Chipping away at free speech?

[DNQuest.com]

I have already stated that I have spelling errors, it is not due to being a bad speller. it is due to the short amount of time I am online and can't proofread. I am stuck with IE here, not Firefox (which has spell correction). Please forgive my spelling.. and yes.. politician...

 

[typist]

Heh, I'm sure DNQuest means that.

I'm speechless that this thread is still going on.

Edit: you might want to read this, just came in my mail:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1627.html

hm...I'm surprised no one posted this decision yet:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0143.html

I agree there is a disagreement here

 

[Gerry]

I think this clearly shows how fractured the interpretation of the law is and it boils down to a decision making process of the panelist(s).

Here is another Panel of ONE...I wonder if anyone has kept track of which way the Panel Of One goes...for the respondent or the complainant. Most I have seen are for the complainant. (I am not taking into consideration the strength of the argument or the case...just simply making an observation on the rulings of the Panel of One and to whom the decision favors)

 

[Dave Zan]

hm...I'm surprised no one posted this decision yet:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0143.html

Well, I wasn't interested because it seems pretty clear. The complainant had
satisfied all 3 conditions, the respondent didn't reply, and the panelist had to
make a decision to meet the deadline set.

I happen to agree with the decision. But then, our opinions don't matter when
any applicable decision says otherwise.

For the decision I posted earlier, the complainant got half their money's worth
for it.

 

[Mr. DeletedMr. Deleted is verified member.]

I am asking because I see on paypalsucks.com They are posting affiliate links also; and promoting another online payment processor.

I do have a beef with a certain company, and would like to provide alternatives and it's a big company so there is much risk.

http://www.paypalwarning.com/ebay_tries_to_bully_the_domain_from_us

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?fid=3&tid=566&old_block=0

 

[Sarcle]

http://www.paypalwarning.com/ebay_tries_to_bully_the_domain_from_us

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?fid=3&tid=566&old_block=0

Cool, I thank you sir.

 

[Mr. DeletedMr. Deleted is verified member.]

no problem. Good luck with it.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Quick answer:

TM+"sucks"=OK if no profiteering; PPC etc. -- like PayPalSucks -- except that they are now profiting by affiliate links in same market. Bad move.

TM+"sucks">PPC is a no-no.

Common sense.

 

[Raider]

I agree with aZooZa, if your using a TM domain for profit, that's where it crosses the line, No matter how you look at it, your profiting off the backs of TM holders.