Domain King and *****.COM C&Ds

[GeorgeK]

If folks were appalled by the voyuer.com UDRP, as discussed at:

http://www.dnforum.com/f17/domain-king-loses-udrp-accused-filing-misleading-affidavit-thread-92097.html

they might be interested in knowing that this was not the first time a similar iffy claim has been made.

According to:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/acpa/...i?NoticeID=526

Howard Neu sent out a C&D to the owners of Blair*****.com, trying to pressure them into handing over the domain, or pay a licensing fee of $500 PER MONTH for 10 years. hahaha That's $60,000.

A quick search at WHOIS.SC shows 17,000+ matches for domains containing "*****", and more than 3,000 matches ending in ____*****.com (i.e. "right anchor"). Multiply that by $60,000 each, and that begins to add up.

As noted in the Voyuer.com decision, their so-called trademark registrations and claims are essentially worthless. "Factually, the supplemental register, reflecting registration when the mark has been denied, creates a presumption that the mark is merely a generic or descriptive term. "

As anyone can see, *****.COM has a similar registration, only on the supplemental register:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=75605970

Anyone receiving similar C&Ds should use them as toilet paper, as that's about the only thing they're good for.

With .xxx coming up, I think the odds are very low that those worthless trademark registrations survive any sunrise period or challenge period.

[DaddyHalbucks]

"*****" would seem to be a very descriptive/ common/ non-distinctive/ dictionary word.

Are you saying that Domain King is trying to bully another domain owner with an over-reaching or bogus trademark claim?

How does this square with his very public positions on related matters at the TRAFFIC WEST show?

Are you saying he is a hypocrite?

[GeorgeK]

The C&D speaks for itself, and in the context of the rants on www.domaindevelopers.com, any conclusions are pretty clear.

"In a nutshell it is those that are developing domains into sites that are taking the risks. What is hampering that effort is the constant barrage of frivolous litigation that the corporate giants are filing against small business and individuals in an attempt to hijack their valuable property."

That C&D seems very frivolous to me, especially after one has read the conclusions in the Voyuer.com matter.

[jberryhill]

That's really beyond goofy.

"G & S: providing adult entertainment information via a global computer network, namely, providing a directory of adult entertainment web sites together with links to such sites."

Blair*****.com is a movie parody website, and the term "*****.com" is not even used as a trademark at the *****.com website.

I wonder how many of those they sent out.

[furca]

edit: nvm :huh:

[BLazeD]

Howard Neu is DK's lawyer?

[GeorgeK]

Yes.

[Dave Zan]

Any idea what happened since then? It looks like that domain name has a new
owner now, and no UDRPs or court filings seem to have occurred.

Then again, the practice is rather...(insert your favorite adjective here)...

[Ovicide]

Howard Neu sent out a C&D to the owners of Blair*****.com, trying to pressure them into handing over the domain, or pay a licensing fee of $500 PER MONTH for 10 years. hahaha That's $60,000.

Can this be profitable?

It seems to me that even the most naive people would check with a lawyer before investing $500 per month in a "***** License."

Maybe there's some other explanation for this.

[JMJ]

What a waste of time and money. With all of the money spent on emailing the C&D's a "fool and his money" could have probably bought the one in a miillion names from the only other fool who would be stupid enough to fall for it. Reminds me of the match.com C&D's when they were doing their rounds I considered registering some match names with the hopes they sent me one so I could respond back to tell them what they could do with it.

[Acro]

I wonder if they'll come after me; with Chihuahua.biz I have a real ***** in my hands.

[JMJ]

Can C&D's work for people? If so mabey I can pay Domain King to send out one of them to my ex. lmao

[labrocca]

I have *****forums.com....If I get a C&D from this jerk I am gonna have my lawyer write a very nasty letter back.

[Ed30]

Life's a ***** and then you register one...

[jberryhill]

Any idea what happened since then?

It was just a shakedown. Notice that the letter was sent several years ago, and obviously nothing followed.

