Domaincar

[DaddyHalbucks]

Another piont of view: I am buying domains based on its OVT score. The only reason why I should check if is it a trademark or not would be to protect MYSELVES from loosing the domain in a WIPO. There is no law saying "you have to check TM database before you register any domain" - it even can not be, as internet is global (so is .com domain) and there is hundreds of TM databases (every country in the world has probably at least one). So it is actually even impossible to do that.

The only way for me how to acknowledge the domain is breaking a trade mark would be, if someone inform me about that fact. Unfortunately if I got any such information via email, it has been mistakenly deleted by my spam-filter. And as the ESSENCE of BAD FAITH is INTENTION, which can not be proved in this case, I can not be liable for it. That means, I am using all domains BONA FIDE.

Yes I am no lawyer, this is just what my common sense tells me.

I can tell you, there are billions of people out there (yes, there are REAL countries accross the ocean too, not only terrorists living there), which never heard of names like Starbucks, Bed bath and beyond, Sears, Walmart, Capital One and thousands others.

But people like Stocdoctor, DaddyHalbucks and possible others will never be getting that anyway...

Hahaha. You claim to be naive foreigners, living in the dark ages without access to modern media, huh?

Ridiculous !! Pure USP grade bull !!!

Go to the Domains For Sale forum most days and you will see listings like:

goofle.com --google typein with massive traffic for your site
mcrosoft.com.com --excellent microsoft typo, BIN only $500

That's what we are talking about.

Those aren't accidental registrations, and they are being offered in bad faith, and for you or anyone else to now say they aren't.. plays us not for fools but for IDIOTS.

[denny007]

Microsoft ? Never heard of...

[maroulis]

Microsoft ? Never heard of...

You know those $0.50 DVDs with the Office software :bandit: lol

[rdmedia]

Hrm I thought this thread was about who DomainCar is. Since that mystery has been solved why do some people continue to engage in some sort of "battle of morality"? If you think TM typo squatters are scum, sue them all. Don't try and convince everyone that your ideas are the only true ones.

Denny has his view on business and Daddy & StocDoctor have theirs. Leave each other alone and enjoy life.

[jberryhill]

Let's here from a REAL lawyer about those above assertions of offshore immunity!!

Okay, I'll bite.

Hal, you make a number of statements that are not correct.

First off, you recite "cybersquatters' in with thieves, forgers and phishers. Cybersquatting, unlike those other things you listed, is not a crime. Cybersquatting provides a civil right of action by the offended party, but does not confer upon society a right to seek that the person be locked up. (and what Zuccarini pled guilty to doing was not "cybersquatting", but was a specific criminal law designed for what he had been doing with porn.)

You are also wrong to the extent that you are asserting that all domains are subject to US law - even though they are subject to the UDRP. The UDRP, by its own terms, permits any UDRP decision to be challenged under the relevant jurisdiction of the registrar or the registrant. If you have a non-US registrant using a non-US registrar, then the UDRP says that if it is going to court, then it is not going to court in the US.

Denny, on the other hand, is probably wrong about the legal status of cybersquatting in his unidentified country. Every country that has dealt with cybersquatting under traditional trademark principles has not had to enact a law specific to domain names in order to find that certain types of activity constituted a trademark of some kind - regardless of whether it has to do with domain names. In fact, if that country is a WTO member - as most countries are - then certain protections of trademarks are required under that treaty, again, whether or not that country has a law specifically addressing domain names.

Most people don't realize that the barcelona.com dispute was ultimately resolved in US court NOT on the proposition that it was a geographic term. The registrant won because they were a US entity using a US registrar, and the trademark claimant claimed to have a trademark in Spain. What the 4th circuit actually said in the barcelona.com case was "We wouldn't care EVEN IF you had a trademark in Spain - this is a US court and we only recognize US trademarks."

This "assertion of offshore immunity" as you call it, is what won the barcelona.com litigation in favor of the domain registrant.

So, yes, if you are in the US, you could use a US registrar to register a typo of the most famous drugstore chain in Estonia, lose a UDRP, and then win in a US federal court if that Estonian drugstore chain does not have any trademark rights in the United States. That's the current law whether Hal agrees with it or not.

Read some US law, Hal:

http://www.case.info/domain/barcelona2.pdf

Now we turn to the principal issue raised in this appeal. Bcom, Inc.
contends that in deciding its claim under § 1114(2)(D)(v), the district
court erred in applying the law of Spain rather than the law of the
United States. Because the ACPA explicitly requires application of
the Lanham Act, not foreign law, we agree.

[...]

It follows from incorporation of the doctrine of territoriality into
United States law through Section 44 of the Lanham Act that United
States courts do not entertain actions seeking to enforce trademark
rights that exist only under foreign law. See Person’s Co., Ltd. v.
Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The concept
of territoriality is basic to trademark law; trademark rights exist in
each country solely according to that country’s statutory scheme").
Yet the district court’s application of foreign law in this declaratory
judgment action did precisely this and thereby neglected to apply
United States law as required by the statute.

When we apply the Lanham Act, not Spanish law, in determining
whether Bcom, Inc.’s registration and use of <barcelona.com> is
unlawful, the ineluctable conclusion follows that Bcom, Inc.’s registration
and use of the name "Barcelona" is not unlawful.

[Acro]

Well-said John.

Allow me to become the devil's advocate for a second.

A few years ago, Amazon won a case against a Greek bookstore, Amazon.gr, which was obviously violating Amazon's trademarks in the US. However, Amazon had no TM in Greece and the .gr domain was not managed by a US registrar. So please explain this oddity to me.

[maroulis]

I remember the guy with the amazon.gr such a blatant copy it was unreal...! never heard if this was ever escalated officially

[Acro]

He was actually a British Royal subject :-D But It's just odd.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Okay, I'll bite.

Hal, you make a number of statements that are not correct.

First off, you recite "cybersquatters' in with thieves, forgers and phishers. Cybersquatting, unlike those other things you listed, is not a crime. Cybersquatting provides a civil right of action by the offended party, but does not confer upon society a right to seek that the person be locked up. (and what Zuccarini pled guilty to doing was not "cybersquatting", but was a specific criminal law designed for what he had been doing with porn.)

You are also wrong to the extent that you are asserting that all domains are subject to US law - even though they are subject to the UDRP. The UDRP, by its own terms, permits any UDRP decision to be challenged under the relevant jurisdiction of the registrar or the registrant. If you have a non-US registrant using a non-US registrar, then the UDRP says that if it is going to court, then it is not going to court in the US.

Denny, on the other hand, is probably wrong about the legal status of cybersquatting in his unidentified country. Every country that has dealt with cybersquatting under traditional trademark principles has not had to enact a law specific to domain names in order to find that certain types of activity constituted a trademark of some kind - regardless of whether it has to do with domain names. In fact, if that country is a WTO member - as most countries are - then certain protections of trademarks are required under that treaty, again, whether or not that country has a law specifically addressing domain names.

Most people don't realize that the barcelona.com dispute was ultimately resolved in US court NOT on the proposition that it was a geographic term. The registrant won because they were a US entity using a US registrar, and the trademark claimant claimed to have a trademark in Spain. What the 4th circuit actually said in the barcelona.com case was "We wouldn't care EVEN IF you had a trademark in Spain - this is a US court and we only recognize US trademarks."

This "assertion of offshore immunity" as you call it, is what won the barcelona.com litigation in favor of the domain registrant.

So, yes, if you are in the US, you could use a US registrar to register a typo of the most famous drugstore chain in Estonia, lose a UDRP, and then win in a US federal court if that Estonian drugstore chain does not have any trademark rights in the United States. That's the current law whether Hal agrees with it or not.

Read some US law, Hal:

http://www.case.info/domain/barcelona2.pdf

Now we turn to the principal issue raised in this appeal. Bcom, Inc.
contends that in deciding its claim under § 1114(2)(D)(v), the district
court erred in applying the law of Spain rather than the law of the
United States. Because the ACPA explicitly requires application of
the Lanham Act, not foreign law, we agree.

[...]

It follows from incorporation of the doctrine of territoriality into
United States law through Section 44 of the Lanham Act that United
States courts do not entertain actions seeking to enforce trademark
rights that exist only under foreign law. See Person’s Co., Ltd. v.
Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The concept
of territoriality is basic to trademark law; trademark rights exist in
each country solely according to that country’s statutory scheme").
Yet the district court’s application of foreign law in this declaratory
judgment action did precisely this and thereby neglected to apply
United States law as required by the statute.

When we apply the Lanham Act, not Spanish law, in determining
whether Bcom, Inc.’s registration and use of <barcelona.com> is
unlawful, the ineluctable conclusion follows that Bcom, Inc.’s registration
and use of the name "Barcelona" is not unlawful.

I am not incorrect for a number of reasons.

I can lump cybersquatters in with thieves and phishers if I want to because they all take property to which they are not entitled.

Is cybersquatting legally considered criminal or not? I defer to you on that, but... I ask you to consider the racketeering aspect where career cybersquatters systematically defraud numerous companies on a regular basis as a corrupt enterprise. Are you familiar with the racketeering laws and do they apply? This maybe a different fact pattern and circumstance than a basic cybersquatting case.

Zuccarini has done so many wrong things that to accuse him of any domain related impropriety is almost a sure bet. You almost make it sound as if he was not a cybersquatter, but, in fact, he is probably the most famous cybersquatter in the world, and has had innumerable UDRPs and lawsuits against him. In 2003, he had lost 53 state and federal lawsuits, but I don't know the current count. I have no idea how many UDRPs he lost, but alot.

I would submit that "Barcelona" is not a world famous, registered, and distinctive trademark. It was not a mark registered in the US. In fact, the whole idea of geographical trademarks in the US conflicts with US trademark law since geography is not a basis on which a trademark can be granted.

I am saving my best argument for last. I can say all this because I am primarily asking legal questions, not giving legal opinions; I am not a lawyer. Any opinions I voice are the personal opinions of a lay person.

[Dave Zan]

Well-said John.

Allow me to become the devil's advocate for a second.

A few years ago, Amazon won a case against a Greek bookstore, Amazon.gr, which was obviously violating Amazon's trademarks in the US. However, Amazon had no TM in Greece and the .gr domain was not managed by a US registrar. So please explain this oddity to me.

You mean this one?

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-229992.html

I remember Dr. Berryhill posted in another thread somewhere wherein a party
can file suit in their jurisdiction, then attempt to enforce it on a party that's in
another country based on whatever agreements the 2 countries may have.

Ooops, almost forgot to mention that he also said the party in that country
can also try to prevent the complainant from enforcing it using any and all
existing laws on the subject.

The Madrid Protocol lists both the US and Greece in its list:

http://www.inta.org/info/basics_mprotocol.html

WIPO's pdf file on the subject says Greece "joined" in August 10, 2000:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/docu...f/g-mdrd-m.pdf

Is that what Amazon used to wrest control of Amazon.gr?

Of course, the only way to really know is to ask the parties involved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just noticed the years between when Greece joined the MP and when Amazon
filed suit. Sorry for the oversight.

[denny007]

Great input Mr Beryhill, thanks a lot !

This input make all those "hysterical barking dogs" look like total idiots. Which they are not, as an idiot would not be able to type on a keyboard, but they definitely are petty-bourgeois socio/psychopaths, with lack of common sense.


Denny, on the other hand, is probably wrong about the legal status of cybersquatting in his unidentified country.

Well, I am from EU country, I live in China, I am using an US registrar (after Johns input I will consider to move to some EU based), so who has jurisdiction about me in this case ? Not to mention in any court I will claim I had no knowledge, that the typo of a domain is a TM and they have no chance to prove it. So I can loose a domain, thats OK, but I should not be liable for any potentional "damages".

[StockDoctor]

Great input Mr Beryhill, thanks a lot ! This input make all those "hysterical barking dogs" look like total idiots. Which they are not, as an idiot would not be able to type on a keyboard, but they definitely are petty-bourgeois socio/psychopaths, with lack of common sense.

John's input was great I think. Very informative and appreciated I'm sure by most of us. That doesn't mean he sided with you at all though Skipper. You're still twisting every point to make it suit your way of doing business.

Well, I am from EU country, I live in China, I am using an US registrar -after Johns input I will consider to move to some EU based

Why would you move your names to Botswannaland now if what you're doing was not something to run and hide from? You're an International TM squatter, that will move to any backward country with no rules or laws against whatever bad faith action you want to pull. Not only that, you're PROUD of it.

so who has jurisdiction about me in this case?

Maybe you should pay for some legal advice, and come up with a chart of which countries you can pull whatever in, and get away with it. Then move yourself or your domains to wherever you cant get away with more crap. Just don't move here.

Not to mention in any court I will claim I had no knowledge, that the typo of a domain is a TM and they have no chance to prove it.

So you would lie about it. When you regged it you knew exactly who you intended to rip off. Don't all these lies bother you at all? That's why I don't do that crap I guess, it would bother me too much to do business built on a pile of lies.

So I can loose a domain, thats OK, but I should not be liable for any potentional "damages".

That's all you care about isn't it? I think if you lose a Federal case in the US and you have funds coming from a US company in the domain related business earned from the activities, they can go after you on those too and add fines. I'd love to hear John address what the repercussions can be of US TM squatting.

