C&D sent to Sedo

[toscawan]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has experienced this situation before, where a c&d letter is sent to sedo directly ?

The result is that sedo deleted the domain from it's database.

Thanks,

Tosca

 

[dax]

C&D are usually sent to the address stated in whois, not by the info stated on the webpage. If C&D is sent to Sedo, than this guys are some kind of amateurs...

Are you sure they deleted your name from Sedo db exactly because of that?

 

[legal]

you only contact upstreams as a bluff

you contact the whois owner first, then if they don't reply you target the company hosting it

sounds like a bluff

have you gotten any c&d's?

if you just got the name, there could be a history of disputed ownership

 

[toscawan]

Hi dax and legal,

Thanks for your replies, the following is a excert from the letter sent from sedo....

Following a "cease and desist" letter from xxxx, we have removed your domain xxxx from our database.
We would ask you not to relist it.

Yes, it is a domain that has only recently been purchased.

Tosca

 

[dax]

As i said, it must have been some kind of a amateur... (or bluff like legal said)

 

[legal]

you need to inform the lawyers you now own the name

if you don't want a legal mess, you might try to sell it back to whom you bought it from

you need to find out who is claiming a right to the name

then you need to consult with a lawyer that does Domain Name IP cases

if you bought it for a small fee, get ready to pay thousands to defend the case properly

if a new purchase has C&D action, you need to undo the deal if you can

unless you want to get entangled in lawsuits

 

[jberryhill]

As i said, it must have been some kind of a amateur... (or bluff like legal said)

Amateur? Hmmm... let's see. The TM owner doesn't have to pay the reg fees on a domain name they perhaps don't care to use, but do not want to see used by someone else, and for the cost of one postage stamp they have (a) shut down the web site corresponding to the name, and (b) put the domain registrant on notice they will likely watch what happens next.

Sounds pretty efficient to me.

 

[legal]

Why waste your time having sedo take the name down? 24 Hours later the name can be pinging from any server the current registrant wants.

If you're serious about getting a domain name you C&D the current listed registrant. Then you file a WIPO action if they don't turn it back over to you.

Or if you don't know what you're doing with domain name litigation you file a complaint in state or federal courts in the US or whatever jurisdiction lawyers outside the US use.

Anyway, WIPO is the right place for TM issues in Domains or any type of a claim upon a domain name.

You have three simple legal hurdles to clear to prove a claim upon any domain name.

The complaints at WIPO are settled pretty quickly compared to other forms of litigation.

Now why would anyone waste time threatening SEDO?

Someone without 1500 bucks to file a WIPO complaint?

Someone that has no experience in Domain litigation?

About the only time you should be going upstream with domain name issues is maybe in Libel matters. You threaten the upstreams to remove content that violates their TOS and threaten to bring them into a potential Libel matter.

That's the only time you should be going upstream to an ISP or Host or Quasi-host like Sedo is.

A complaint to Sedo is nothing but a harassment ploy, it does nothing to resolve an ownership matter. So why waste a clients money and time doing such a thing?

The Sedo letter was nothing but an attempt to harass the current owner, when you see a WIPO complaint they are serious.

The only positive out of the Sedo letter is the name won't be resold on Sedo, so what. It can be sold in minutes if it is a good name via DNF or eBay or emailing an offering to a few dozen known domain buyers.

So what does harassing Sedo do?

Not much legally.

Harassment isn't a good legal strategy. If the 'lawyer' was serious the new owner would have a C&D letter and then a complaint in some jurisprudence.

 

[toscawan]

as an interesting side note, there are at least half dozen other names for which the company could approach sedo with a C&D letter, but for the moment they are all still active.

 

[dax]

Amateur? Hmmm... let's see. The TM owner doesn't have to pay the reg fees on a domain name they perhaps don't care to use, but do not want to see used by someone else, and for the cost of one postage stamp they have (a) shut down the web site corresponding to the name, and (b) put the domain registrant on notice they will likely watch what happens next.

Sounds pretty efficient to me.

Legal said it all, so i will not bother replying. Read his post

 

[jberryhill]

There are plenty of reasons why someone might do things that you do not expect them to do. That you seem to believe there is a "one size fits all" approach to TM enforcement indicates you have not seen many situations.

There are, for example, certain companies which are perfectly aware that there are hundreds or thousands of variations on multiple trademarks of theirs which are registered. They do not want to register all of those domain names, nor do they want to pay $1500 a pop for UDRP proceedings on all of them. If they simply do not want those domain names used for PPC advertising, etc., then paying $.37 for sending essentially the same form letter to hosting companies, which are typically highly risk averse and compliant, is tremendously more efficient.

Absolutely, the domain registrant can have that domain name pointed somewhere else in 24 hours. And if the TM owner sends 365 letters per year to different hosting companies, then the total annual cost is still only $135 for aggravating the heck out of the domain registrant. Even if the TM owner would prefer to obtain the domain name, after enough aggravation, the domain registrant may not renew, and if it is a not particularly attractive variation, then they may pick it up in a wide net of snapbacks they have for the hundreds of domain names on their list.

To the domain registrant using Sedo parking, the perspective is one of a single domain name and a single trademark. To the TM owner, they are often looking at a much larger picture, and using a broader strategy to pick their targets for other types of enforcement actions.

The notion that "you only contact upstreams as a bluff" is a remarkably limited view. If a client walks into your office saying, "I have a trademark that is being used in 500 domain names. Some of the domain names don't point to anything, some point to porn, some point to pay-per-click parking pages, and some of them are used to sell competing products.", then what do you say?

"Oh, no problem, just give me $750,000 and we'll file 500 UDRP cases."

Yah, right. As they walk out of your office, could you please give them my number?

 

[legal]

Time is money, you equate 37 cents as the 'cost' of such a 'strategy'.

1. Such letters should be sent registered.

2. Will you be doing such mailings for 'free' for your 'clients'.

If a company owns a TM that 'many' people are registering in plurals and such in numerous tlds then they should do several things.

1. Fire the person that is President of IT, it costs 6 bucks or so to own your TM in the top TLDs with plurals and other plays on the TM.

2. Larger companies use in house legal staff to do such mundane chores as sending letters to TM infringers, so none will be walking into anyones office to hire somebody to do such minor chores.

3. A company without in house counsel more than likely doesn't own a famous enough TM to have such problems.

Your own reply shows that a 'bluff' is the likely desire of the C&D, you said,

"If they simply do not want those domain names used for PPC advertising, etc., then paying $.37 for sending essentially the same form letter to hosting companies, which are typically highly risk averse and compliant, is tremendously more efficient."

So your 'opinion' is a company is looking for 'cheap fix' to the problem.

Yet, you don't include the manpower costs to generate the letters, or do you think a template is a legal notice?

An attorney trying to 'resolve' a TM issue and not just 'harass' a domain name owner isn't wasting time going upstream. Any TM issues that a company is 'paying' an attorney to pursue will result in a complaint either at WIPO or another jurisprudence.

Now perhaps the 'attorney' is the person who is trying to make a claim on a TM he owns, then the actions of complaining to Sedo are understandable.

Any attorney that wants to 'resolve' the problem knows what has to be done.

Complaining to Sedo isn't an action to 'resolve' anything.

Get in your last word, since I will no longer reply to this thread. My time is too valuable.

 

[jberryhill]

So your 'opinion' is a company is looking for 'cheap fix' to the problem.

No. My opinion is simply that companies take any number of different approaches to dealing with trademark enforcement.

And, yes, sending out lots of form letters is one of them.

The primary form letter used by, for example, the National Association of Realtors to domain registrants simply requests the registrant not use or renew the domain name. There are more than 2,000 domain names with the term "realtor" in them. They do not want all of those domain names. They simply want to police the use of them.

Caesar's Entertainment uses a similar form letter, and outside counsel, for domain names having the word "flamingo", or other Caesar's marks, in them.

Mr. Leo Stoller has a standard form for just about any domain name with the word "stealth" in it.

Ditto Volkswagen and their marks.

The list goes on. Some of these companies and form letters are familiar enough to me that I can quote them without looking. Some firms charge a flat rate for X number of c&d letters, solely for the purpose of being able to show those letters as evidence of enforcement efforts if anyone challenges the distinctiveness of their marks in litigation.

But the point is that people do lots of things for lots of reasons. Assuming that these people in particular do not know what they are doing may not be a valid assumption.

 

[dtobias]

I'd think that somebody could use a domain name with "flamingo" in it to sell pink flamingo statues for people to put on their lawns without infringing any Caesars' trademark.

 

[jberryhill]

I'd think that somebody could use a domain name with "flamingo" in it to sell pink flamingo statues for people to put on their lawns without infringing any Caesars' trademark.

Absolutely, as was extensively discussed in another forum when the owner of pinkflamingo.com received one of their form letters.

However, merely sending C&D letters has value to a TM owner that can be entirely tangential to whatever issue exists, or does not exist, with the recipient of the letter. One of the things TM owners will do long before suing person A, who might challenge the distintiveness of the TM, is to send reams of letters to all sorts of people in order to build up a file of "enforcement efforts" to demonstrate they have been diligent in policing their mark.

 

[namedropper]

It always amuses me to see people with no apparent background coming up with simplistic answers and then getting into arguments with people who are known experts.

Frankly, I hope more people send C&D letters to domain sites that profit from the cybersquatting of others. Maybe with enough threats of lawsuits they'll eventually do what they should have done in the first place and refuse to deal with people like that. Cybersquatting makes the rest of us look bad, and letting them post here and list at Sedo and so forth brings us all down. Anything that can work towards maybe preventing that is a good thing, no matter what some clueless newbie says about it being stupid.

 

[dtobias]

One of the things TM owners will do long before suing person A, who might challenge the distintiveness of the TM, is to send reams of letters to all sorts of people in order to build up a file of "enforcement efforts" to demonstrate they have been diligent in policing their mark.

So, in the mindset of the trademark gang, harrassing lots of perfectly innocent people is perfectly normal activity, even to be expected?

 

[legal]

Hey Philly lawyer do you know a certain 'law professor' in Philly who is considered an 'expert' on TM law?

He did a couple of TM's for me over a decade ago, at 1000.00 per name.

His results were 1 for 2, he only got one name registered.

And he was 'one of the best' in the game.

Seems the 'philly lawyer' admits that 'harassment' or 'bluffing' is a 'plan of attack' by TM lawyers.

The best lawyers cut to the chase, they 'resolve' matters.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Dan Norder> "Cybersquatting makes the rest of us look bad..."

I agree - as do all honest registrants.

However - our opinions may differ on what is or is not cybersquatting.

Mine is that it is NOT cybersquatting to simply own/sell a domain that could lawfully be used for different businesses.

Do you agree?

"It always amuses me to see people with no apparent background coming up with simplistic answers and then getting into arguments with people who are known experts."

Am I being paranoid - or do you include me ;-)

Talking about things that amuse people.

It always amuses me to see experts avoid talking about the law being perverted to allow corporate trademark overreach.

What you may call my "simplistic answers" - is in fact getting to the root of problem.

With every word trademarked many times over - there is bound to be consumer confusion with domain names.

You know many businesses share the same words.

Why then do you think corporations not want their domains identified as being owned by them?

 

[toscawan]

Namedropper,

I find it quite amusing that you seem to stand on your soapbox regarding cybersquatting, when you actually own a domain that is trademarked.

Tosca