50 uniques per day

[DaddyHalbucks]

Do us all a favor, and keep out of a sales thread if you don't want the name.

DO US ALL A FAVOR AND STOP DEFENDING PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW.

 

[TopNames.com]

I defending the guys right to post a sales thread. I have never done business with this guy, and I have never even talked with him. What I find offensive is you forcing your opinion on all of us.

I guess all the lawyers and judges can retire...the world according to DotComCowboy has arrived.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

I defending the guys right to post a sales thread.
+++++++++++++++

HE HAS NO SUCH RIGHT. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SELL A DOMAIN 'MICRASOFT.COM'

THAT'S THE POINT. IT IS ILLEGAL.

 

[TopNames.com]

No it's not...unless a Judge say's its illegal...and from my quick research, I have not found a ruling on MicraSoft.com. Did you have a link to a ruling I was unable to find?

You still have not explained why you're not posting in the other Typo thread. Come on Mr. Policeman...do your job.

 

[TopNames.com]

By the way...it's nothing personal. I would stick up for your right to a clean thread as well. I'm just sick and tired of thread crapping.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

No it's not...unless a Judge say's its illegal...and from my quick research, I have not found a ruling on MicraSoft.com. Did you have a link to a ruling I was unable to find?

DO YOU NEED A JUDGE TO TELL YOU THE SKY IS BLUE?

You still have not explained why you're not posting in the other Typo thread. Come on Mr. Policeman...do your job.

PLEASE POST A LINK TO IT, AND I WILL SPEAK OUT, IF APPLICABLE.

By the way...it's nothing personal. I would stick up for your right to a clean thread as well. I'm just sick and tired of thread crapping.

NOBODY IS CRAPPING ON ANYBODY'S THREAD. THAT IS GARBAGE.

THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD HAS NO RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

DNF IS DAMAGED BY CYBERSQUATTING. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO STEAL FAMOUS REGISTERED DISTINCTIVE TRADEMARKS. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

 

[TopNames.com]

DO YOU NEED A JUDGE TO TELL YOU THE SKY IS BLUE?

So, basically you're saying there is no need for a court system since you have taking the position of Domain Name Policeman and what you say goes. I'm sorry Mr. Berryhill, you're out of a job because DotComCowboy knows better than anyone else.

DNF IS DAMAGED BY CYBERSQUATTING. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO STEAL FAMOUS REGISTERED DISTINCTIVE TRADEMARKS. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

The issue is that YOU are not a mod nor are you the owner of DNF. You are just like the rest of us and your greater then thou attitude is offensive at best.

THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS THREAD HAS NO RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

If this was my thread, I would print it out for record and sue you for defamation of character. You have no right to call it illegal and there is an argument for why this could be a ligament name.

You need to get off your high horse (even though you are a cowboy) and realize you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

So, basically you're saying there is no need for a court system since you have taking the position of Domain Name Policeman and what you say goes. I'm sorry Mr. Berryhill, you're out of a job because DotComCowboy knows better than anyone else.

WHY ARE YOU SO THREATENED BY MY OPINIONS?

The issue is that YOU are not a mod nor are you the owner of DNF. You are just like the rest of us and your greater then thou attitude is offensive at best.

WE ARE ALL THE SAME. I AM NO BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. WE ALL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

If this was my thread, I would print it out for record and sue you for defamation of character. You have no right to call it illegal and there is an argument for why this could be a ligament name.

SUE AWAY! I HAVE SAID NOTHING UNTRUE.

You need to get off your high horse (even though you are a cowboy) and realize you're making a fool of yourself.

SOMETIMES ONLY A FOOL WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH.

 

[TopNames.com]

WHY ARE YOU SO THREATENED BY MY OPINIONS?

I'm not but they don't belong in a sales thread...period.

SUE AWAY! I HAVE SAID NOTHING UNTRUE.

You're calling this guy a criminal by saying he's doing something illegal.

SOMETIMES ONLY A FOOL WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH.

k:

 

[ToastyX]

Nobody ever said anything when montster.com (supposedly a typo of monster.com) was sold.

It is NOT stolen. It is NOT "Microsoft.com." It is "Micrasoft.com." There is no trademark on "Micrasoft." He registered it. He is the owner. He has the right to sell it. END OF STORY. It is up to the buyer to decide whether or not the possibility of legal problems exist.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by ToastyX
Nobody ever said anything when montster.com (supposedly a typo of monster.com) was sold.

It is NOT stolen. It is NOT "Microsoft.com." It is "Micrasoft.com." There is no trademark on "Micrasoft." He registered it. He is the owner. He has the right to sell it. END OF STORY. It is up to the buyer to decide whether or not the possibility of legal problems exist.

Yea, what he said

 

[NexSite]

A personal opinion.

Cybersquatting is a bit different than typosquatting. There is a difference between registering someones famous trademark, which is cypersquatting, and registering a mispelling of that mark, which is typosquatting. Yes, you can definately get the name taken from you. Hundreds of cases to support that. But unless you do something stupid with it, link to pornsites, sell there product, etc, the risks are minimal. Using it to make a few cents off of click thru traffic wont get you locked up. A big Corp like Microsoft isn't gonna spend $250,000 to go after this name. They can take it for the price of UDRP. Personally, I think that domain names anyone else has registered are none of my business, unless they are the name/s of my business.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Nobody ever said anything when montster.com (supposedly a typo of monster.com) was sold.

