ITS TIME TO VOTE - Pettition to BAN TM and Typo Domains on DNF

[CureCancer]

Time after time, I see trades being done on this forum that involves TM and Typo Domains. This is hurting our community and we need to stand up and be the front runners of this CHANGE! It's time to step up and BAN the sale of these DOMAINS.

Their is a POLL please vote on it on top.

[Gerry]

Adam and the Admin team and moderators are already doing a great job with this.

There is no reason to vote on a ban that has already been in place.

If you see it, report it.

Very simple.

[CureCancer]

Adam and the Admin team and moderators are already doing a great job with this.

There is no reason to vote on a ban that has already been in place.

If you see it, report it.

Very simple.

no their not it needs to become LAW

[Stian]

I think selling TM and typo names only contribute to putting domainer's in the grey area. I don't see why any serious domainer would want to deal with such domains. Ban it for all I care.

[CureCancer]

I think selling TM and typo names only contribute to putting domainer's in the grey area. I don't see why any serious domainer would want to deal with such domains. Ban it for all I care.

Several Senior Members have been trading on dnf for a very long time in TM and Typo domains and no one was ever banned or enforced to stop. Some of these big domainers in the business kicked started their fortunes with TM's. The past is the past, its time to BAN it all together.

[silentg]

These rules are already in place. Members could help out by reporting the threads with tm domains.

[CureCancer]

These rules are already in place. Members could help out by reporting the threads with tm domains.

If anyone was enforcing it then why are senior members still buying and trading! Rules need to be enforced to protect our identity online as a community.

[Keyword Factory]

This post doesn't make any sense. Just about every word has some sort of trademark and it depends how it is used so there is no such thing as TM domain. Also, there is no definition of typo domains.

[silentg]

I think he means the obvious TM domains and TM typos.

[CureCancer]

This post doesn't make any sense. Just about every word has some sort of trademark and it depends how it is used so there is no such thing as TM domain. Also, there is no definition of typo domains.

so you support typo & tm squatting? thanks for voting NO

[Gerry]

no their not it needs to become LAW

Seriously, do you read back the stuff you are posting?

First it is a dnf issue...now it needs to become law?

It is not permitted on dnf and when seen or reported the thread is taken down. Yes, already in place.

And, as seen from several threads, it is against the law.


So let's vote to keep something in place that is already in place?

[biggedon]

Does the Registration of a Domain Constitute Trademark Infringement?

by Chase Marshall :: sedo.com Legal Intern

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has cleared up some confusion as to whether the registration of a domain name constitutes trademark infringement. In GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, decided on September 22, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court held that merely registering a domain name, without further development, does not constitute a trademark infringement. However, the Court also held that if the domain was registered in bad faith, it may violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).


read full article....



http://sedo.co.uk/links/showlinks.ph...uage=e&Id=2933



i'd rather see folks banned for how they talk (disrespect) to each other here, than what domain names they buy or sell

[Gerry]

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has cleared up some confusion as to whether the registration of a domain name constitutes trademark infringement. In GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, decided on September 22, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court held that merely registering a domain name, without further development, does not constitute a trademark infringement. However, the Court also held that if the domain was registered in bad faith, it may violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

What exactly is this saying???

It is okay to register a TM name but not okay if it was registered in bad faith???

Registering a TM name and attempting to sell or perceive to sell the TM product is in bad faith.

[katherine]

25. Sales of obvious TM domains will not be allowed. Questionable/objectionable domains are one thing, but an obvious TM infringement is not allowed for sale here. Common sense applies here. If you post it and it's a known TM or TM typo, it will be removed.

http://www.dnforum.com/dnfrules.php

[CureCancer]

yeah okay

[Gerry]

Does the Registration of a Domain Constitute Trademark Infringement?

by Chase Marshall :: sedo.com Legal Intern

Seems like sedo legal team is more or less taking the entire case and proceedings and highlighting what they want to dole out to interested parties.

