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

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> 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?

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

You obviously do not understand.

I propose keeping the "sleek new sports car" and giving it additional label to say whom it belongs to.

This in no way replaces anything.

This simply gives increased functionality - certificate of authentication and directory services.

Just like .gov can only be US government sites - .reg could identify registered trademarks - true or false?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

This simply gives increased functionality - certificate of authentication and directory services.

Just like .gov can only be US government sites - .reg could identify registered trademarks - true or false?
+++++++++++++

Even if you could go back in time, it still wouldn't work.

It does not "increase funtionality," it makes marketing much more awkward.

The internet is about marketing and communication.

APPLE.COM hosts Apple Computer Corp. I don't think many people are confusing it with Sunny Valley Apple Farm.

apples.apple.us.reg
computers.apple.us.reg

or

SunnyValley.com
Apple.com

There is no comparison. I think I even got confused with the first set above.

 

[namedropper]

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

LOL, no, they were arrogant, they were just arrogantly saying what you wanted to hear. And your posts are extremely arrogant. You say you don't care if they are trademark violations that you should be able to do it anyway, and you bitch and complain about rules that you agreed to whenever you register a name. Come on, grow up and stop whining.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

LOL, no, they were arrogant, they were just arrogantly saying what you wanted to hear. And your posts are extremely arrogant. You say you don't care if they are trademark violations that you should be able to do it anyway, and you bitch and complain about rules that you agreed to whenever you register a name. Come on, grow up and stop whining.

Dan,So let me see if I understand you correctly, Nobody can register a domain name if the name being used is trademarked? Regardless of who owns the trademark? Or does this just pertain to big companies trademarks? what if a small or relatively small company has a name trademarked, can someone register that EXACT .com name?

 

[namedropper]

Dan,So let me see if I understand you correctly, Nobody can register a domain name if the name being used is trademarked? Regardless of who owns the trademark? Or does this just pertain to big companies trademarks? what if a small or relatively small company has a name trademarked, can someone register that EXACT .com name?

You know, you could save yourself a lot of grief by actually reading the threads in this folder.

Registering a name that happens to have a term that may be trademarked for some use somewhere isn't automatically a violation. If you plan to use that name with that trademark in it for a use that overlaps that of the trademark, yes, that's a violation.

Let's start at the top. Apple.com. If you had bought this and tried to sell computers, yes, violation. If you were Microsoft and bought it specifically so Apple couldn;t, even though you didn't put anything on it, yes, that'd probably count as a violation by most judge's standards. If you tried to sell apples and other fruit, or were Apple Records and bought it for the music industry, etc., no, no violation. But if you bought AppleComputers.com you are automatically in violation because it coudn't possibly be used in anything but an infringing way.

Let's say there's a Bob's Pizza in Chicago. You run a Bob's Pizza in New York. Assuming that Bob's isn't a chain and each of you are just people who happened to open unrelated restaurants named Bob's Pizza, each of your trademarks might only cover your specific geographic area (as compared to Apple Computers which sells nearly everywhere). So if you got BobsPizza.com you'd be fine even if there's BobsPizza in Chicago because you have just as much right to the name. If you bought BobsPizzaNYC.com and BobsPizzaChicago.com, the first is fine but not the second, because you are in New York, you don't have rights to it in Chicago. And if you were in Chicago and ran Greg's Pizza and bought BobsPizza.com so Bob's customers would find your site, no, can't do that.

BobsRestaurant.com and Bobs.com are separate issues. BobsRestaurant doesn't impy pizza necessarily, and you may have a place called Bob's Restaurant. Bobs could refer to anything that a person named Bob might own, or discuss people named Bob, or could refer to a type of hairstyle, or be an acronym for something else entirely, or lots of things. So you'd have a right to use Bobs.com even though Bob's Pizza might have a trademark on Bob's as used for Pizza... but if you tried to use Bobs.com to steal BobsPizza.com customer's for something pizza-related you do end up violating their trademark.

Now, let's say you buy FordCars.com (or from an example you gave earlier, Ford.cars, if such a thing existed). Ford is already an international trademark when used for cars. There'd be almost no way you could use the name in an non-infringing way. (Perhaps if you already had a trademark on something abbreviated ARS and it was in Washington DC and the site was for people looking "For D.C. ARS". Good luck on that.) But if you want to use it specifically to earn money off of people looking for Ford cars, you better have something in writing somewhere from Ford allowing you to do it or face the fact that they can object at any time. Maybe you are a dealer. But then Ford could always make you keeping the dealership based upon using the name the way they want or handing it over.

Same thing with the Porsche, Harley, BMW, etc. examples given in the threads you have posted in.

If you use a domain in a way to try to profit off of or interfere with (or potentially interfere with) a trademarked name (or have a name that can't logically be used for anything else), yes, that's a problem. And companies shouldn't have to pay to register every possible variation of their trademark in every possible extension just to keep cybersquatters away. With all the various permutations (*buyoranysimilarword**TM*, *TM**shoporanysimilarword*, *TM**nameofcityorstateoretc.*, *TM*parts, *TM**nameofanyofitsproducts*, etc.) and all the extensions that's a crapload in registration fees for names that they don't really want to have to pay for themselves but that other poeple have no right to use either.