SO WHAT? THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

It is NOT stolen. It is NOT "Microsoft.com." It is "Micrasoft.com." There is no trademark on "Micrasoft." He registered it. He is the owner. He has the right to sell it. END OF STORY. It is up to the buyer to decide whether or not the possibility of legal problems exist.

IT IS VERY VERY SIMPLE:

1. TRADEMARKS ARE PROPERTY.

2. 'MICROSOFT' MAYBE THE WORLD'S MOST VALUEABLE TRADEMARK.

3. IF YOU ARE REGISTERING AND SELLING DOMAINS THAT INFRINGE IT OR DILUTE IT, YOU ARE STEALING. PERIOD.

 

[wvspecialkvw]

Micrasoft is "not" Trademarked.....I could trademark it tomorrow and invest a billion for the startup.....its my choice...doesnt have to be software either....

 

[TopNames.com]

THE ISSUE DOTCOMCOWBOY IS THAT YOU ARE NOT A MOD AND THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO POLICE THE THREADS AT DNF...PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

[GiantDomains]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Guys...shitting in sales thread is wrong...regardless of the reason (unless a domain is stolen).

IT *IS* STOLEN.

'MICROSOFT' IS THE SINGLE MOST FAMOUS AND MOST VALUEABLE BRAND IN THE WORLD.

This is one of the reasons I hardly ever start a sales thread in the forums anymore. The Mods need to enforce this rule.

NO. THE MODS NEED TO STOP DNF'S SLIDE TO A DEN OF THIEVES.

Wrong! The mods are not the courts, and will not be the ones to decide if this misspell is actually infringing. Thanks for messing up the sales thread. Sorry DotLeader.

 

[Sportacle]

1. A term doesn't have to be identical to infrige on a trademark.

"Confusingly Similar" is enough. That would be the argument.

2. A friend received a letter from an entertainment company a few weeks ago. The first paragraph insisted that the mark had been diluted by redirecting the site to a pay per click site and the company wanted $5,000 in damages immediately, which would be the alternative to avoid litigation. So handing over the domain and calling it even was not an alternative - nor was the UDRP.

3. The cost to larger firms to sue you is actually based on economies of scale. They already have full time counsel on staff that they pay via a salary. So legal costs to a firm like Microsoft is really just asking their Intellectual Property Specialists to work on your case versus another project. The cost to the company is minimal.

4. Many people think you just go to the trademark office and "get a trademark". No. It is not as easy as this. Your application would be published for opposition. The more unique that a mark is and the more classes of goods and services that it covers makes it very difficult to acquire a similar trademark. You would probably face opposition from Microsoft regardless if you were selling the letter "O" or identical software. For instance, the recent case where the makers of SPAM (the canned ham) is opposing the mark application of a company who attempts to stop SPAM (junk email) Although the stop spam comapny is called SpamArrest (or something like that). Again, this is an incremental cost for you to fight the opposition and a smaller cost to large firms who are just trying to find extra work for their staff counsel.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by GiantDomains

Wrong! The mods are not the courts, and will not be the ones to decide if this misspell is actually infringing. Thanks for messing up the sales thread. Sorry DotLeader.

Yeee'hawwww

Thanks Doobs! Now maybe DotComCowboy will ride off into the sunset.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by Sportacle
1. A term doesn't have to be identical to infrige on a trademark.

"Confusingly Similar" is enough. That would be the argument.

2. A friend received a letter from an entertainment company a few weeks ago. The first paragraph insisted that the mark had been diluted by redirecting the site to a pay per click site and the company wanted $5,000 in damages immediately, which would be the alternative to avoid litigation. So handing over the domain and calling it even was not an alternative - nor was the UDRP.

3. The cost to larger firms to sue you is actually based on economies of scale. They already have full time counsel on staff that they pay via a salary. So legal costs to a firm like Microsoft is really just asking their Intellectual Property Specialists to work on your case versus another project. The cost to the company is minimal.

4. Many people think you just go to the trademark office and "get a trademark". No. It is not as easy as this. Your application would be published for opposition. The more unique that a mark is and the more classes of goods and services that it covers makes it very difficult to acquire a similar trademark. You would probably face opposition from Microsoft regardless if you were selling the letter "O" or identical software. For instance, the recent case where the makers of SPAM (the canned ham) is opposing the mark application of a company who attempts to stop SPAM (junk email) Although the stop spam comapny is called SpamArrest (or something like that). Again, this is an incremental cost for you to fight the opposition and a smaller cost to large firms who are just trying to find extra work for their staff counsel.

Sportacle...it's not about trademark issues, it's about DotComCowboy posting opinions in a sales thread.

 

[Sportacle]

Sorry, I was trying to cover many of the issues in the thread: cost to litigate, handing it over theory, just trademark it and open up another business. etcc.

But true, this is a sales hread and my comments should have been directed to a new thread in Legal Issues.

My apologies.