Quote:
Originally Posted by jberryhill  Nobody who has handled a significant number of disputes has won every time. Sometimes unexpected things happen, and that's true with any human decision making process. As far as this domain name is concerned, the end of the story will be quite some time from now. |
I think I can hear you sharpening your legal katana from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameadvertising.com Why in such cases, the penalty is transfer of property? If the dispute is over ads related to keywords related to TM holder, a warning or even a possible fine will suffice.
In this case, laying claim to ownership of domain is reverse hijacking. |
Easy - it's better (for the claimant) to get the domain name than it is to have them change the keywords. I think they were watching it for a while, refreshing the screen just for that one infringing ad to come up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .h2o. Somebody please answer this for me: If a generic word such as this can be "infringing" then ICANN has no valid grounds for introducing more extensions galore. Does that mean that no-one can own chillibeans.web? Does Live.web automatically go to Microsoft and does apple.web go to Mr. Ipod?Now this is going to get plain ugly. It seems that all future names already have a pre-designated owner. "This is my trademark. You can't have it. I want to step on everyone's toes because I am a 800 pound gorilla. You are infriging on my intellectual property."
|
The domain itself cannot infringe. I can legally park Windows.com as long as I have links to actual windows (as in home windows, car windshields, stained glass etc..) but the millisecond a computer related ad comes up, Microsoft can file a WIPO against me for infringing against their TM for their operating system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdrip It's not only domainers that get abused by UDRP. It's also small business users and other personal domain owners. No one is safe as it is. You can own a.com and still lose. Ridiculous.
And all those crappy lawyers saying to clients: offer $1500 for xxxx.com or we will just go to UDRP and get the domain. |
I agree. While I am against TM and infringing usage, WIPO has become more like a coupon to an expensive domain than actually protecting rights (Hero.com is a perfect example). Large corporations feel they can push their weight around since they can afford $1500 plus attorney fees while the average domainer and small business cannot afford the fees just to defend their rights (my hat is off to Mr. Nissan and his fight over nissan.com, BTW). If I had a WIPO filed against me there is no way I could afford to defend it.