For you to say that if they don't want you to use their TM in a domain that they should register it is like someone saying, "Hey, if you don't want me to steal the furniture in your front lobby you should lock it up with chains, and if it's not locked up I have the perfect right to take it."

Is this any clearer to you? You ready to calm down and take a professional attitude instead of just claiming you should be able to use other people's TMs if you want (contradicting international law and domain registration agreements in the process) and getting pissed off when people tell you otherwise?

 

[AlwaysSomething]

You know, you could save yourself a lot of grief by actually reading the threads in this folder.

Registering a name that happens to have a term that may be trademarked for some use somewhere isn't automatically a violation. If you plan to use that name with that trademark in it for a use that overlaps that of the trademark, yes, that's a violation.

pardon me? but first of all I have read EVERY thread in this folder.

secondly I never said I was even using the name for anything, I haven`t decided what I`ll do with it yet, it is sitting parked.

BTW I also visited your site.

I notice you have at least one trademarked name for sale. and it isn`t even just a similar name. Unlike mine, it is an exact trademark SAVANNA.com .No matter how you spin it.
Maybe you should practice what you preach?
--
Word Mark SAVANNA
Goods and Services IC 033. US 047 049. G & S: hard cider. FIRST USE: 19960000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010300
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75898631
Filing Date January 20, 2000
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 19, 2000
Registration Number 2595148
Registration Date July 16, 2002
Owner (REGISTRANT) Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Limited LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA Oude Libertas Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA
Attorney of Record Lawrence E. Apolzon
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
----------------------------------------------
Typed Drawing


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark SAVANNA
Goods and Services IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: leather, imitation leather, nylon microfilm and vinyl handbags, briefcases, all purpose sport bags, wallets, purses, key cases, suitcases, luggage, backpacks, tote bags, garment bags for travel, and evening bags. FIRST USE: 19970415. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970415
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75362907
Filing Date September 25, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition September 8, 1998
Registration Number 2207062
Registration Date December 1, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Y & S Handbags, Inc. CORPORATION NEW YORK 320 Fifth Avenue Suite 1103 New York NEW YORK 10001
Attorney of Record ROBERT A SCHACHTER
Prior Registrations 1713676;1901094;2035775
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


Have a good day!

 

[AlwaysSomething]

Registering a name that happens to have a term that may be trademarked for some use somewhere isn't automatically a violation. If you plan to use that name with that trademark in it for a use that overlaps that of the trademark, yes, that's a violation.

I also see you`ve got CatalogCity.us for sale at namepages.com (probably not yours?) what other possible use could this EXACT trademarked name have????? Unless somone has a city cat named Log that lives in the US? sorry but I honestly think they`d have a hard time convincing WIPO of that.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typed Drawing
Word Mark CATALOG CITY
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Catalog services available via telephone, radio, television and a global computer network featuring general merchandise, including but not limited to household appliances and equipment, clothing, jewelry, toys and sporting goods and equipment, school and office supplies and equipment, collectible items, electrical/electronic products, computer software and hardware products, fancy goods, wines and spirits; on-line catalog order services featuring general merchandise, including but not limited to household appliances and equipment, clothing, jewelry, toys and sporting goods and equipment, school and office supplies and equipment, collectible items, electrical/electronic products, computer software and hardware products. FIRST USE: 19971115. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19971115
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75355926
Filing Date September 12, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 14, 1999
Registration Number 2297317
Registration Date December 7, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) CATALOG CITY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 510 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE, SUITE 4 PACIFIC GROVE CALIFORNIA 93950
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record CATHERINE MCCAULEY-LIBERT
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "CATALOG" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

[Steen]

I have have never gotten a C&D :worried:

 

[AlwaysSomething]

...... 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.

Sorry to poop in your courtroom but,

According to USPTO TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) Inklings and Werewolves are both exact trademarked words. Just goes to further show what GaryAnderson has been saying here all along: that almost any name can be trademarked.

That being the case it would stand to reason, and according to some people here, that the domain names Inklings.com and Werewolves.com alone with SAVANNA.com (all for sale @ namepages ) are obvious trademark infringements and should belong to the rightful trademark owners, and never should have been registered in the first place by anybody but the rightful trademark owners.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Garry Anderson]

AlwaysSomething> Just goes to further show what GaryAnderson has been saying here all along: that almost any name can be trademarked.

At last my friend - you are starting to get it.

You will see plenty of spin about me from corrupt or ignorant critics.

I pro-trademark - who would want anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders?

It is my opinion that those fraudsters should be locked up.

I am not anti-authoritarian - just against the ABUSE of authority and law.

Anyway - IT IS FACT - Every word can be trademarked - there is BOUND TO BE CONFUSION WITH DOMAIN NAMES.

OBVIOUSLY - trademarks have to be identified on the Internet - just like they are in the real world.

If you can take that in - then at least I have been of some help in opening your eyes to the ABUSE OF LAW.

I have NOT been proven wrong - even by our learned lawyer friends here on the forum.

Indeed - I can demonstrate that I am right - even in a court of Law.

THE AUTHORITIES KNOW THIS.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Sorry Daddy - you have not got it.

Garry> This simply gives increased functionality - certificate of authentication and directory services. Just like .gov can only be US government sites - .reg could identify registered trademarks - true or false?

Daddy> Even if you could go back in time, it still wouldn't work.

It does not require going back in time - this could be introduced at any time - and it will work.

Daddy> It does not "increase funtionality," it makes marketing much more awkward. The internet is about marketing and communication.

They still can continue to market using apple.com etc.

The .reg TLD is primary there for two reasons:

1. To provide certificate of authentication. User only has to look at address bar for confirmation.

2. To provided Directory Services. User can type apple..us.reg and get links to all apple registered trademarks in US - apple.computer.us.reg .. apple.tobacco.us.reg .. or enter URL directly of course.

It demonstrably increases funtionality - true or false?

FACT: Hundreds, if not thousands of businesses use the word apple - there are at least five using this word in my local phone book alone. This .reg TLD stops big business preventing small businesses and people from using these words lawfully.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

AlwaysSomething> At last my friend - you are starting to get it....................

If you can take that in - then at least I have been of some help in opening your eyes to the ABUSE OF LAW.

Actually Gary I "got' most of it all along. In fact I said that the whole thing seemed like pure BS to me also. I posted the last couple of posts to try to make that point to the psuedo lawyers here. But thanks again Gary. I didn`t really see the whole scope of the big picture, though it doesn`t really come as a big surprize to me.

If you don`t mind I am going to pm you in regards to the names I own that are in question OK?

 

[nicpal]

I have gotten a few C & D's from Porsche. As long as you do not put up a "Domain For Sale" page and keep the name from the sales lists at the brokerages then you are pretty safe. I didn't sign anything or send anything back to them and they just let it be. They are pretty cool about the whole thing as long as you aren't selling their trademark. Set up a site and go from there.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Yes - please pm me with the names.

I may not be as much help as real lawyers, JB etc. - but I can certainly give my view on it.

 

[seeker]

people.

assuming the person did not reg a domain that includes the name of the auto maker, but a model (and there arent many of them), how on Earth can he be sued?

Cayenne?
"The capital of French Guiana, on Cayenne Island at the mouth of the Cayenne River. Founded by the French in 1643, it was the center of a penal colony from the 1850s until the 1940s. Population: 41,164"

the rest are just numbers.

911?
GT?
boxster?

come on...

 

[AlwaysSomething]

Yes - please pm me with the names.

PM sent

 

[Garry Anderson]

Just opened PM AlwaysSomething.

This was not known to me - the initials have 6 definitions in acronymfinder - and could be used for your own.

After midnight - I will get back to you with tomorrow with a PM.

 

[AlwaysSomething]

Just opened PM AlwaysSomething.

After midnight - I will get back to you tomorrow with a PM.

Thanks Gary, I will look forward to receiving your PM

 

[opportunitymagic]

wow, six days later after i posted the original thread, i think that I have my answer, I changed the "this domain is for sale" on the whois to " this domain is NOT for sale. I am not going to send anything back to porsche. I am not going to sell anything on the site, I may put up a forum with a disclaimer, but not adwords. Thanks for all of the great advice

 

[namedropper]

OK, "AlwaysSomething," you have proven yourself to be utterly incapable of understanding the simple concepts I explained to you.

First up, as I have said many times, you can own domains that have words that happen to be trademarked for some other use, as long as you don't use them in a way that would violate those trademarks. Savanna, Inklings, Werewolves, etc. are generic words. So someone in South Africa has a trademark for Savanna for wine? Great, so I don't use Savanna.com to sell wine in South Africa (and if I ever did want to sell wine elsewhere I'd look to see how stong their TM was internationally, but since wine is the last thing I'd want to use it for, not a problem).

Now I don't know what names you have, so it's possible they are generic too (although I wouldn't take Garry Anderson's word for anything, because he has consistently proven himself a crackpot). I explained how those names would be fine, in full detail in several examples on both threads you've posted to. If you had in fact read all the threads on this board as you claim to have and had any ability to understand what you read, you would know this.

On the other hand, you've been off complaining that you ought to be able to register Ford.car, etc., so it's clear that you think you should be able to use obvious infringements. That's what I've told you that you would be wrong on. But until we see the names in question we don't know if yours are obvious infringements or not. I've already told you to go hire a lawyer and tell them the name.

By the way, CatalogCity.us is not listed on my site. I do not own it. If you saw it there it was through the randomized list of names from RegisterFly's domain selling service.

I have never gotten a C&D letter, never had anyone file a dispute against me, never had a TM owner claim one of my names violated their TM, never had any accusations of cybersquatting except for an occasional clueless outside person who didn't understand the process at all.