Received C&D email on a cityname.biz - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**hugegrowth** · 08-29-2008, 09:13 PM

Here is the email I received, the domain is a cityname.biz. Do you think they have a case with a generic city domain? I bought this domain as a fresh reg when I saw it was available, and it's currently parked. Looks like they own the cityname.com and used to own the .biz
---------------------

I represent the principals of XXXXXXX Ltd., the rightful owners of “cityname.com”, and the original owners of “cityname.biz”. My clients view this domain as integral to their brand, and wish to reclaim this domain to which you have usurped. My clients are willing to prove that they have been lawfully using this site since 2001, to which you now registered and squatting on. This is evident by your use of this park page:

http://www.namedrive.com/contact_owner.php

Before they escalate this matter, they (the principals) wish for me to communicate this issue with you and perhaps come to a mutual resolution without litigation. In return for the transfer of the URL back to their domain, they will compensate you for the registration fee of $10. These terms are not negotiable.

You have until September 3rd, 3:30pm to respond before further actions are taken. You can reach me at the number below or via email.

Best Regards,

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

**trader** · 08-29-2008, 09:24 PM

Almost sounds like a joke. Unless they *are* in fact the city they have no claim at all. Ask them for their Trademark serial number (which I do not see how they could possibly have).

**draggar** · 08-29-2008, 09:26 PM

If their trademark is on CityName LTD then they could go after you if you had citynameltd.biz but I don't think they can go after you for the cityname.biz

But, I habe some geo-names like this so I'd like to hear some answers, too.

**TheLegendaryJP** · 08-29-2008, 09:28 PM

Hey bro,

It is real hard to give advice without knowing all the details. Only thing I can say is if you used the name to infringe on their use you dug your own grave. It would have been especially noticeable since they used to won it, correct ?

Option
1)Hand it over and have a few beers with the $10.

Now if you have not in your belief done anything to infringe or mis use the name you have to weigh the options.

Options
1) Fight it if it is worth it to, doubtful.
2) Dont fight it but first TRY to negotiate for more seeing as you believe you have done nothing wrong. ( And point that out to them ) If this doesnt succeed you again are in a situation where they may have jacked you but is it worth even the principal to fight...

Keep us posted

**liberator** · 08-29-2008, 09:45 PM

Hope this works out for you hugegrowth!!

**DomainsInc** · 08-29-2008, 10:03 PM

Half of all C&D letters are fake.

**EJS** · 08-29-2008, 10:03 PM

Will you PM the name?

**democrat** · 08-29-2008, 10:45 PM

It sounds fishy and unprofessional

**actnow** · 08-29-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

Half of all C&D letters are fake.

What do you mean by fake?
Are you including in this percentage the ones sent by TM holders that
are over-reaching?

We have no way to confirm how many C&D's are sent.
But, I doubt it is 50%.

I would speculate it is a lot less.

**DomainsInc** · 08-29-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by actnow

What do you mean by fake?
Are you including in this percentage the ones sent by TM holders that
are over-reaching?

We have no way to confirm how many C&D's are sent.
But, I doubt it is 50%.

I would speculate it is a lot less.

I should of probably said ones sent via email are often fake. Anyone can send one. Ones sent via registered mail are more often the real deal.

**hugegrowth** · 08-30-2008, 05:26 AM

It is a pure cityname.biz domain. I regged it earlier this year when I saw it was available. I have it parked and that's all i've done with it, was planning to make it an information/real estate site at some point. Doesn't even look like it used to be a site. They own the .com and .net, Name Administration owns the .org, and someone else has the .info. The .org and .info are parked too. I honestly can't see how a cityname domain can be claimed like this. I don't think they have a strong case. They may have forgot to renew it and think they still have a right to it. I phoned the lawyer back and said I won't transfer it. He said he'd relay it to the company and they'd take it to the next level. Just giving up domains like this will encourage companies to continue reverse hijacks. Just a couple weeks ago I was offered xxxx for a generic .ca, and they used a veiled threat that it would be good to sell because I might lose the domain in a UDRP - havn't heard back from them but again they don't have a strong case.

**MacyT.** · 08-30-2008, 05:54 AM

I wouldn't even respond to an email. Totally unprofessional. If it's legit - you'll receive a letter. You probably have nothing to worry about - but you probably shouldn't have phoned the lawyer. I guess you'll find out how serious they are now...

**Acro** · 08-30-2008, 07:21 AM

Is there a tm for the city? If not, don't even respond.

**marcorandazza** · 08-30-2008, 09:08 AM

Make sure that you are examining all possible angles. It *might* be the name of a city. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't *also* a trademark.

Here is another angle you might not have considered: If they were the original owners of the domain, how did you come to own it? Did it expire on them? For how long? At least one decision (so far) says that you can't claim "finders keepers". See World Wide Commerce Corporation v. WebContents, Inc.

Finally, Panelists (with the exception of Sorkin and Cabell) are not tolerant of "willful blindness" on the part of registrants. In other words, you are required to avoid being actively ignorant of the facts.

You may have completely legitimate rights to the domain name, but the information you have given so far isn't enough to figure that out.

**hugegrowth** · 08-30-2008, 11:59 AM

The city is "North Vancouver". The company in question is CLR communications. I really can't see their case. why don't they go after the .org and .info as well then? How can someone trademark a city name and prevent anyone else from using the city name? It would be like the owners of Chicago.com trying to take away Chicago.biz. The lawyer responded in an email that in a few days the company will start a 'filing' to get the domain back. any help or advice here appreciated.

