Threats and more threats. - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**domaingenius** · 04-13-2008, 07:11 AM

Hmm, I have been getting a few emails from a particular company threatening legal actions and UDRP unless I negotiate sale of a name. I have asked them to advise me the IP rights that they allege that they hold and they keep failing to send me a reply and simply send another email threatening UDRP etc.
The name is a geographic place. Am I being reasonable and within my UDRP rights to ask them to explain their IP rights first ?. I have no website on the name at the mo.

DG

**Leading Names** · 04-13-2008, 08:28 AM

You're within your rights to ask for evidence of a trademark, it relevant jurisdiction, the goods and services associated with the mark and the date such rights were acquired. If these questions go unanswered you can then use your correspondence as an exhibit should it go to UDRP.

- Rob

Quote:

Originally Posted by domaingenius

Hmm, I have been getting a few emails from a particular company threatening legal actions and UDRP unless I negotiate sale of a name.

My understanding is that this can sometimes work in your favor, assuming they approached you with an offer. If they are saying you have no rights to this name, then why are they offering to buy it? Would you offer to buy a car from someone who's just stolen it from you?

- Rob

**domaingenius** · 04-13-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leading Names

You're within your rights to ask for evidence of a trademark, it relevant jurisdiction, the goods and services associated with the mark and the date such rights were acquired. If these questions go unanswered you can then use your correspondence as an exhibit should it go to UDRP.

- Rob

Thanks and noted. I am pretty certain they dont have a trademark anyways. The name is something like say ,for example, MiltonKeynes (.com) and they have started a company, after I registered the domain, called "Milton Keynes Our Company name" . That I guess does not give them rights to Milton Keynes as mark ?.

DG

**Leading Names** · 04-13-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domaingenius

Thanks and noted. I am pretty certain they dont have a trademark anyways. The name is something like say ,for example, MiltonKeynes (.com) and they have started a company, after I registered the domain, called "Milton Keynes Our Company name" . That I guess does not give them rights to Milton Keynes as mark ?.

DG

If it's a place name they probably haven't. It sounds like they are just after a cheap deal (or free). If the correspondence is via email only and from the company itself, they probably can't afford a lawyer.

UK trademark database is here…

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm.htm

Click "by mark text or image" and type in name less the extension, followed by the same search with the words split up.

- Rob

[quote=Leading Names;1433161]If the correspondence is via email only and from the company itself, they probably can't afford a lawyer.
QUOTE]

Or a stamp

- Rob

**domaingenius** · 04-13-2008, 10:03 AM

I have checked both US and UK trademarks and nothing shows at all so will now just sit back and wait if they send me a writ ,a UDRP or cash I guess.

DG

**sdsinc** · 04-13-2008, 10:23 AM

Make sure it's not a scam like dnrecover and vet the other party. What rights do they have over the domain ?

**biggedon** · 04-13-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domaingenius

Hmm, I have been getting a few emails from a particular company threatening legal actions and UDRP unless I negotiate sale of a name. I have asked them to advise me the IP rights that they allege that they hold and they keep failing to send me a reply and simply send another email threatening UDRP etc.
The name is a geographic place. Am I being reasonable and within my UDRP rights to ask them to explain their IP rights first ?. I have no website on the name at the mo.

DG

typically when an email arrives claiming infringement, they will have the reference number to their tm in the header or body of the correspondence.

it will also be signed by legal representative, with valid contacts.

none have ever made or implied an offer to buy initially.
though some have bought or made concessions, after my first response.

this has been my experience

**jberryhill** · 04-13-2008, 11:12 PM

Of course if someone states a claim with no support, you should request that they document their claim.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it is a request with which they should be perfectly happy to comply.

**adt87** · 04-13-2008, 11:16 PM

Wow this is confusing??????????

**fab** · 04-14-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Of course if someone states a claim with no support, you should request that they document their claim.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it is a request with which they should be perfectly happy to comply.

Well, the question arises, what a previous poster stated. Assuming he presses them on the issue, and they don't provide any backup to their claim. Will that be able to be used against them in court and/or UDRP.

**jberryhill** · 04-14-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Will that be able to be used against them in court and/or UDRP.

Sure. Will it be determininative? Depends.

The underlying question of whether they have relevant rights is going to have to be answered at some point in time.

Having a record of correspondence in which you are the one asking them to explain the basis of their claim, and in which they are refusing to do so, doesn't look very much like bad faith cybersquatting activity - particularly if the complainant then doesn't want the panel to see the correspondence:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2006-0673.html

Of more concern to the Panel is the fact that the Complaint failed to describe the Complainant’s trade marks accurately and failed to exhibit the complete correspondence of the parties in circumstances where the Complainant was seeking to make a point out of that correspondence.

**fab** · 04-14-2008, 10:55 AM

Well I like this claim as well!

Quote:

The Respondent concludes with a criticism of the Complainant and its agent primarily directed to the fact that the Complainant’s agent persisted in corresponding with the Respondent direct when he/she knew that the Respondent was represented. The Respondent asks that the behaviour to which objection is taken should not pass unmentioned in the decision.

**LizzeyDripping** · 04-14-2008, 12:22 PM

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your last post, fab.

I can't see where domaingenius is claiming the company should be corresponding with his representative or even that he has representation... and the Panel haven't said they agree, they have just noted the Respondent's objection as requested. Or have I missed something?

**fab** · 04-14-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizzeyDripping

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your last post, fab.

I can't see where domaingenius is claiming the company should be corresponding with his representative or even that he has representation... and the Panel haven't said they agree, they have just noted the Respondent's objection as requested. Or have I missed something?

Sorry, if that was off topic. I was relating to JBerryHill's case.

**jberryhill** · 04-14-2008, 07:49 PM

The overall point is this: when you are corresponding with anyone about a domain name - trademark claim or not - consider marking each piece of correspondence with an exhibit label, and what an objective observer is going to make of the content and tone of what they write and what you write.

**zenlogo** · 04-15-2008, 02:15 AM

John;
thanx for the suggestion regarding exhibit labels, is that just a matter of referencing something like "Email No.1" or is it something specific?

PS: thank you very much generally for all your excellent professional advice in these forums.

Zen

**jberryhill** · 04-16-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

is that just a matter of referencing something like "Email No.1" or is it something specific?

Ummm.... a little to literal there....

What I mean is that you should consider each item of correspondence to be building a record that will be used by one side or the other in the future.

Heck, I even had a desperate party use a DNForum post of mine to try to prove a point in a UDRP dispute. Bizarre, but true, since it had nothing to do with the dispute at hand.

However, I have seen several UDRP disputes in which posts at DNForum and elsewhere were indeed used by the complainant - generally to no effect.

**domaingenius** · 04-16-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jberryhill

Ummm.... a little to literal there....

What I mean is that you should consider each item of correspondence to be building a record that will be used by one side or the other in the future.

Heck, I even had a desperate party use a DNForum post of mine to try to prove a point in a UDRP dispute. Bizarre, but true, since it had nothing to do with the dispute at hand.

However, I have seen several UDRP disputes in which posts at DNForum and elsewhere were indeed used by the complainant - generally to no effect.

Just in case then. I happened to stumble across this forum quite by accident and am not a ,I think you call it "domainer", and I just have 1 (one) domain I bought for my own business and that is what I am asking about now.

Thanks
DG

**jberryhill** · 04-16-2008, 11:25 PM

That's pathetic DG.

Just pathetic.

**domaingenius** · 04-17-2008, 03:05 AM

Well it was said tongue in cheek , just in case .

DG

Just wondering ,but why is the Register.com thread being held down the list of threads ? usually does not the thread move up to top when post is made ?

DG