- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm just posting this, in the hopes it helps a few people.
I have a stack of C&D letters. So far, I've only lost one domain, and that was to a nut case. (Really, the person was crazy and I saw no way to negotiate with a crazy person, so I let it go.)
Anyway, most all of these C&D letters like to site the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. But what they fail to mention is that the act only applies to "famous" trademarks. In the AveryDennison case, the judge ruled Avery Dennison was NOT famous, and therefore the ACPA did not apply. I also note the Scientology cases.... There the CoS sent letters to the hosting companies to take down the offending sites (Critical of the CoS) and use the ACPA to base their claims. However the various CoS cases have been copyright, not trademark cases. And the ACPA has nothing to do with copyright. And their lawyers darn well know this, but they are not above a little legal bullying, and so try to make the letters sound "tougher' and quote the ACPA.
So, the next time you get a C&D letter, and they try to claim their trademark is "famous" don't fall for it. It's lawyer bullying. Famous are things like "Cher" "Madonna" "ebay" etc. Most domain disputes do not really fit the law of the CPA.
Now the above does not necessarily apply to arbitration, where WIPO people are usually ignorant of domain holders rights. However, if a US Fed. Court is threatened, you do have an answer for that.
hth
I have a stack of C&D letters. So far, I've only lost one domain, and that was to a nut case. (Really, the person was crazy and I saw no way to negotiate with a crazy person, so I let it go.)
Anyway, most all of these C&D letters like to site the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. But what they fail to mention is that the act only applies to "famous" trademarks. In the AveryDennison case, the judge ruled Avery Dennison was NOT famous, and therefore the ACPA did not apply. I also note the Scientology cases.... There the CoS sent letters to the hosting companies to take down the offending sites (Critical of the CoS) and use the ACPA to base their claims. However the various CoS cases have been copyright, not trademark cases. And the ACPA has nothing to do with copyright. And their lawyers darn well know this, but they are not above a little legal bullying, and so try to make the letters sound "tougher' and quote the ACPA.
So, the next time you get a C&D letter, and they try to claim their trademark is "famous" don't fall for it. It's lawyer bullying. Famous are things like "Cher" "Madonna" "ebay" etc. Most domain disputes do not really fit the law of the CPA.
Now the above does not necessarily apply to arbitration, where WIPO people are usually ignorant of domain holders rights. However, if a US Fed. Court is threatened, you do have an answer for that.
hth