**Carter** · 08-30-2008, 12:28 PM

Hey man do like me...use all of these C&D letters to clean your *** when you are in the toilet.
They are perfect for this use.

**Bender** · 08-30-2008, 12:30 PM

this is not legal advice, as I am not a lawyer, but I would reply like this:
"the second you succesfully acquire the .org from NameAdmin,and the .info from the owner, I will donate the domain for your cause".
they seem to bully you, I wouldn't be very concerned about it.

**actnow** · 08-30-2008, 12:47 PM

It appears they owned the .biz for 6 yrs and then let it drop.
I would speculate it was available for registration for approx. 45-60 days.

Domain Registration Date: Wed Nov 07 00:01:00 GMT 2001
Domain Expiration Date: Tue Nov 06 23:59:00 GMT 2007

I didn't check CA nor USPTO. Did they supply the TM information?

**marcorandazza** · 08-30-2008, 01:22 PM

Well, I wouldn't take Jacopo's advice on this. No offense intended toward him, but ignoring a C&D (or wiping your *** with it) is not likely to help your cause. I represent both sides of the domainer-markholder divide. Any time one of my domainer clients lets me know about a C&D, we take it seriously (even if the claims are highly suspect) and engage the other side constructively. As a result, I've not yet had a UDRP or an ACPA filed against a domainer client. The only thing better than winning a defense case is avoiding it altogether.

It is helpful to know that the city is "North Vancouver." Some jokers would say that hershey.com is geographic because there is a Pennsylvania town by the same name. But, although it is a geographic name, it also has what is known as "secondary meaning." If you look at hershey.info, you'll see that the PPC site there is also covered with candy ads. In other words, making PPC fees off of browsers who are there because of its secondary meaning, not because of its geographic descriptiveness.

However, I don't see how there is any secondary meaning in play here.

While I'm not sure that "North Vancouver" has the strongest case against you, it may not be frivolous either. I see the scales tipped sharply in your favor, but any lawyer who says the words "slam dunk" is usually not looking at the whole picture.

I will say that the geographically descriptive nature of the domain name weighs heavily in your favor. On the other hand, the fact that they owned it, let it lapse, and then you picked it up -- that weighs in their favor. If you look at archive.org for the domain, you'll see that they were, indeed, using it.

This fact boomerangs back a bit (in your favor) since they didn't seem to try and cure the problem very quickly (of course, I'm presuming facts that are not yet before me).

Ultimately, my money would be on you to prevail if you approached it properly and filed a well-drafted response to any UDRP they may file. However, unless you have a "can't possibly lose" situation before you (and I wouldn't call this one of those), you should engage them personally (if you are confident in your abilities) or with the assistance of counsel. Naturally, counsel is better, but the value of the domain to you might be less than the cost of having counsel get involved.

As a side note, I do think that their demand was poor form. $10 and it is "non negotiable." It would have been better to try and open a dialog before giving you an ultimatum.

Good luck with it!

**Carter** · 08-30-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Well, I wouldn't take Jacopo's advice on this. No offense intended toward him, but ignoring a C&D (or wiping your *** with it) is not likely to help your cause. I represent both sides of the domainer-markholder divide. Any time one of my domainer clients lets me know about a C&D, we take it seriously (even if the claims are highly suspect) and engage the other side constructively. As a result, I've not yet had a UDRP or an ACPA filed against a domainer client. The only thing better than winning a defense case is avoiding it altogether.

It is helpful to know that the city is "North Vancouver." Some jokers would say that hershey.com is geographic because there is a Pennsylvania town by the same name. But, although it is a geographic name, it also has what is known as "secondary meaning." If you look at hershey.info, you'll see that the PPC site there is also covered with candy ads. In other words, making PPC fees off of browsers who are there because of its secondary meaning, not because of its geographic descriptiveness.

However, I don't see how there is any secondary meaning in play here.

While I'm not sure that "North Vancouver" has the strongest case against you, it may not be frivolous either. I see the scales tipped sharply in your favor, but any lawyer who says the words "slam dunk" is usually not looking at the whole picture.

I will say that the geographically descriptive nature of the domain name weighs heavily in your favor. On the other hand, the fact that they owned it, let it lapse, and then you picked it up -- that weighs in their favor. If you look at archive.org for the domain, you'll see that they were, indeed, using it.

This fact boomerangs back a bit (in your favor) since they didn't seem to try and cure the problem very quickly (of course, I'm presuming facts that are not yet before me).

Ultimately, my money would be on you to prevail if you approached it properly and filed a well-drafted response to any UDRP they may file. However, unless you have a "can't possibly lose" situation before you (and I wouldn't call this one of those), you should engage them personally (if you are confident in your abilities) or with the assistance of counsel. Naturally, counsel is better, but the value of the domain to you might be less than the cost of having counsel get involved.

As a side note, I do think that their demand was poor form. $10 and it is "non negotiable." It would have been better to try and open a dialog before giving you an ultimatum.

Good luck with it!

I don't said to ignore all C&D, I only said 99% of the C&D i received are false a I use them in toilet

So it's not so hard find the 1 true and in this case...I think this C&D in this thread is false.