Microsoft To SUE MORE 'Cybersquatters' In Federal Court

[Doc Com]

14...

[labrocca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[DNQuest.com]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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