"Clear and present danger"

[actnow]

I would like one of the lawyers to comment on this.
Plus, other members who have experienced this type of potential problem.

I noticed that SurfPoints.net expired today.

Upon checking I see that a company has a (tm) on

SURFPOINT (wireless points)

Would the (tm) owner have the right to claim
the name?

I realize that if I wanted to use SurfPoints.net for
listing all of the great surfing points. Then, if would
not be a conflict.

If I don't do anything with the site then I would
fail on the three points (bad faith, etc.)

Furthermore, if these type of names exist that might
conflict with a (tm). Why don't the companies buy the
names instead of paying legal fees and UD fees.

And, does the (tm) company have the right to pick which
domains to go after. For example, If I owned the .net
and SBC owned the .com. Could they just come after
me and ignore SBC because SBC has a strong legal staff?
And, the (tm) interpretation might be questionable.

I am asking this because sometimes I assume incorrectly.

What is your opinion?

And, any member of the forum who has had an experience like
this. Please comment so the rest of us can learn.

Thanks,

 

[actnow]

I also noticed today that
ExpressCookies.com is on hold.

And, there is a (tm) for
Cookies Express

Am I to assume correctly that the above
.com is worthless?

I do not own any of the domains or (tm) mentioned.

Thanks,

 

[jberryhill]

"And, does the (tm) company have the right to pick which
domains to go after. "

Absolutely.

It is the same situation as ocurred in grade school when you felt singled out by the teacher for punishment when "all of the other kids in class" were doing whatever you were caught doing. That defense didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

(with the minor caveat that if there are enough "other kids", then the TM itself might be questionable)