documents
for the trade mark carefully. I see from those that back in 2008 someone sued the trade mark owners to try and have the trade mark cancvelled. That legal proceeding was settled WITH prejudice. You really should look closely as see whether you can get some nugget of info to fight with. Remember you are fighting this IN TRADE MARK LAW not UDRP rules and they are vastly different games. You should contact WebMagic Ventures, LLC and see WHY they settled and on what basis as may help you. Threaten the Buy.com that YOU will also be issuing cancellation proceedings if they do not settle with you. That may be way to go. I am not a lawyer so I do not accept any liability for my suggestions.
---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------
This http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/t...s-llc/summary/ is the case referred to also in documents contained on the USPTO website as being settled WITH prejudice . Might be some info to help fight them.
DG
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks