Another C&D Letter commitments.com

[Fearless]

Received another C&D letter today for commitments.com.

I also received an arbitration notice for bostitch.com.
Last week I received an arbitration for ardus.com.

After a dry spell, this sudden increase in activity tells me domain names are on the rise. The dot com bust is behind us.

 

[draqon]

on the other hand, Afternic's demise is not exactly a great omen.

 

[NamePopper.com]

Afternic's demise has as much (if not more) to do with how the place was run--than the domain industry itself.

 

[bidawinner]

Thats funny..We have a the Gregr c&d meter to judge the domain market :laugh:


So if you land in Jail we should all be making tons of dough by then ? LOLOLOL

..
sorry gregr..

 

[RacerX]

How are you going to handle bostitch.com?

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

Maybe Afternic is a contrarian indicator -- they'd close things right when the market is poised to surge?

 

[BobBob is verified member.]

Originally posted by gregr
Received another C&D letter today for commitments.com.

I also received an arbitration notice for bostitch.com.
Last week I received an arbitration for ardus.com.

After a dry spell, this sudden increase in activity tells me domain names are on the rise. The dot com bust is behind us.

Wa-Hoo! You go Greg!

As bidawinner stated - Gregr's C&D letters can be our barometer of the state of the domain name market! :laugh:

Looks like John will not be posting here for awhile as he works on Gregr's latest letters.

-Bob

 

[Silverwire]

Out of curiosity I did a quick trademark search of "commitments".

It's hard to imagine what idiot thinks he has the right to it. Go greg.

 

[Lew]

Don't roll over on "commitments". That one will take some crooked WIPO arbitrators to take away from you....wait....scratch that.....all the WIPO arbitrators may be crooked! ....ok....roll over!

 

[Mythios]

How can someone claim trademark rights to a dictionary term like commitments? I'm lost on that one. Someone please explain, better yet let the thief who is trying to steal it come on here and explain to all of us why he is so special to deserve thieving rights over a common term coined in 1621 and has an originating history dating back to the sixteenth century.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Mythios, try starting an oil company using the dictionary word "Shell" and you will very quickly learn how someone can have a trademark consisting of a dictionary word.

Try selling spark plugs called "Champion".

Try selling detergent called "Tide".

"Coke" is a form a processed coal - it is a thoroughly generic word. It is also a trademark for a beverage, and is one of the most well-known trademarks on the planet.

Can you use the term "coke" in connection with blast-furnace operation? Absolutely

There should be no surprise that people have TM's which consist entirely of "dictionary words". In fact both "Coca" and "Cola" are the names of plants. But that is beside the point when evaluating the merits of an assertion against a domain name.

 

[options]

Commitments.com has a search engine and some general links on it.
I don't think anyone trademarked similar content under that name before.

"Bad Faith" remains only. Commit the site.

 

[draqon]

what happens if I try selling detergent called CocaCola Detergent?

 

[StockDoctor]

I still can't get over the foreign trademark on Wallstreet, used successfully in the landrushes I might add.

 

[Silverwire]

Originally posted by jberryhill
But that is beside the point when evaluating the merits of an assertion against a domain name.

I understand that people can have a TM on Champion, Tide and Coke. My question is what gives these TM owners, who actually maybe one of many TM owners for the same term in various uses, the right to claim a domain name that has not shown bad faith?

(also asked in more detail in the thread "Domain sale page content and it's legal implication.", http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7606, answer where ever you please.)

 

[Mythios]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Mythios, try starting an oil company using the dictionary word "Shell" and you will very quickly learn how someone can have a trademark consisting of a dictionary word.

Try selling spark plugs called "Champion".

Try selling detergent called "Tide".

"Coke" is a form a processed coal - it is a thoroughly generic word. It is also a trademark for a beverage, and is one of the most well-known trademarks on the planet.

Can you use the term "coke" in connection with blast-furnace operation? Absolutely

There should be no surprise that people have TM's which consist entirely of "dictionary words". In fact both "Coca" and "Cola" are the names of plants. But that is beside the point when evaluating the merits of an assertion against a domain name.

Yes, JB, I understand that totally, as I'm an English major. The explanations of those terms are well-known even by non-English majors, but you described the examples succinctly and nicely. I've just never heard of a company named Commitments and always find it ludicrous when someone tries to rake a generic name like that away from someone else. What kind of ground is he/she standing on? I don't know the details of Greg's situation either. Best of luck, Greg. And, JB, if you can explain further the last sentence of your quote about evaluating merits of an assertion against a domain name--generic, to be precise--it would be interesting and helpful to know your thoughts on how to prevent or combat similar situations in future cases.

 

[Drewbert]

>I've just never heard of a company named Commitments

"The Commitments"

A movie about a band called...

I'll allow them the rights to thecommitments.com but they can pry commitments.com out of my cold, dead hand.

Unless I form a band doing their covers.

Hang on a second! They're a "covers" band anyway!

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

There is simply no way to prevent trademark owners from making over-reaching assertions of their rights, even when the trademark is a "dictionary word". As for combatting them, it depends on the case.

Take a couple of "dictionary words."

Tobacco:

http://tobacco.com/attempted-hijack...king-NAF97103/berryhill-domain-hijacking.html

Mutineer:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/114434.htm

Woodworker:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/103055.htm

Motorcyclist:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0311.html

About the only thing those three cases had in common was that they all involved a "dictionary word". But there is no "one size fits all" answer as to how they were defended in view of the particular circumstances of each case. If I had a cookie cutter for these things it would be easier, but maybe someday I will write an idiots guide to UDRP disputes.

Then again, I did that one too:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm