Would I lose...

**podman** · 05-18-2009, 05:41 PM

For those of you experieinced in UDRP cases, would I lose this one?

A 2 word domain that is made up of 2 generic words.
no trademark, domain was used by previous owner for 8 years and they let the domain expire. Was picked up at auction.

The previous owner is a small company that I never heard of before.

Would they win this case??

Thanks for your help.

**dvdrip** · 05-18-2009, 06:28 PM

If you have a good defense and they have no trademark then you will probably win.

**fab** · 05-19-2009, 02:15 PM

For those of you experieinced in UDRP cases, would I lose this one?

A 2 word domain that is made up of 2 generic words.
no trademark, domain was used by previous owner for 8 years and they let the domain expire. Was picked up at auction.

The previous owner is a small company that I never heard of before.

Would they win this case??

Thanks for your help.

Not enough information. does this company use these two words for a product or service, that are different then the actual meaning?

**podman** · 05-19-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by fab

Not enough information. does this company use these two words for a product or service, that are different then the actual meaning?

the company is using the domain to sell a product that is reflective of the 2 generic words in the domain name

it is not the name of the company

thanks

Originally Posted by podman

the company is using the domain to sell a product that is reflective of the 2 generic words in the domain name

it is not the name of the company

thanks

just a further clarification, when I say 2 generic words, I mean 2 dictionary words, like tangerineshoes.com (just an example)

**HuntingMoon** · 05-20-2009, 05:23 PM

companies lose their protections when they go out of biz. perhaps you can argue that dropping a name is the equivalent? consult with a lawyer for a better legal opinion.

**marcorandazza** · 05-21-2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by podman

For those of you experieinced in UDRP cases, would I lose this one?

A 2 word domain that is made up of 2 generic words.
no trademark, domain was used by previous owner for 8 years and they let the domain expire. Was picked up at auction.

The previous owner is a small company that I never heard of before.

Would they win this case??

Thanks for your help.

There is no such thing as a "generic word."

**dvdrip** · 05-21-2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

There is no such thing as a "generic word."

We got it. Thanks.
This is how we like to call it around here.

**marcorandazza** · 05-21-2009, 07:37 PM

Oh, I'm aware of the delusional state of most readers of this forum. The sad part is, they read this forum, get convinced that they know what they are talking about, and then when they lose an arbitration or a court case, they are completely bewildered because of the misinformation they get from abject morons who insist on perpetuating the misinformation.

Worse than that, when newbies read the board and read this idiocy, they then operate as if the idiocy were the actual state of the law. Then, they do something that gets them tagged -- but, if they had actual good information, they might not have been tagged, as they might have been able to make a smarter decision that would have kept them out of trouble.

**dvdrip** · 05-21-2009, 10:26 PM

We domainers like to use the word "generic" in the same way we use the word "dictionary".
We don't say asfsdgerhfng is generic. OK? We say olives is. Get it now?
"generic" is not used like how it's used in drugs or any other field.

As for the nice comments you made, about me and others, I send them back at you.

**Devil Dog** · 05-21-2009, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Oh, I'm aware of the delusional state of most readers of this forum. The sad part is, they read this forum, get convinced that they know what they are talking about, and then when they lose an arbitration or a court case, they are completely bewildered because of the misinformation they get from abject morons who insist on perpetuating the misinformation.

Worse than that, when newbies read the board and read this idiocy, they then operate as if the idiocy were the actual state of the law. Then, they do something that gets them tagged -- but, if they had actual good information, they might not have been tagged, as they might have been able to make a smarter decision that would have kept them out of trouble.

Appreciate the comments.

**jasdon11** · 05-22-2009, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

There is no such thing as a "generic word."

What about 'word'?

**Dave Zan** · 05-22-2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by dvdrip

We domainers like to use the word "generic" in the same way we use the word "dictionary".

But doesn't that give folks here the impression that something generic means
that way for any and all descriptions of the word? While some domainers do
not (maybe) don't think like that, what's to stop especially newbies from taking
that line of thinking and being possibly wrong?

