Goodwill Non-Profit Sues to Get Goodwill.com Domain Name

[katherine]

Charity sues company that bought domain name for $55,000 in NameJet domain name auction.

Non-profit Goodwill Industries International has sued the owner of Goodwill.com for alleged trademark infringement. The lawsuit (pdf) names Cyber2Media, Inc., the owner of the domain, and Oversee.net, which briefly monetized the domain on its DomainSponsor platform, as defendants.

For years, the domain name Goodwill.com was used by Goodwill Group, Inc., a Japanese staffing company. Goodwill Industries notes that it didn’t believe Goodwill Group was using the domain in bad faith. But then Goodwill Group changed its name and let the domain name expire.

Domain name registrar Network Solutions sent the domain name to an expired domain auction earlier this month on NameJet. Goodwill Industries contacted Network Solutions to try to stop the auction from taking place, but was unsuccessful. The winning bid was $55,000. (DNJournal reports the winning bid in this week’s sales report as $55,978.)

After winning the auction, the lawsuit alleges that Cyber2Media parked the domain name with links related to charitable giving. Goodwill Industries claims this has caused severe damage since December is a busy month for charitable giving.

The domain was originally parked at DomainSponsor, but is now parked with an eNom service.

Goodwill Industries claims trademark infringement, unfair competition, violation of the anti-cybersquatting protection act, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unjust enrichment. Goodwill is seeking transfer of the domain name and economic damages.

Source: http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/17/goodwill-non-profit-sues-to-get-goodwill-com-domain-name/

I wonder if the bidders at namejet were informed of the pending claim

 

[Mike Cruz]

Lol, I saw that coming when it was up for auction at NameJet.com, but really unjustified. Who do they think they are? "Tried to stop Network Solutions from letting it go to auction" Oh wouldn't that be nice...

 

[Devil Dog]

Source: http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/17/goodwill-non-profit-sues-to-get-goodwill-com-domain-name/

I wonder if the bidders at namejet were informed of the pending claim

Saw this coming from a mile away.

The winners were pretty silly to have competing links to goodwill.

 

[katherine]

Yeah, I think their 'proactive' stance was unjustified but it all depends how the domain is used.
NJ should have disclosed the potential threat to bidders. I hope they did.

 

[draggar]

This will be an interesting one to watch. Goodwill could be considered a generic (kind hearted, etc..) which the charity could easily claims violates their TM.

IMO they had no right to try to stop the auction, though. Even Microsoft wouldn't have the right to stop the auction of Windows.com (if it ever dropped).

The sad part is that if the Japanese company had any domaining knowledge, they could have sold it for a nice chunk of change.

Yeah, I think their 'proactive' stance was unjustified but it all depends how the domain is used.
NJ should have disclosed the potential threat to bidders. I hope they did.

Why? From a business standpoint that might have only cut into their profit margin. They have little to nothing to lose.

 

[katherine]

Why? From a business standpoint that might have only cut into their profit margin. They have little to nothing to lose.

That's the point.
I think that's unethical. People have been banned from DNF for selling domains without disclosing they had active C&Ds.

 

[DomainsInc]

isn't goodwill a generic term? they didn't create it.

 

[Mike Cruz]

isn't goodwill a generic term? they didn't create it.

exactly, they just wanted another handout and are trying to get this domain for free

 

[exxe]

NJ should have disclosed the potential threat to bidders. I hope they did.

No, they didn't,

 

[FormerDnForumer]

isn't goodwill a generic term? they didn't create it.

PPC terms were in clear violation of Goodwill's mark.

 

[draggar]

That's the point.
I think that's unethical. People have been banned from DNF for selling domains without disclosing they had active C&Ds.

I do agree but I'm sure any drop-catch service will take the same approch that the pirate bay did - we only supply the means and we ask people to be ethical about it but it's the people who go after infringing domains.

It saved the pirate bay from the full brunt of legal repurcussions.