What a waste of time and money

Not necessarily. You don't know how many hundreds of form letters they cranked out, nor whether they found anyone dumb enough to pay.

[dodo1]

That's kind of scam, isn't it? In my opinion the so-called "domain king" is no
man of some account anymore since his recent domain cases... How can he
proclaim to be against domain hijacking, etc. when sending C&Ds to domain
owners just because their domains contain the GENERIC term "*****"? To my
mind that's tempted fraud.

[Rick Schwartz]

In case you are interested in WHY we did this......

And since you always have your minds made up first it may not even do any good.....but here goes. It will be a lesson for the future for me.

Here's a question for you. If you type in a specific domain name with the extension into a search engine how many website results should it return? One or millions?

If someone types in math.com to a search engine what result should a search engine come up with? And should others be able to use math.com in their description to get your traffic?

Back a few years ago there was an issue with typing in a full domain name WITH the .com into Yahoo! which should only provide the one result. Instead it was providing many results and that was stealing traffic intended for domain owners.

It happened with men.com, *****.com and even erealestate.com and there were issues with Yahoo! listing it and with other guys trying to grab traffic intended for a specific dotcom domain name by using that SPECIFIC domain name in their description over and over again. We decided to make that an issue.

TODAY, if you go to google and type in *****.com you get ONE RESULT and one result only. Not the same with Yahoo! who were the original target and to this day stills does it and gets PAID to derail that traffic.

We nearly engaged them in a lawsuit about it as when someone types in a SPECIFIC url it would only make sense to see one result. It is an exact address. We had no luck with Yahoo! after nearly a year so we went right to the folks that were using my domain names in their description trying to get listed or paying to get listed. They were making money doing that and this was a way to discourage them from doing it in the future.

Go ahead....go to google and type *****.com. Then go to Yahoo! and do the same thing. There is a big difference. Now ask the question why and apply to some of your domain names. Especially ones with a trademark.

Yahoo! still does it and it is just as wrong now as it was then and since Google does the opposite, there must be a reason.

However to Yahoo's credit they made one HUGE change perhaps in part to our objections. They don't use the exact domain name in their descriptions any longer from what I see. Before they would allow a thrid party to use MY domain name over and over again in their description and the ONLY reason for that was trying to get traffic intended for the domain owner of a domain with loads of type ins.

Question becomes should domain owners get the traffic intended for THEM when they go to a search engine and type the EXACT url into the engine or should they be free to sell it and make money? And should folks you have no relations with be able to use YOUR specific domain name in their site description in order to drive traffic to their websites?

So there are the FACTS and the motivation behind doing what we did. fwiw.

[DaddyHalbucks]

In case you are interested in WHY we did this......

And since you always have your minds made up first it may not even do any good.....but here goes. It will be a lesson for the future for me.

Here's a question for you. If you type in a specific domain name with the extension into a search engine how many website results should it return? One or millions?

If someone types in math.com to a search engine what result should a search engine come up with? And should others be able to use math.com in their description to get your traffic?

Back a few years ago there was an issue with typing in a full domain name WITH the .com into Yahoo! which should only provide the one result. Instead it was providing many results and that was stealing traffic intended for domain owners.

It happened with men.com, *****.com and even erealestate.com and there were issues with Yahoo! listing it and with other guys trying to grab traffic intended for a specific dotcom domain name by using that SPECIFIC domain name in their description over and over again. We decided to make that an issue.

TODAY, if you go to google and type in *****.com you get ONE RESULT and one result only. Not the same with Yahoo! who were the original target and to this day stills does it and gets PAID to derail that traffic.

We nearly engaged them in a lawsuit about it as when someone types in a SPECIFIC url it would only make sense to see one result. It is an exact address. We had no luck with Yahoo! after nearly a year so we went right to the folks that were using my domain names in their description trying to get listed or paying to get listed. They were making money doing that and this was a way to discourage them from doing it in the future.

Go ahead....go to google and type *****.com. Then go to Yahoo! and do the same thing. There is a big difference. Now ask the question why and apply to some of your domain names. Especially ones with a trademark.

