In this infringing?

[podman]

I have a 2 word generic domain like: onetwos.com (note plural form of second word).

Some one else has the domain: onetwo.com (singular version of second word) and is operating a website on it. There is no trademark that I can find.

I get a letter from this person calling me a cybersquater and demanding that I turn over the domain immediately.

Is he right? Can he take it away?

Thanks for your help

 

[ksinclair]

Who put up a site first? Maybe he is infringing on you.

Note however that if you search for a TM like at www.uspto.gov, and find nothing, he can still have a claim, its called a common law trademark, through usage. So it 'depends'.

But even if he gets a lawyer to send you a strongly worded letter, it does not mean he is right. He wants to protect his work and his investment, so he might be aggressive; but he might not be right.

 

[fab]

Just by owning a domain you are generally not infringing. It usually depends upon usage, i.e., if your parking and feeding from his site, then you may have an issue.

 

[denny007]

I won UDRP my singular versus their plural.

 

[tinner666]

I won UDRP my singular versus their plural.

Were you the claimant, or defendant?

 

[podman]

thanks for your help

Just to clarify:

Their site was up first and is a regular ecommerce site
Mine is parked, but was showing somewhate related ads.

Who can tell why someone comes to a specific site, the domain name is made up of 2 generic words. Someone might type them in...

Also what would you suggest I do? Fight it? Give it to him?
Try to negotiate?

Thanks

 

[Dave Zan]

Their site was up first and is a regular ecommerce site
Mine is parked, but was showing somewhate related ads.

Uh oh.

 

[denny007]

Were you the claimant, or defendant?

I was respondent, not complainant.

Also what would you suggest I do? Fight it?

Depends how much money it does, if the domain is worth for you couple of hours work - fight it. Read lot of old UDRP proceedings, copy/paste relevant arguments. Give them shitload of arguments.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Give them shitload of arguments.

Where "shitload" is less than 5,000 words at WIPO, and less than ten pages at NAF.

Hmmmm.... I should charge by the shitload.

 

[Theo]

Hmmmm.... I should charge by the shitload.

I believe this is a patented process by Roto-Rooter

 

[denny007]

Where "shitload" is less than 5,000 words at WIPO, and less than ten pages at NAF.
Hmmmm.... I should charge by the shitload.

Well, lawyers newspeak is MUCH LESS understandable and much less common sense than word "shitload".

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Were you the claimant, or defendant?

You must be a newbie.

Denny is a legendary defendant.

:lol:

 

[tinner666]

You must be a newbie.

Denny is a legendary defendant.

:lol:

Absolutely! :smilewinkgrin: Only been here a month I think. Just soaking it up. And Learning. I figure the dumbest question is the one unasked.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I won UDRP my singular versus their plural.

Care to link us to the decision?

 

[LizzeyDripping]

And don't forget that there is such a thing as a trade mark registration that does not appear on the USPTO...!

 

[DNQuest.com]

And don't forget that there is such a thing as a trade mark registration that does not appear on the USPTO...!

^^^^ I think meant to say there are instances where a "common law" TM could apply

Or

A trademark could be from another country.