Generic Typo's of Popular Sites.

[NameTower]

Okay.

So a few months ago Harmony.com sold for $50,000 USD

It's main reason being that its a typo of eharmony.com.

First of all, would eHarmony have a chance at getting the name via URDP?

Secondly, could harmony.com use dating links or I think that would be pushing it..

A better example though..

Say GardenCenter.com was a huge site for selling garden supplies. Heavily advertisied, 100k unique visitors daily, and had an affiliate program. Could GardenCenters.com join in and would that change their position if GardenCenter.com challenged them via URDP?

Thanks.

[boychik]

A better example of #2 is staples.com vs staple.com

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2003-1028.html

[draqon]

"So a few months ago Harmony.com sold for $50,000 USD It's main reason being that its a typo of eharmony.com. First of all, would eHarmony have a chance at getting the name via URDP?"

DEPENDS on how Harmony.com was using the domain. If they were using it to sell yoga tapes, then eharmony wouldn't have a case. If they had dating links, then harmony.com would be in big trouble. If they offered counselors who claimed they could improve the 'harmony' between people that were dating, then I guess it would be a tossup.

"Say GardenCenter.com was a huge site for selling garden supplies. Heavily advertisied, 100k unique visitors daily, and had an affiliate program. Could GardenCenters.com join in and would that change their position if GardenCenter.com challenged them via URDP?"

I am not entirely sure about this. My instincts say that if Garden Center(s) is a common phrase in the vocabulary of gardening enthusiasts, then both companies would have a legitimate claim for selling garden supplies. However,
if this phrase is not common with gardeners, then their claim weakens substantially.

However, I am not at attorney. I'd be curious to see what Mr. Neu or Dr. Berryhill has to say about that matter.

[HOWARD]

In the STAPLES case, the panel found that the respondent was siphoning off business from STAPLES, and thus did not have a legitimate business interest. If Garden Centers.com is part of an affilliate program instituted by GARDENCENTER.COM, if they are not forwarding their business to GARDENCENTER.COM pursuant to their affilliate agreement, they are not only cybersquatting, but are also in breach of their contract.

As to HARMONY.COM, they are in a very strong position to develop a very successful web site if they are involved in music, or other non-dating activities. It could be a very valuable commodity.

[Domagon]

I had just assumed eharmony.com had bought the domain ... I'm surprised they didn't buy it, or at least some of the common misspellings like eharmoney.com, etc.

Paying $50K for harmony.com would have been a very nominal price for eharmony.com to pay considering how much they spend on advertising, etc.

It appears to be a situation where eharmony.com for whatever reason doesn't believe other domain names are worth pursuing; could be they don't see any real economic benefit in owning them, or more likely, in my view, they don't realize what they are losing ...

Overture searches done in August 2004

Count Search Term
11054 e harmony.com

6268 harmony.com * redirects to PPC
4269 eharmoney.com * get an error page

Ron

[NameTower]

In the STAPLES case, the panel found that the respondent was siphoning off business from STAPLES, and thus did not have a legitimate business interest. If Garden Centers.com is part of an affilliate program instituted by GARDENCENTER.COM, if they are not forwarding their business to GARDENCENTER.COM pursuant to their affilliate agreement, they are not only cybersquatting, but are also in breach of their contract.

As to HARMONY.COM, they are in a very strong position to develop a very successful web site if they are involved in music, or other non-dating activities. It could be a very valuable commodity.

Thanks.