[denny007]

Mengele, did not you promise earlier in this thread you will no more comment on this topic ? BTW now you call even EU a "Botswannaland", you really are a "Redneck from Smallwille" as someone pertinently called you in another thread...

And you still keep avoiding to answer my question - as you had remarks about my English several times here on DNF, how many languages do YOU know ? As you claimed to serve in Vietnam war, you are old enough to speak at least five, aren't you...

[Dave Zan]

so who has jurisdiction about me in this case ?

I may be wrong on this, but the complaining party can possibly file suit in the
Registry's jurisdiction under any and all laws (if any) applicable. The VeriSign
COM NET Registry is in Virginia, so someone can file there and try to enforce
it for a .com or .net domain name.

Try to, anyway. The Registry is the authoritative holder for a domain name
extension, so registrars have to obey their every "whim".

For the other extensions like .org, .info, etc., that's based on where their
respective Registries are located.

[denny007]

The VeriSign COM NET Registry is in Virginia, so someone can file there and try to enforce it.

They can not force me to settle any damages. Only UN has some power to sentence in international cases (as they do i.e. in cases of war crimes). Now I am sure for Mengele here I am as bad as the murdering war criminals, not to mantion he, as proved to be a "Redneck from Smallwille" , probably even does not recognize UN.

Theoretically I could be sentenced in the US court, if I have done a crime in their jursdiction. Then they can ask a country, where I would have been "caught", for extraction. But there is no extraction in cases, if the crime is not lawfully punishable in the country where I have been caught.

Not to mention, that registering typo TM domains is NOT a crime even according US laws (as Mr. Beryhill wrote above if I understood correctly). What was punishable in John Zuckarini's case was the USE of the traffic, and they actually tailor-made a law to be able to punish him (again - if I understood correctly).

And - this is just my point of view, I am no lawyer, just using common sense, so I could be wrong somewhere...

I think if you lose a Federal case in the US and you have funds coming from a US company in the domain related business earned from the activities, they can go after you on those too and add fines.

Now that's very easy, legally I own the domains, am renting it to another person as unspecified traffic and this person is getting the checks

Why would you move your names to Botswannaland now if what you're doing was not something to run and hide from?

Thats very easy Mengele, sooo easy that even you might understand that - if the domain is in jurisdiction of the US court, they will fill a court order, which costs them $400 (?). If is it not, they have to fill for a WIPO decision which costs $2000 (?). So I am simply increasing the "threashold" of the cost for the companies to get the domain from me. Just numbers, Mengele, nothing personal...

[StockDoctor]

Mengele, did not you promise earlier in this thread you will no more comment on this topic ?

You and Curley (Sassysquatch) keep throwing my name out there, so I'm gonna address it.

BTW now you call even EU a "Botswannaland", you really are a "Redneck from Smallwille" as someone pertinently called you in another thread

you guys reading this stuff have to be getting a chuckle out of it anyway? I am. OK, on that point. Yep, I'm a redneck from Smalllville. It's easy to see exactly where I live, cause it's right there in the whois. I don't need to run and hide like you do there Skipper. I'm a city boy originally, and lived and worked in many European countries, (but my favorite was living on Hawaii's North Shore) but I digress.

And you still keep avoiding to answer my question - as you had remarks about my English several times here on DNF, how many languages do YOU know ? As you claimed to serve in Vietnam war, you are old enough to speak at least five, aren't you...

Like you, I guess I didn't think your question worthy of an answer. But here ya go Skipper. I speak two languages. 1. English 2. Bad English I see you also speak #2, but the only one that's important imo is #1. My kids speak several languages though. Why the need or desire? I don't know.

[denny007]

you guys reading this stuff have to be getting a chuckle out of it anyway

We all do I believe. Because you are funny man, Mengele...


and lived and worked in many European countries

Oh, you lived as you called it in "Botswannaland" ? The poeple loved you there, did not they, especially when you was telling them some of your Rednecks ideas on the world order...


I don't need to run and hide like you do there Skipper

Me neither, Mengele, it is just a precaution. Like wear a condom during sexual intercourse. Actually until the Laporte drop I had full contacts in my whois, but after I spent over $100K on Laporte drops, i became little bit more visible, as it was first class typos... Many people here on DNF know my full name and address though.


2. Bad English I see you also speak #2

Yep, as well as another 5 languages at such bad level.

[Focus]

you would not believe some of the typos reg'd tonight! wow

"TM" ones at that......

[denny007]

All who posted to this thread got your previous input which you later replaced with this one, Mocus

[Focus]

hehehe..good!