 

[FormerDnForumer]

As we've learned from the SnapNames debacle, the question of ethics is rarely considered.

And Network Solutions is one of the most unethical monstrosities ever to rule the world, for those of us who have seen everything under the sun over the years.

 

[Mike Cruz]

I think it is a generic term and NameJet shouldn't have had to disclose any POSSIBLE TM infringement as that is the responsibility of the buyer. IF there were previous C&D's against the domain name previously, then they were also unjustified as it was a company based over sea's that had nothing to do with the Goodwill charity. If the domain was parked (automatically in most cases) and it infringed upon goodwill's trademark, this may be a issue, but once removed ~ I don't see the problem.

This is simply Goodwill trying to reverse hijack a domain and get it for free rather than bidding in the auction and having to pay $50,000+ for it.

Pure BS imho...

 

[mmerlin]

Yeah for spending that much on a name you'd think they would apply for a trademark somewhere to protect it first, even though trademarks take a year or so to be appproved.

 

[Mike Cruz]

As we've learned from the SnapNames debacle, the question of ethics is rarely considered.

And Network Solutions is one of the most unethical monstrosities ever to rule the world, for those of us who have seen everything under the sun over the years.

I am not a fan of Netsol, FAR from it, but you think they should of just handed over a generic term .com because some company thinks it belongs to them? Give me a break...

 

[FormerDnForumer]

I think it is a generic term and NameJet shouldn't have had to disclose any POSSIBLE TM infringement as that is the responsibility of the buyer. IF there were previous C&D's against the domain name previously, then they were also unjustified as it was a company based over sea's that had nothing to do with the Goodwill charity. If the domain was parked (automatically in most cases) and it infringed upon goodwill's trademark, this may be a issue, but once removed ~ I don't see the problem.

I don't think you really have a grip on things. It's absolutely unethical to auction a name that is contested in that way. It's typical of this biz to sell and ask questions later. If I personally sold a domain that was "hot" in that way without notifying potential buyers, I consider myself the shadiest of shades.

Additionally, it was noted that the new buyer monetized the name--however briefly--with links related to charity giving. Now this is just alleged at this point, but it matters little how long it was. Domain lawyers have noted that a single screenshot of offending links are enough to claim bad faith.

We'll see if Goodwill has a case, but there is shady bullshit and stupidity to go around on this one.

 

[katherine]

My point exactly. Any pending claim must be disclosed, no matter how frivolous.

 

[Mike Cruz]

I don't think you really have a grip on things.

Lol? Because you think differently? Sorry, but I am not up for corporations thinking they can take whatever they think belongs to them, charity or not.

My point exactly. Any pending claim must be disclosed, no matter how frivolous.

Isn't the supposed pending claim made AFTER it was auctioned? How would this be the responsibility of NameJet?

If when NameJet had the domain name and it was parked with them through DomainSponsor and at that point had charity ads, then yes, I can understand why NameJet should take some responsibility, but this shouldn't fault on buyer, unless like it seems, they did this AFTER willing the domain and taking possession.

All in all, lets be real, Goodwill could of got in on this auction and bid like everyone else, but they decided to take a risk and try to get it the easy way and for as cheap as possible.

 

[FormerDnForumer]

If when NameJet had the domain name and it was parked with them through DomainSponsor and at that point had charity ads, then yes, I can understand why NameJet should take some responsibility, but this shouldn't fault on buyer, unless like it seems, they did this AFTER willing the domain and taking possession.

That's what you don't have a grip on: "allegedly" the new owner monetized it after he took control. Stop shrieking about corporations reverse jacking until the facts come out--you're preaching to the choir.

 

[Mike Cruz]

That's what you don't have a grip on: "allegedly" the new owner monetized it after he took control. Stop shrieking about corporations reverse jacking until the facts come out--you're preaching to the choir.

Lol, not really sure why you are getting so personal about this, but what you are accusing me of, you are doing exactly the same, just on the opposite side of the table.

Whats the saying? "Get a grip" ?