Yahoo! still does it and it is just as wrong now as it was then and since Google does the opposite, there must be a reason.

However to Yahoo's credit they made one HUGE change perhaps in part to our objections. They don't use the exact domain name in their descriptions any longer from what I see. Before they would allow a thrid party to use MY domain name over and over again in their description and the ONLY reason for that was trying to get traffic intended for the domain owner of a domain with loads of type ins.

Question becomes should domain owners get the traffic intended for THEM when they go to a search engine and type the EXACT url into the engine or should they be free to sell it and make money? And should folks you have no relations with be able to use YOUR specific domain name in their site description in order to drive traffic to their websites?

So there are the FACTS and the motivation behind doing what we did. fwiw.

Makes sense in a self-serving sort of way... HOWEVER...

You say "why should.." Well, that may be the heart of the matter. Indeed, "why should?"

What is the standard?

Was it Lord Chamberlain who said "Equity is a rogueish thing, it is as if a man's foot were made the standard of measurement of the land?"

Rick, are you proposing that your foot --or your personal sense of entitlement --be made the standard of the internet?

The bottom line is that such rights as you allude to in the above paragraph may closely resemble trademark rights, part of the law.

As you know, trademarks require a number of conditions to be valid including: distinctiveness, first use, exclusive use in territories and fields, use in commerce, diligence, etc..

There is a real question of the distinctiveness of the word "*****." There is a real question of first use, and field of use, etc.. Let's say some guy approached you and said he had rights to the word '*****' from the 60s or 70s --would you roll over? Hell, no!

I believe the USPTO has ruled that tacking on a ".COM" to a trademark application adds no distinctiveness, although it may be allowed as part of the mark. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So, please forgive the cynics who question if your C&Ds were shakedown attempts.

I don't know anyone who has your picture on their wall with dart holes in it.
However, some of the things you have done recently including the *****.COM C&Ds , VOYUER.COM UDRP, and the TRAFFIC grudge list certainly have drawn darts, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

Instead of blaming the critics, or proposing that your foot be made the standard of measurement, perhaps you want to look at your real motivations and adjust your views and actions accordingly. Some people also call it personal growth.

[GeorgeK]

Nice try, but that still suggests you feel you have rights over every domain name ending in "*****.com". You simply don't get it, that you have no true trademark --- you demonstrated this through your voyuer.com suit, too.

Furthermore, if you REALLY believed what you are saying, did you pay anyone a "license fee" for your ownership and use of GAYSEX.COM? http://www.whois.sc/gaysex.com shows you as the owner, and that Gary Kremen has a registered trademark on the PRINCIPAL register:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=75448953

Do you want me to tell you all the multiple word domain names you own? If those are true "FACTS" and the "motivation" behind what you did, you can turn over those 2-word domains to me, to clear up your conscience that you're confusing your domains with another person's domain. I'll take the risk. Let's start with:

BESTLAUGHS.com
BADHOTELS.com (hotels.com is a registered TM, 76976907)
BIGGESTJERK.com
EBET.com (bet.com is a registered TM, 75869065)

A domain holder isn't responsible for how search engines index them (assuming they're not playing around with the metatags, etc.). Just owning a single word .com doesn't give you the right to every longer version, unless there's a REAL trademark involved (not the kind you have) AND infringing use (i.e. same category of goods and services, etc.).

Where are the C&Ds and lawsuits over the search engines? Or, did you feel you can just bully little domain holders for $60,000 in fees, rather than take on someone your own size?

[Rick Schwartz]

BADHOTELS.com (hotels.com is a registered TM, 76976907)

You are missing the point. If I have badhotels.com and all over my description I was just using hotels.com to get better placement that would be an infringment would it not? If I were just using badhotels.com as the description than there would not be an infringement.

The folks that got that C&D were all using *****.com in their description instead of their own site name. You don't see ANY difference there?

And what might the excuse be for them using erealestate.com in their description? That is not a common word.