Domain Typo's - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**NameTower** · 08-04-2004, 11:24 AM

If there is a big site with no tm's.

Let's use this name for example:

TheCoolSite.com

The site gets really big and people start registering typo's of it.

Is the owner entitled to the domain typo's:

ex. thecolsite.com

Is this something URDP would handle? Or is URDP *just* for registered TM's.

Thanks for your help.
- Jordan

**wolfis.com** · 08-04-2004, 02:09 PM

jordan :

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2004-0018.html

hope this answers your question

**Peace** · 08-04-2004, 02:19 PM

Discussion and Findings

"the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights"

"Staples" is a TM...what about the names with no TMs associated with them?

**wolfis.com** · 08-04-2004, 02:24 PM

...or service mark in which Complainant has rights...

i am quite sure that this also applies to no tm's - (bad faith registration)

**NameTower** · 08-04-2004, 03:04 PM

Yeah No tm's sm's etc.

They were just using the name.

I remember someone refering to this as "Common ____________" (fill in the blank? I can't remember what it is)

**jberryhill** · 08-04-2004, 03:28 PM

You are thinking of common law trademark rights, which are perfectly enforcible under the UDRP or actions in court.

Anyone using a term capable of acquiring secondary meaning, when applied to the relevant goods or services, as an exclusive and distinctive indicator of source or origin of those goods or services may very well have enforcible rights - regardless of whether they have obtained registration of their trademark - and regardless of whether they use magic symbols next to the terms.

The bottom line here is that ripping people off by getting a free ride on their earned goodwill in a trademark is a bad thing to do.

There are about a gazillion threads here where, inevitably, someone says "They don't have a trademark" when what that person means is "They don't have a registered trademark." The "they don't have a trademark" folks are in for some hard lessons.

**dmyre** · 08-04-2004, 07:18 PM

Doesn't is cost approx $1200 to file a UDRP/WIPO or whatever it's called?

**stuff** · 08-05-2004, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn2h8

Doesn't is cost approx $1200 to file a UDRP/WIPO or whatever it's called?

Yes, something like that.

**jberryhill** · 08-05-2004, 11:23 AM

The filing fees are $1150 at NAF, $1500 at WIPO. Those are just filing fees, and are usually only a small component of the cost of having an attorney prepare and file the Complaint.

**namedropper** · 08-07-2004, 12:50 AM

Here's the simple way to think of it: If it's a "big site" with a name (that isn't a generic descriptor for the field it's in or conflicting with someone else's trademark for the same area) then it's got a trademark, whether it's registered or not.

I hope the typo in the title of the original post was made deliberately in order to be ironic.

I also hope that people aren't asking about the cost for filing a dispute planning to intentionally violate trademarks and try to sell for less than the cost of filing. Unethical behavior is still unethical even if it costs too much for them to get you into trouble for it.

**Peace** · 08-07-2004, 01:40 AM

Ok here is a specific example...

There are 3 trademarkes on "Sports Betting"
1 for SportsBetting.com
1 for Sports Betting.com
1 for SportsBetting

All 3 are owned by the same company (Sportsbetting.com)

My question is, can I register Sportsbetting.x and develop it into a sports related site?

**namedropper** · 08-07-2004, 02:17 AM

Sports betting is a generic description of the field they are in, so in and of itself cannot be trademarked. If someone has a TM on that, it's probably for a logo and not for the actual phrase.

SportsBetting.com might have been approved as a phrase, but the .com on it would make it only apply to .com names. Adding a .com to a generic description doesn't make the generic description a trademark, only the whole line with the .com. Even then I bet it's more a trademark for the logo than the phrase.

Sports (space) Betting.com doesn't make sense, as actual URLs cannot have spaces. That should also be a logo and not for the word, unless someone screwed up when they approved it, which is possible.

In any case, "sports betting" is descriptive and unprotectable. Pick an extension to your hearts content because SportsBetting.com can't lock other people out of using the phrase "sports betting" or SportsBetting.etc to accurately describe other sites doing the same thing. (Unless you tried to fool people into thinking you were the other place, like if you make your logo look like their logo.)

Of course I'm not a lawyer giving you legal advice, and it's always possible an unethical company will try to prevent others from using similar names.

**NameTower** · 08-07-2004, 07:43 AM

Heheh just examples.

I was talking to a friend and I was talking to him about buying a big site and I said that he could even recover some typo's from it..

He didn't think he could because these was no tm.

I wanted to know for my own knowledge so I posted here

Thanks for all the posts guys.