Marco,
I'm fascinated by and value your comments --
Thank you.
Question: Is there an "emerging consensus" regarding the ownership of generic domain typos?
The first step is to realize that the word "generic" has a very different meaning on these boards than it has in real life. There is no such thing as a "generic word."
"blue" is a "generic" word, right? So you should be able to use "bllue.com" since it is just a "generic word?"
Not necessarily.
IF the website to which bllue.com resolves has credit card ads, American Express will have every legal right to bend you over and sodomize you (financially anyhow). If the website sells watermelons or cars, that is another story. IF you set it to an auto-generated site through a PPC service, you might argue to the judge or jury that you're just a ****ing moron and you set up a website and have no idea what is on it.
Good luck with that.
So, the moral of the story? Stop listening to idiots on this board who have misinformed you about what the word "generic" means.
Doesn't a slippery slope exist? Where does it end?
I don't know. I don't make the laws. So far, trademark law seems to be one of the only areas of law where it hasn't turned into a complete mess. Sure, there are unfair cases with unfair results, but generally speaking when companies try and abuse their trademark rights, they don't prevail. (yes, there are exceptions).
But, Trademark law comes down to one real principle -- if you're honest, it is difficult to lose a trademark case. If you're a slimy piece of shit who tries to slither around the rules, you're gonna get tapped. When you do, I will mock you and laugh at you. If you're honest, then you probably won't even lose -- let alone get mocked.
Given your contention -- Apple should of issued a C & D to the original iPhone.com owner (regged in 1995) -- since original registration date is irreveleant -- but, Apple paid to acquire the name.
I don't give a shit what Apple does. And, it's not my contention. I don't write the laws, nor do I write the legal opinions.
If the original owner of iPhone.com bought it without actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of Apple's plans to launch the iphone, then they are okay on registration. (constructive knowledge means you "should have known.").
And, like Uzi Nissan, who has used nissan.com for however many years for his bogus computer selling business, there is no infringement. The day that Uzi puts a car ad on his site, he will be sodomized (and rightly so).
So, if Mister iphone.com kept the domain and there was never an ad or a use on that site that conflicted with apple's use, then he wouldn't have a problem. He'd just be a lucky dude who guessed correctly that someone might want that domain one day.
k:
