I got my first C+D letter, Yea :)

[opportunitymagic]

I just went to my po box and found my very first C+D letter....Looks like Porsche didnt like the fact that I registered the name of their newest car

They want me to sign a document that says I will not use the domain, I have not trademark on the name, I will not transfer the domain, and I will not renew the name. They didnt offer me any money.

Should I just sign the thing and send it back?

Thx, Allen

 

[iBizStart]

Tell them they can have the name for a porsche

 

[Cash Is King]

I would not sign anything and then I would develop it into a fan site. Either that or sell it to GT Web.

 

[888]

Should I just sign the thing and send it back?

Be careful signing ANY docs others wrote for you, and you're not even being compensated for reg fees. Do you want to give up the domain? Maybe just ask the registrar to delete it?

PS. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

[GT Web]

Either that or sell it to GT Web.

Hehe, thats funny. I also own a Porsche model .com name... (PorscheGT1.com)

I have never had any issues with any of the car names I own...

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

I just went to my po box and found my very first C+D letter....Looks like Porsche didnt like the fact that I registered the name of their newest car

They want me to sign a document that says I will not use the domain, I have not trademark on the name, I will not transfer the domain, and I will not renew the name. They didnt offer me any money.

Should I just sign the thing and send it back?

Thx, Allen
++++++++++++++

YES!

However, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

[namedropper]

You aren't Porsche and have no legitimate right to the name. As a US citizen, you are in violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of 1999. So unless you don't mind the very real potential that you could get hit with a $100,000 fine plus legal fees, yes, sign the thing, and avoid registering domains that are obvious trademark violations in the future.

 

[kvarnsten]

You aren't Porsche and have no legitimate right to the name. As a US citizen, you are in violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of 1999. So unless you don't mind the very real potential that you could get hit with a $100,000 fine plus legal fees, yes, sign the thing, and avoid registering domains that are obvious trademark violations in the future.

So me for example, not being a US citizen, am not running the same threat of being fined $100k etc? would be nice to know if theres a difference.

Matt

 

[AlwaysSomething]

You aren't Porsche and have no legitimate right to the name. As a US citizen, you are in violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Act of 1999. So unless you don't mind the very real potential that you could get hit with a $100,000 fine plus legal fees, yes, sign the thing, and avoid registering domains that are obvious trademark violations in the future.

I think this is getting a little carried away.

I can`t believe that even a obvious trademarked name, or even a similar name, can`t be registered in any extension by anybody but the trademark owner.

There are dozens of extensions and more being added all the time. You mean to tell me that any trademark owner is the only company that can register a name in any of these dozens of extensions?

Then there is the issue of adding an e or an i in front of a domain name,

Someone here mentioned eCorvette.com would be close enough to the trade mark to have us worried.

So what is being said is that chevy has the right to steal a domain from anybody that owns eCorvette or any other trademarked model name with a letter in front of it?

And what about all the other dot extensions (ie. .FM .WS .CC . org.uk, .Name etc. etc etc.) Does this mean that any eTrademarkedModelName cant be registered in any extension by anyone but the similiar trademark owner. And the trademark owner has the lock on all domain names in all extensions that are even remotely similar to theirs?

If this is the case then all a trademark owner has to do is wait for notice that someone else has registered or purchased a domain name (at aftermarket prices), in any ext. and steal it from them with a threat of trademark infringement or worse, cyber squatting.

Common sense should tell us that This defies all logic. But it seems as though it is either happening this way or at least the big companies have us scared enough to believe this is what is happening.

COMMENTS? Any Lawyers here who can clarify what the real deal is and how far the trademark issue of domains can stretch the limits of the law?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

So what is being said is that chevy has the right to steal a domain from anybody that owns eCorvette or any other trademarked model name with a letter in front of it?
+++++++++++++++++

No, what is being said is that domainers cannot steal famous, distinctive, and registered trademarks --valueable intellectual property-- which in many cases represents BILLIONS of dollars of investment, maintenance, and promotion.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

No, what is being said is that domainers cannot steal famous, distinctive, and registered trademarks --valueable intellectual property-- which in many cases represents BILLIONS of dollars of investment, maintenance, and promotion.

That is my point exactly. But from what I`ve been seeing on this and other forums it isn`t the case. Many people are being hassled from big MILLION DOLLAR or BILLION DOLLAR cos. over issues other than the ones YOU describe above.

 

[namedropper]

I can`t believe that even a obvious trademarked name, or even a similar name, can`t be registered in any extension by anybody but the trademark owner.
[...]

Common sense should tell us that This defies all logic.

I'm afraid that your version of "common sense" isn't at all logical.

If it's an obvious trademark name that can only be used to try to make money off of a company's intellectual property (like the model of a car by BMW or Porsche) you cannot use it unless you have explicit written permission from that company, which can take away such permission at any time. Thety own that phrase. You don't. They control it. You can't do business on it. This is simple, and if you can't figure it out you deserve to get taken to court.

You can't whine about the company waiting for someone to register a TM violating name and then "stealing" it when the name NEVER should have been registered in the first place. You can't "steal" intellectual property that already belongs from you, you can only take it away from someone who was trying to steal it themselves.

Now if it's a name for which there's a perfect good alternate use other than one refering to the company's TM, and you use it that way, by all means. That's not at all the case in the example that started this thread.

If you try to make money off the fact that some company popularized a word or phrase for their business, that's wrong, and all the rationalizing and complaining won't excuse it.

 

[namedropper]

So me for example, not being a US citizen, am not running the same threat of being fined $100k etc? would be nice to know if theres a difference.

Matt

In other countries you can still be sued and be fined, but the judge has more lattitude in determining your fine. It could still be $100K (or the equivalent in your money) or more.

And in any location they can always go the UDRP route, which does not involve fining the loser but can set a precedent that future UDRP cases against you could be easier to win because you might already be determined to be operating in bad faith in general, which makes it easier for the panelists to assume you are in any case that comes after that, as well as any legal procedings in the future.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

In other countries you can still be sued and be fined, but the judge has more lattitude in determining your fine. It could still be $100K (or the equivalent in your money) or more.

And in any location they can always go the UDRP route, which does not involve fining the loser but can set a precedent that future UDRP cases against you could be easier to win because you might already be determined to be operating in bad faith in general, which makes it easier for the panelists to assume you are in any case that comes after that, as well as any legal procedings in the future.

namedropper,
are you an attorney?

 

[TheDomainMan]

no...hes a judge

 

[namedropper]

namedropper,
are you an attorney?

Nope, and that's not professional legal advice, laws vary by country, consult your local listings and blah blah blah. But usually there's a lawyer or two who come along later and confirm what I say. And they aren't giving out official legal advice either unless you pay them.

I'm just fairly well read up on the law as it applies to domains, and I recommend that anyone else investing in domains do so as well. Odd though, when people in the other thread were telling you what you wanted to hear you didn't ask if they were lawyers (they aren't either).

The things you are asking about are some of the more clear cut basic legal issues related to domain names. Using a car company's trademarked name in a domain related to cars for a site about cars without that company's explicit written approval is obviously a bad idea. The only way you could claim otherwise is if you want to completely rewrite international trademark law (which is, incidentally, what one of the people who responded to you in the other thread wants to do). I don't know about you, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Go read ICANN's UDRP guidelines or the AntiCybersquatting Act. It's all there in black and white for you. All you need to do is take a little bit of effort to educate yourself to avoid lots of legal problems that could cost you a substantial amount of money.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Dan> The only way you could claim otherwise is if you want to completely rewrite international trademark law (which is, incidentally, what one of the people who responded to you in the other thread wants to do).

From past experience - I believe Dan refers to me.

He is grossly misrepresenting my true primary position - which is this:

I want the authorities to stop the ABUSE of international trademark law.

From their replies it can be seen that even the USPTO and UK Patent Office KNOW that to be true.

Ask Eleanor K. Meltzer, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Legislative and International Affairs at USPTO.

What his spin on this refers to - is these facts:

1. Virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country - so all domains are going to be 'confusingly similar'.

2. Registered trademarks carry the ® symbol to identify them - therefore it is obvious that they should show a similar label to identify them on the Internet.

3. A protected .reg TLD would do just that e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else would it be?

This provides a certificate of authentication and directory services - both sadly missing from current system - you would think them essential, so guess why not.

Dan is one of those that hide from facts like they were the pox ;-)

P.S. IANAL - which you can likely tell from my WIPrg.uk site

Incidentally, ICANN's UDRP guidelines came from UN WIPO, whom are biased towards big business with intellectual-property rights - both in principle and with cash.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

no...he (namedropper) is a judge

Judge, Jury, and Executioner sounds like to me!

 

[AlwaysSomething]

Odd though, when people in the other thread were telling you what you wanted to hear you didn't ask if they were lawyers (they aren't either).

It`s because most said they weren`t. and weren`t arrogant about their answers.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

3. A protected .reg TLD would do just that e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else would it be?
+++++++++++++++

Of course it COULD be "directed" --but this will never happen!

You are proposing to replace a sleek new sports car with an old junker.