Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court - Page 4 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**Doc Com** · 03-23-2007, 04:16 PM

14...

**labrocca** · 03-24-2007, 04:09 PM

MS has a building full of lawyers that just need something to justify their pay. I took all my xbox and Microsoft domains off parking. I have no problems with sites I run with xbox and such but to park them is just asking for it.

**typist** · 03-27-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by labrocca

I took all my xbox and Microsoft domains off parking. I have no problems with sites I run with xbox and such but to park them is just asking for it.

Don't feel too safe.

Our fellow member Aaron here at dnf, whose primary concern is consumer protection, has some interesting ideas on how he can help consumers. He's particularly interested in domains which he believes are confusing (these would - surprisingly - include many domains related to his employer, microsoft).

And regarding usage - even if you don't use a domain at all, some WIPO panelists will hold this against you:

http://www.dnforum.com/f26/chipping-away-free-speech-thread-218487.html

**DNQuest.com** · 03-27-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by typist

And regarding usage - even if you don't use a domain at all, some WIPO panelists will hold this against you:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=218487

When dealing with TMed domains, usage is very important. The TM holder has rights to the domain. By not using the domain (unless you name is the same as the TM holder), you DO NOT create rights to the domain. So it is not "he isn't using it so take it away", it is "He did not create interest in the domain to claim rights to the domain, therefore; the TM holder has greater rights to the domain". See the difference?

**typist** · 03-27-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

By not using the domain (unless you name is the same as the TM holder), you DO NOT create rights to the domain. So it is not "he isn't using it so take it away", it is "He did not create interest in the domain to claim rights to the domain, therefore; the TM holder has greater rights to the domain". See the difference?

The only flaw in your logic is that trademark law needs to be balanced against other legitimate interests. Freedom of expression is one of them.

**DNQuest.com** · 03-27-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by typist

The only flaw in your logic is that trademark law needs to be balanced against other legitimate interests. Freedom of expression is one of them.

Hmmm, interesting choice phrase concidering the domain owner DID NOT express anything on the site, just links. I have a great idea, show me where his free speech was undermined, and give specific examples...

**typist** · 03-27-2007, 07:55 PM

Let me point this out for you: the statement "air france stinks" was censored.

**DNQuest.com** · 03-27-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by typist

Let me point this out for you: the statement "air france stinks" was censored.

Are you talking about the domain name? If so, then you need to learn about TM law and domains. The domain is NOT free speech, it is the content, additionally, he used it as commercial usage. You are way off base here and I have no idea why you continue.

**typist** · 03-27-2007, 09:12 PM

Like a circus animal, you've learnt your single trick, and repeat it endlessly. The only problem is, you're off topic. My point is not that UDRP rules aren't applied correctly. My point is that there are flaws in the UDRP system. This is why you have no idea, to answer your question.

**DNQuest.com** · 03-27-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by typist

Like a circus animal, you've learnt your single trick, and repeat it endlessly. The only problem is, you're off topic. My point is not that UDRP rules aren't applied correctly. My point is that there are flaws in the UDRP system. This is why you have no idea, to answer your question.

Again, please give examples... where is the flaw??? You been throwing statements around with zero support to back it up.

**typist** · 03-27-2007, 11:16 PM

Have you tried reading this: http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=218487 ?
If you really want to discuss, I suggest we continue there, as the details aren't very related to microsoft and this thread here.

**robert** · 03-27-2007, 11:18 PM

Currently Microsoft is settling for £2k PER domain name in .uk .

Can get very expensive very quicky.... and when more companies catch on... watch the TM's flood to market

03-23-2007, 04:16 PM	#61 (permalink)
Doc Com Dances With Dogs Name: info [@] gerry.mobi Last Online: Today 02:34 AM iTrader: (73) Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 10,317 DNF$: 25,569 Country:	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court 14... __________________ Conservative With A Conscience

03-24-2007, 04:09 PM	#62 (permalink)
labrocca Omniscient Last Online: 11-18-2009 10:07 PM iTrader: (45) Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,487 DNF$: 1,519 Location: NYC	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court MS has a building full of lawyers that just need something to justify their pay. I took all my xbox and Microsoft domains off parking. I have no problems with sites I run with xbox and such but to park them is just asking for it. __________________ Join today my Support Forums. Otherwise try my viewing my portfolio.

03-27-2007, 07:55 PM	#67 (permalink)
typist Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 03-20-2009 08:02 AM iTrader: (10) Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 987 DNF$: 2,067 Location: Vienna Country:	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court Let me point this out for you: the statement "air france stinks" was censored. __________________ always buying domains with type-in traffic. all tlds.

03-27-2007, 09:12 PM	#69 (permalink)
typist Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 03-20-2009 08:02 AM iTrader: (10) Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 987 DNF$: 2,067 Location: Vienna Country:	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court Like a circus animal, you've learnt your single trick, and repeat it endlessly. The only problem is, you're off topic. My point is not that UDRP rules aren't applied correctly. My point is that there are flaws in the UDRP system. This is why you have no idea, to answer your question. __________________ always buying domains with type-in traffic. all tlds.

03-27-2007, 11:16 PM	#71 (permalink)
typist Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 03-20-2009 08:02 AM iTrader: (10) Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 987 DNF$: 2,067 Location: Vienna Country:	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court Have you tried reading this: http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=218487 ? If you really want to discuss, I suggest we continue there, as the details aren't very related to microsoft and this thread here. __________________ always buying domains with type-in traffic. all tlds.

03-27-2007, 11:18 PM	#72 (permalink)
robert Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 11-05-2008 10:55 AM iTrader: (0) Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 86 DNF$: 225	Re: Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court Currently Microsoft is settling for £2k PER domain name in .uk . Can get very expensive very quicky.... and when more companies catch on... watch the TM's flood to market __________________ Eat more chips! Dont let salad win! I am rob who runs hey

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
google Microsoft to sue 'cybersquatters' - Seattle Post Intelligencer	DotComGod	Domain Name News	2	03-13-2007 08:37 PM
Microsoft and Google Set to Wage Arms Race	POLiSH	Search Engines and Traffic Building	2	05-04-2006 03:48 PM
countycourt.net	sitehq	Domains for Sale (Domain Sales) - Fixed Prices Above $100	0	04-25-2006 01:37 AM
Microsoft threatening to sue me!	BookMarc	Domain Name Legal Issues	14	02-28-2006 11:37 PM