UDRP? TM ? It`s all BS or not ? Just a few thoughts..

[italiandragon]

Hi all, I still can`t stand to see how unfair some decisions are and how after so many years, the domain industry has not yet a very unique rule to follow.

For example:

if Tom Cruise wakes up after years claiming the name tomcruise.com and he wins the UDRP, then what should stop for example the Goverment of Malta to claim Malta.com ???? Or the White House to claim whitehouse.com ?

Also, how can AOL try to scare people who own AOL typos such KOL.com ?

Not to mention that many countries have different rules for TM issues and with ccTLDs the guidelines of what is right or what is not is even less secure.

I think that there is still a total confusion between the authorities too otherwise how can they allow people to register famous names if then Tom Cruise was able to get it when he felt like ?

[DNQuest.com]

Unfair... not really, the guy who owned TomCruise made money from Toms name... that's squatting... KOL is a TM of AOL, that has been explained here...as far as whitehouse, the government tried unsuccessfully to get the domain and the owner of whitehouse.com kept the name (he did not lose the name at all) and ironically, he sold the domain when his kid turn 13 because he didn't feel right about promoting porn (after making millions off of porn).

As far as registering TM names, the TOS of each registrar states you cannot register TM names, If you register TM names, if is your fault, not thiers.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by DNQuest.com

Unfair... not really, If you register TM names, if is your fault, not thiers.

I agree! But there is always the question of coincidence eg. in the case of Goldmansachsex.com v. Goldmansachs.com it would interesting to see how they decide (if they've not as i'm unaware). Could it be true that the owner of Goldmansachsex.com genuinely registered the name simply because his friends nicknames him so or is it just an attempt to decieve the complainant (Goldmansachs Investment Bank)? It is not always very easy to judge the right one though in most cases the most powerful wins!!!

[italiandragon]

Ok, so you think that`s easy and I`m wrong? That`s fine but what about the name of Countries, cities, etc?

They should belong to those Countries, cities, etc. if we want to follow the same rule.

[carlton]

Originally Posted by italiandragon

That`s fine but what about the name of Countries, cities, etc?

They should belong to those Countries, cities, etc. if we want to follow the same rule.

Moot point first. Precedent correctly establishes the opposite of what you claim and for good reason. Geo-locations and Hollywood stars who built financial empires on their name (brand) are not synonymous.

[Dave Zan]

That's why these things are treated case to case. It depends on any and all
facts possibly gathered during the course of things.

[Foodie]

Everyone had good things to say. It is true that it is always the responsibility of the person who registers the domain. And it is also true that things are treated on a case by case basis. I read that if someone uses a name that's catchy and unique and makes a business that confuses the public about the actual source of that name, it could be interpreted as a violation. I have read that people have been asked to take that business off the web.

On the other hand, I talked to a trademark lawyer (a friend) who says that the laws for trademarking and ownership for the internet are not all clear as copyright laws are for print. The internet has exploded so much that there are not enough legal precedents, which is very often how rulings are made. Run a search for "trademark laws for domain names" or "trademark law for the internet" (or something like that, and see what you will pull up.

In the case of zune, zune.com is not even owned by MS!

All very fascinating. Sorry for long post.

[italiandragon]

Originally Posted by Foodie

Everyone had good things to say. It is true that it is always the responsibility of the person who registers the domain. And it is also true that things are treated on a case by case basis. I read that if someone uses a name that's catchy and unique and makes a business that confuses the public about the actual source of that name, it could be interpreted as a violation. I have read that people have been asked to take that business off the web.

On the other hand, I talked to a trademark lawyer (a friend) who says that the laws for trademarking and ownership for the internet are not all clear as copyright laws are for print. The internet has exploded so much that there are not enough legal precedents, which is very often how rulings are made. Run a search for "trademark laws for domain names" or "trademark law for the internet" (or something like that, and see what you will pull up.

In the case of zune, zune.com is not even owned by MS!

All very fascinating. Sorry for long post.

Hi there, you should post even longer trust me. All you wrote is very interesting and that confirms my concerns.

Now what does happen to that name ( Zune.com) if Microsoft registers a TM on the word Zune ? Can`t be bad faith since Microsoft came second....but money rules......and you never know.

KOL was trademarketed by AOL ? Who cares, the Registrant of KOL.com did not advertise AOL services and the name was regged before AOL got the TM on that name.

Plus, what does happen when there are 2 or more TMs on the same word but from different Countries ? ( example: an Italian company and an American company own a tradermark on the word "Bike" and both claim Bike.com )

[Foodie]

Then again, the two-word domains are interesting. For example, pot means one thing. But add letters to it like -ential or -omac or before it like s-, and it could be argued that it's not the same, particularly if one is not starting an exact business and "squatting" on the catchy name.