Recently in another forum, someone registered travelersinsurancegtld. Now on
the face of it, it seems...seems...so-called generic, right?

Then the person got a C&D from a company called Travelers Indemnity. Turns
out they've been using the word travelers as a mark for insurance services for
about a 100 years and counting. (err, I think...)

Some of you might think that company's overreaching, while they obviously do
not think so. It's still pending as of this post so anything goes.

Essentially it's just semantics. IMHO, though, dictionary can be more accurate
for this sort of thing, especially if the domain's used in its dictionary sense.
(or at least not in its so-called distinctive sense...)

On the side, Marc, I think "some" might be a more accurate word than "most"
instead as I don't know exactly how many DNF users here think like that. But
of course, you can figure out the right words to say on your own.

Lastly, I'm sure some, most, whatever don't mean to be cruel towards anyone
here. Amazing how words can be taken in whatever context, depending how
one thinks, feels, believes, whatever about them.

**dvdrip** · 05-22-2009, 10:43 AM

I am only talking about the domain itself. Not it's use. Use is a different matter.
When you say I have a generic domain for sale, noone asks you how you use it.
They buy it and they use it anyway they want to. If they use it in a "bad" way then that is different matter.

travelersinsurenace is generic/dictionary and descriptive. If lawyers issuing TMs didn't know what travelers insurance was 100 years ago, that doesn't give rights to this company to go after all companies offering travelers insurance.
It's like getting a TM for "space travel" 100 years ago.

**marcorandazza** · 05-26-2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by dvdrip

We domainers like to use the word "generic" in the same way we use the word "dictionary".
We don't say asfsdgerhfng is generic. OK? We say olives is. Get it now?
"generic" is not used like how it's used in drugs or any other field.

I see, how delightful. When wrong, simply state that you use the word to mean something that it just doesn't actually mean! What a fabulous rhetorical device.

You have every right to call tzatziki sauce "sperm," but it still isn't gonna get anyone pregnant.

This sub-forum presumably exists (among other reasons) so that domainers may learn something from lawyers who choose to donate their time to educating them. It would be very easy to simply change the meaning of words so that the words then fit your arguments, but that won't persuade a complainant's lawyer, nor will it persuade an arbitrator. Perhaps this has something to do with the bad luck you may have had with arbitrators in the past -- you're simply operating under a different lexicon?

If you want to say "dictionary word," then say "dictionary word." "Generic" has a legal meaning, and "generic" terms are never subject to trademark protection. Calling a domain "generic," misleads others into thinking it might have a legal status that it lacks -- thus frustrating the entire purpose of the legal forum (presuming that I am correct about its purpose).

I realize, from your many comments on here, that you have no intention of learning anything. That kind of commitment to a position can be both admirable and stupid, depending on when and how it is employed. I would simply hope that for the sake of others who might actually wish to learn something, maybe you could either learn what words *really* mean. Alternatively, caveat your responses that use words in some creative made-to-fit-an-argument manner, so that those who are here to try and learn something are not misled.

Originally Posted by Dave Zan

But doesn't that give folks here the impression that something generic means
that way for any and all descriptions of the word? While some domainers do
not (maybe) don't think like that, what's to stop especially newbies from taking
that line of thinking and being possibly wrong?

Precisely

On the side, Marc, I think "some" might be a more accurate word than "most"
instead as I don't know exactly how many DNF users here think like that. But
of course, you can figure out the right words to say on your own.

How about we split the difference and use the term "many" ?

**dvdrip** · 05-26-2009, 07:20 PM

I am not wrong. This is how domainers talk. If you don't like it, take your business somewhere else. Generic in domains does not exist as a dirrerent meaning. You are confusing generic in drugs etc. with domains.
As I said we domainers don't call sdfertwrethrtsh.com as generic.
Can you put that in your thick skull? You are the kind of lawyer this forum doesn't need. You are the kind of lawyer that doesn't like Sorkin as a panelist? Well you don't belong here.And you are bringing my nationality into the discussion. How lovely.
Oh and put my tzatziki in your arse.

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

I see, how delightful. When wrong, simply state that you use the word to mean something that it just doesn't actually mean! What a fabulous rhetorical device.

You have every right to call tzatziki sauce "sperm," but it still isn't gonna get anyone pregnant.

This sub-forum presumably exists (among other reasons) so that domainers may learn something from lawyers who choose to donate their time to educating them. It would be very easy to simply change the meaning of words so that the words then fit your arguments, but that won't persuade a complainant's lawyer, nor will it persuade an arbitrator. Perhaps this has something to do with the bad luck you may have had with arbitrators in the past -- you're simply operating under a different lexicon?

If you want to say "dictionary word," then say "dictionary word." "Generic" has a legal meaning, and "generic" terms are never subject to trademark protection. Calling a domain "generic," misleads others into thinking it might have a legal status that it lacks -- thus frustrating the entire purpose of the legal forum (presuming that I am correct about its purpose).

I realize, from your many comments on here, that you have no intention of learning anything. That kind of commitment to a position can be both admirable and stupid, depending on when and how it is employed. I would simply hope that for the sake of others who might actually wish to learn something, maybe you could either learn what words *really* mean. Alternatively, caveat your responses that use words in some creative made-to-fit-an-argument manner, so that those who are here to try and learn something are not misled.

Precisely

How about we split the difference and use the term "many" ?

**Johnn** · 05-26-2009, 07:27 PM

Back to the topic asking by the OP and you guys should only reply to the question.
There is no need for name calling and prove who is right or wrong.

Thanks,
John

**marcorandazza** · 05-27-2009, 09:49 AM

You are the kind of lawyer that doesn't like Sorkin as a panelist? Well you don't belong here.

Perhaps you are correct. When I'm here, I am giving my knowledge away for free. When I am not here, I get at least $325 per hour for my knowledge. Thanks for the reality check.

**jberryhill** · 05-31-2009, 03:01 PM

Oh, I'm aware of the delusional state of most readers of this forum.

To be precise, you have utterly no clue as to the state of mind of readers of this forum.

You certainly have some insight into many who post to it, but I don't quite grasp the basis for your conclusion about those who read it.

**nameadvertising.com** · 05-31-2009, 06:04 PM

Podman, if your name does not blatantly (we don't know the facts) violate an outright TM, develop the domain into a 'Fair Use' information website. In doing so, it has protected a host of my domains from RDNH.

**fab** · 06-01-2009, 03:45 PM

This sub-forum presumably exists (among other reasons) so that domainers may learn something from lawyers who choose to donate their time to educating them.

Partially. Lawyers provide legal advice, and sometimes solid advice in general as well, but not always, while people operating in their own business may. Lawyers is also not a good term either, lawyers who specialize in the domain-tm field. I went to my lawyer who incorporated my business about a c&d. His knowledge of the field was close to nothing.

I will give an example to stress my point. I recently received a c&d from a very large company, concerning a clearly TM one word IDN.com. I did have some response, due to the nature of the IDN, which could mean (and be pronounced differently) various things, as well as the fact, their TM is a proper name.

I chose to forfeit the domain immediately due to the nature of the company. The fact that the domain was worthless to me, and I was more likely then not going to let it drop anyways. After some research I found, they are very aggressive, and have lost a few cases as well. In a similar case, I chose to bargain, and I eventually got paid for the domain. In the second case, their lawyer was clearly not acting in their customers best interest, and his c&d letter had some clear legal inaccuracies.

Just some comments about the company's law firm they used. They requested that I sign a "power of attorney" in order to transfer the domain,which I bluntly told them to "go jump in the lake". I asked them (about 3 of their lawyers) if they had any idea of how a domain was transferred, no. I had to e-mail them, and literally walk them through the process, which took them about a month and a half. I told them the domain was registered with Moniker, which they had never heard of. I was actually hoping they would hire me, to teach them a little bit about the trade, so they might get a better idea of what they're doing. in there letter, they also didn't state clearly what they wanted me to do. Neither did the lawyer know at the time when he originally spoke to me. They promised sending me a signed copy of the agreement, which I still haven't received, from months ago.

Maybe we can get them here to volunteer some free information!