

![]() |
| ![]() | |||||||
|
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| The Bishop Last Online: 09-16-2009 03:42 PM iTrader: (117) Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
DNF$: 2,515 Location: UK
Country: | Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required WITHDRAWN By Brandstrand
__________________ Parked.com - The Valet Domain Parking That Pays Last edited by incipience; 02-20-2005 at 05:28 PM.. |
| | |
| Sponsored Ads |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Dave Zan Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM iTrader: (1) Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0 Location: Manila | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Not an attorney but...how have you used the name ever since? I tried to pull it up using the www and without but it's giving me the page can't be displayed message.... Oh, and you might want to take the name off your first post, too. The other party might be searching for any online reference to the domain name and thus find your thread here and possibly use it against you.
__________________ Vidi, Vici, Veni! |
| | |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| The Bishop Last Online: 09-16-2009 03:42 PM iTrader: (117) Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
DNF$: 2,515 Location: UK
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Not used the domain since I acquired it. The domain name has never been used to confuse or gain any profit.
__________________ Parked.com - The Valet Domain Parking That Pays |
| | |
| | #4 (permalink) | |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Dave Zan Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM iTrader: (1) Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0 Location: Manila | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Just some personal additional thoughts. Quote:
commercial use. If I remember it right, the domain's not going to an active website isn't an "excuse" to claim it's not being used in bad faith. (Anybody know better, feel free to correct me...) The For Dummies mark is pretty well-known, so you'll probably have difficulty proving otherwise. If you especially have a previous UDRP ruled against you, you're a gone goose. I'd probably do what they ask. In a way, it's kind of them to tell you to let it expire instead of transfer ownership.
__________________ Vidi, Vici, Veni! | |
| | |
| | #5 (permalink) | |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 06-27-2009 03:38 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 756
DNF$: 1,232 Location: Madison, WI | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
Or just skip paying big bucks to try to defend such an obvious trademark violation and give the name up before you waste more time and money.
__________________ Dan Norder Werewolves.com, Inklings.com, OtherWoman.com and more | |
| | |
| | #6 (permalink) | |
| The Bishop Last Online: 09-16-2009 03:42 PM iTrader: (117) Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
DNF$: 2,515 Location: UK
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
__________________ Parked.com - The Valet Domain Parking That Pays | |
| | |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| TheBest.com Name: George Kirikos Last Online: Today 01:32 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,206
DNF$: 866 Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Not a name worth fighting to keep. Wiley would have a very strong case against you. And even if you somehow won, it's a name with very little value, in my eyes. |
| | |
| | #8 (permalink) | |
| The Bishop Last Online: 09-16-2009 03:42 PM iTrader: (117) Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
DNF$: 2,515 Location: UK
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
__________________ Parked.com - The Valet Domain Parking That Pays Last edited by incipience; 02-20-2005 at 05:29 PM.. | |
| | |
| | #9 (permalink) | |
| TheBest.com Name: George Kirikos Last Online: Today 01:32 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,206
DNF$: 866 Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
Some folks mistakenly think that "all they have to lose is the domain name". That's incorrect. If you were in the US (you're not) you could be liable for up to $100,000 damages due to the anticybersquatting laws. Even without that, having a UDRP loss on one's records can tarnish one's reputation, and also threaten one's claims on other more generic names (once one has lost a UDRP, it's easier for future complainants to demonstrate bad faith, due to your prior losses). | |
| | |
| | #10 (permalink) |
| DNF Addict Name: Sam Pfanstiel Last Online: Today 02:09 AM iTrader: (93) Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,471
DNF$: 484 Location: USA
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required I agree with George. Chances are this letter was sent automatically, so no offense should be taken. Seeing as though you are NOT using the domain there is no value in keeping it -- and should you decide to use it at some later date, you would be in clear violation of their trademark -- I see no reason to fight this one. I would let it go quietly, and spend my efforts in a more profitable direction.
