"Registered"in bad faith .Does it apply to auction buys ?

[domaingenius]

I note that the UDRP required "registration" or "use" in bad faith. I won a domain name at auction that had already been registered to Snapnames. When I won it they transferred it to myself. Is that a little technicality I can use perhaps, or not ?.

DG

[draggar]

It applies to anyone who owns the domain no matter how they were obtained.

[Carter]

It applies to anyone who owns the domain no matter how they were obtained.

I think he's right.

[jberryhill]

Why on earth would it make an iota of difference?

I have a great idea... I'll register a bunch of trademark typos and then delete them so that they get into an expired name auction queue. You buy them at auction, and then you'll be untouchable.


Ummmmmmmm.... fail.

[Acro]

Can RegisteredInBadFaith.com be seen as ...registered in bad faith?

[domaingenius]

Why on earth would it make an iota of difference?

I have a great idea... I'll register a bunch of trademark typos and then delete them so that they get into an expired name auction queue. You buy them at auction, and then you'll be untouchable.


Ummmmmmmm.... fail.

Why on earth would it make an iota of difference?

I have a great idea... I'll register a bunch of trademark typos and then delete them so that they get into an expired name auction queue. You buy them at auction, and then you'll be untouchable.


Ummmmmmmm.... fail.

"Why an iota" . Well because I did not register the domain in the true
sense of the word. Snapnames owned the domain name for 3 days whilst
they auctioned it. I won it and they transferred it to me. Is that
"register" a domain , or buy a domain and have whois updated.

Is there in fact no difference between directly registering a domain
yourself and winning a competitive auction and having it transferred ?.

DG

[Gerry]

Is there in fact no difference between directly registering a domain yourself and winning a competitive auction and having it transferred ?.

In this case, possession is 10/10 the law.

This, to me, is the biggest part of the equation of "bad faith" or TM issues.

All registrars have this as part of their TOS, yet they still let you reg a name that is TM.

Then they will be more than happy to auction it off for you (or someone else) or facilitate the sale.

They are in violation of their own terms.

Someone is going to come down hard and slam the hammer against the registrars, parking companies, and auction houses for doing this.

And I do not think it is that far off.

Why would the TM holder want to come after you and your $200 domain when they can go after SNAP for $10 mil in damages?

It is going to happen and it will shake up domaindom to its very core.

You are going to see hundreds of thousands of domains in question suddenly taken out of circulation until they are properly identified as not being part of the TM issue.

The software already exists to alert companies to potentially fraudulently registered domains. The irony is that domain companies provide this for a fee to their clients but do not use it themselves.

You are guilty.

Sorry, that may not be what you want to hear.

Like I said...in this case if you have the potential TM domain possession is 10/10's of the law.

[cursal]

They are in violation of their own terms.

Someone is going to come down hard and slam the hammer against the registrars, parking companies, and auction houses for doing this.

And I do not think it is that far off.

Why would the TM holder want to come after you and your $200 domain when they can go after SNAP for $10 mil in damages?

It is going to happen and it will shake up domaindom to its very core.

You are going to see hundreds of thousands of domains in question suddenly taken out of circulation until they are properly identified as not being part of the TM issue.

I think the Doc is right on track in his thinking.

@ OP

TM is TM and you knew it when you bought it.
If you did not know it was TM: The old adage, "Ignorance of the law does not make one an exception to the law."

[domaingenius]

In this case, possession is 10/10 the law.

This, to me, is the biggest part of the equation of "bad faith" or TM issues.

All registrars have this as part of their TOS, yet they still let you reg a name that is TM.

Then they will be more than happy to auction it off for you (or someone else) or facilitate the sale.

They are in violation of their own terms.

Someone is going to come down hard and slam the hammer against the registrars, parking companies, and auction houses for doing this.

And I do not think it is that far off.

Why would the TM holder want to come after you and your $200 domain when they can go after SNAP for $10 mil in damages?

It is going to happen and it will shake up domaindom to its very core.

You are going to see hundreds of thousands of domains in question suddenly taken out of circulation until they are properly identified as not being part of the TM issue.

The software already exists to alert companies to potentially fraudulently registered domains. The irony is that domain companies provide this for a fee to their clients but do not use it themselves.

You are guilty.

Sorry, that may not be what you want to hear.

Like I said...in this case if you have the potential TM domain possession is 10/10's of the law.

I would dispute the "guilty" part but can agree with your prediction
for the future. The complainant has a trademark application
pending in Lebanon. I have a trademark application pending in
UK. The complainant uses 2 domains for payperclick adverts.
I use mine for a website to sell electronics.

You are right that things will change. I dont know about the USA
but I do know that the French Courts recently fined Google
for selling keywords that were trademarks. Not far from
the analogy with registrars and domains. The ECHR
is cuerrently about to rule on similar type of case. We need to
see UDRP aligned with trademark laws on jurisidictional basis
so that TM in lebanon entitles them to .lb , in UK to .,co.uk
etc. How they then assign .com I dont know.

DG