Ari Goldberger Wins Fools.com UDRP

[Dave Zan]

The Motley Fool filed a UDRP for fools.com:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1625.html

Ari nailed it for the respondent.

Fools.

 

[Gerry]

That absolutely sucks. I was totally unaware of this FOOL issue.

Tired of seeing these entities think they own the damn dictionary. Even the USPTO does not award the exclusive rights to a generic word.

I am so happy that they lost I will cancel my internet subsciption pronto. Great investment news but that is messing around with our investments. Counterproductive, wasteful use of time, and needless action.

First, I'll see if they are whining about the decision.

Later edit, about an hour after first post:

Well, I found no mention of the matter on their website. I cancelled my e-newsletter subscription with The Motley Fool.

But I felt compelled to send a letter to the editor:
-------------------------------------------------
What's more foolish than a bunch of fools who think they own the alphabet? When those fools are so arrogant that they believe they have the rights to a domain name simply because they want it.

Any junior high school kid with the proper set of tools (a computer and an internet connection) could go to the USTPO and find this statement in regards to granting trademarks:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T1215

This deals specifically with domain names.

Pay Particular attention to section 1215.05 Generic Refusals

Understand when it is referring to being a "refusal" the USPTO is instructing their own patent attorneys to "refuse" the granting of trademarks "in general the examining attorney should refuse registration on the ground that the mark is generic... and cite specific examples of the generic word TURKEY and BANK.

Do understand that you do not own the word fool. Otherwise that would be such a bonanza to be able to sue the hell out of anyone who uttered and printed the word without the express written permission of, well, the fools that be.

So if your contention was it "(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights", then lets start lining them up and go down the list of defendants. And by the way, don't forget there are a total of 256 domain name extensions so do the math.


* befool
* befooled
* befooling
* befools
* damfool
* foolbegged
* fooled
* fooleries
* foolery
* foolfish
* foolfishes
* foolhardier
* foolhardiest
* foolhardily
* foolhardiness
* foolhardinesses
* foolhardise
* foolhardised
* foolhardises
* foolhardising
* foolhardize
* foolhardized
* foolhardizes
* foolhardizing
* foolhardy
* fooling
* foolings
* foolish
* foolisher
* foolishest
* foolishly
* foolishness
* foolishnesses
* foolkiller
* foolkillers
* foolproof
* fools
* foolscap
* foolscaps
* outfool
* outfooled
* outfooling
* outfools
* tomfool
* tomfooled
* tomfooleries
* tomfoolery
* tomfooling
* tomfoolish
* tomfoolishness
* tomfoolishnesses
* tomfools
* unfool
* unfooled
* unfooling
* unfools

 

[acesfull]

Let me get this straight... Motley Fool participated in T.R.A.F.F.I.C., and was a featured guest/speaker? Then files a UDRP for fools.com? Something seems very wrong with this picture.

The Motley Fool filed a UDRP for fools.com:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1625.html

Ari nailed it for the respondent.

Fools.

 

[Theo]

Nothing personal. It's corporate business as usual.

 

[Creature]

Seems to me that Motley Fool had good reason to file a udrp. Why the finance links? Easy to change. Lucky to keep the name.

 

[Focus]

news of the day..lol

 

[Devil Dog]

Let me get this straight... Motley Fool participated in T.R.A.F.F.I.C., and was a featured guest/speaker? Then files a UDRP for fools.com? Something seems very wrong with this picture.

ha, probably tried to purchase it and when they couldn't, they figured they'd UDRP it.

 

[Focus]

He came close to losing it though with the use of the similiar fool jester on his site...you are immune for the most part with generics until you start pushing the limits because companies such as this one will react and we might not all be so lucky..

 

[AlienGG]

While it is possible that the Respondent is not telling the truth and, being an expert in the field of the Internet, was aware of the Complainant’s website at “www.fool.com” and was aware that in 1997 that site had been nominated for a prestigious Webby Award when it registered the Domain Name, it is for the Complainant to prove it to the satisfaction of the Panel.

To be honest, I didn't even know what Webby award was.

 

[muris]

Tom Gardner, co-founder of the Motley Fool acts like he has great sense of humor:

http://www.dnjournal.com/cover/2006/november.htm

If the case we talking here was a joke it wasn't fxxxxxx funny!!!


.

 

[TurNIC.com]

It is lucky that the owner has still have it.

 

[Dave Zan]

Nothing personal. It's corporate business as usual.

Yup. Of course, nothing stops some people from taking things personally.

If Motley takes this through Court, it might be a different story. Hopefully no
one will be taken for a fool if it reaches that, though who the fool might be is
anyone's guess.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I like the decision because it is based on the actual criteria of a UDRP. What puzzles me is the panel seemed to call the respondant a liar, but ruled in their favor because the Motley couldn't prove bad faith registration. But everything else seemed to be in Motley's favor.