__________________ Sam -- I'm just waiting 'til the shine wears off. |
| | |
| | #11 (permalink) |
| Philadelphia Lawyer | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required An oldie but a goodie: http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm The domain name at issue is idiotsguide.com I have no opinion on whether the dummies are better than the idiots, but I suspect they may be. Perhaps someone could write the Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies. One source of trouble is that likelihood of confusion in trademark cases is determined with reference to the relevant consumer of the goods in question, and their degree of discernment in discriminating between competing goods. I would love to see someone claiming, "But my consumers are dummies." I wonder if the dummies and the idiots ever get confused about which guide to buy....
__________________ John Berryhill Ph.d., esq. John-AT-johnberryhill.com Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly. |
| | |
| | #12 (permalink) | |
| DNF Member Name: Stuart Wood Last Online: 11-18-2009 11:52 AM iTrader: (21) Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 607
DNF$: 5,729 Location: Racine, Wisconsin
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
In all seriousness though, I would write back immediately and express my deepest apologies for impinging on thier trademark. Then as an aside ask them when thier "Cease and Desist Letter For Dummies" was published. Regards, Stuart.
__________________ |Salient Properties, LLC. - Virtual & Real Estate| See Our Domain List| |BuildsOut.com - We Develop Domains, Content, SEO: Higher Revenue| | |
| | |
| | #13 (permalink) |
| Premium Buyer Name: Merlin Last Online: Yesterday 08:15 AM iTrader: (39) Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 918
DNF$: 276 Location: La Jolla, CA
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required You should ask them to pay you something for it -- a UDRP filing will cost them $1500 -- it's easier to avoid that with a small payoff, although, they may have a "we don't negotiate with terrorists (cybersquatters)" policy. Let them waste their $1500 if they want to pursue it that far -- you paid for your registration.
__________________ Buying Revenue Portfolios/Domains - 7 figure budget - PM me with stats/asking prices, please |
| | |
| | #14 (permalink) | ||
| Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Dave Zan Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM iTrader: (1) Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0 Location: Manila | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
Quote:
http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/96635.htm Anyone care to coordinate with Wiley to write "UDRP for Dummies"? :-D By the way, brandstrand, why'd you title the thread "Reverse Cybersquatting"? You didn't think you'd get responses on how to secure that if this reached the UDRP, did you?
__________________ Vidi, Vici, Veni! Last edited by davezan1; 02-18-2005 at 09:58 AM.. | ||
| | |
| | #15 (permalink) | |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 06-27-2009 03:38 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 756
DNF$: 1,232 Location: Madison, WI | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
__________________ Dan Norder Werewolves.com, Inklings.com, OtherWoman.com and more | |
| | |
| | #16 (permalink) | |
| Name: Joe Honan Last Online: 11-23-2009 07:41 AM iTrader: (104) Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,798
DNF$: 4,017 Location: Melbourne Australia
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Quote:
Yes, myself and many other DNf members appear to be suitably qualified to contribute to such a worthy project as the Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies
__________________ APN.net JCL.net www.JoesNames.com mwC.net , RhL.net , drV.net , wpk.com , ore.net ,interest.net , Lesson.org | |
| | |
| | #17 (permalink) |
| The Bishop Last Online: 09-16-2009 03:42 PM iTrader: (117) Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
DNF$: 2,515 Location: UK
Country: | Re: Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required Domain is in the process of being detagged... as I mentioned there was no intention to squat or otherwise Thanks all for your comments all appreciated
__________________ Parked.com - The Valet Domain Parking That Pays |
| | |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Reverse domain name Hijacking | transparent | Domain Name Legal Issues | 4 | 10-28-2004 12:22 PM |
| UDRP, ACPA, Cybersquatting... | dnjon | Gold Cafe | 20 | 05-26-2004 02:21 PM |
| MySQL issues | GT Web | Website Development and Design Discussion | 16 | 01-28-2004 01:24 AM |
| TM infringement, TM dilution, Cybersquatting - Definition and General Discussion | hhunterjr | Domain Name Legal Issues | 0 | 02-28-2003 09:19 AM |
| First .uk reverse domain name hijacking decision | Success | Domain Name Legal Issues | 0 | 10-18-2002 08:04 AM |