Rather than read sedo's interpretation, I find reading the actual case and ruling opinion much more beneficial.


And here is something Sedo forgot to mention: the matter is discussed in detail and states that it was okay to register the domain when they did because the LTD did not exist in 1999 during the initial registration.

It was what the two brothers did AFTERWARDS that needs just a little more (shit, a hell of a lot more) attention than Sedo is relating>>>

Bethke and GoPets made further offers to Hise in October and November 2006, to buy gopets.com for $5,000, then $40,000. No deal was reached. In December 2006, while the parties communicated their positions, Hise transferred the gopets.com registration to Digital Overture. Until September 2004, the gopets.com site had no content, and no more content appeared until November 2006. Hise and Digital Overture added further content over the following months.

In November 2006, Hise and his brother also began registering more than a dozen additional domain names similar to gopets.com, such as gopetssite.com, gopet.biz, gopet.org, and the like. In March 2007, Hise offered to sell gopets.com for $5 million. GoPets, Ltd. then filed a federal complaint, alleging violating of the ACPA, the Lanham Act, and state law claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Hise’s initial registration of gopets.com did not violate the ACPA. Because GoPets, Ltd. did not exist at the time of the original registration in 1999, there could be no “bad faith” intent on Hise’s part to violate GoPets, Ltd.’s rights in the name at that time. The court ruled further that the right of Hise in the domain name was not lost when he transferred the domain name to a new owner, Digital Overture. Consequently, Digital Overture’s re-registration and continued ownership of the original domain name did not fall within the prohibitions of the ACPA.

However, the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion with regard to the numerous additional names Hise and his brother began registering in 2006, all of which were registered long after the GoPets trademark had become distinctive in 2004. The court found evidence in the record that Hise and his brother had registered these additional names in bad faith, with the intent “to divert customers from [GoPets’] online location to a site accessible under [these] domain name[s] . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion.” The court rejected the defendants’ argument that they had registered the additional names with reasonable grounds to believe they were making a fair use or otherwise lawful use of these domain names. The court found that Hise’s July 2006 victory in the WIPO dispute only gave him grounds to believe his use of gopets.com was proper; it provided no reason to believe that he had a right to register additional domain names identical or confusingly similar to GoPets after that mark was established in 2004.

GoPets is, in one respect, an interpretation of one technical provision of the ACPA, in particular what does and does not constitute a "registration" that violates that statute. More broadly, it is a reminder that the timing and surrounding circumstances of a disputed domain name registration can be crucial to the outcome of a dispute under the ACPA.

This clearly is a matter of essentially two different cases in one, all based upon dates...date of the registration and date of the incorporation.

I agree that the date of the registration should weigh in favor of those who registered it.

I agree that the brothers had NO RIGHT to register additional names based on a TM after the date of establishment.

This is a case of attempted reverse hijacking and a case of blatant TM infringement. Yes, two cases in one.

The piece by SEDO is pure bullshit and entirely slanted to their position. They make no mention of the case and judgement against the brothers for registering domains AFTER THE FACT of a TM registration. For all those out there that believe it is still okay to register a TM AFTER A TM is established, then have at it.

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

So its okay to register a TM domain as long as I have good intentions to use it. Interesting thanks a lot for clearing this up for us. WOW

No, no, no, no, no, no, no...

Do you ever bother to look up things yourself rather than being led to believe what others want you to believe?

Remember the BS you posted today about redefining battlefields and imprisonment? Did you read the actual law or what someone wanted you to believe what the law says?

Did you look up the actual case mentioned by Sedo or did you simply just read what biggie posted?

Today, I looked up the aclu thingy you posted today and read section 1031 and 1032 myself. Then I recently read the judges's decision on this case.

In both cases you were wrong to assume the assumptions you made.

But, DO NOT TAKE my word for it. READ THE LAWS AND RULINGS yourself.

[Johnn]

Insulting members and name calling are against the rules and may result in action taking on your account.