Like To Have Comments On My Reply To This .co cybersquatting Article

[companyone]

Hi,

First 2 comment's....

Domain Game Replayed:

http://www.portfolio.com/companies-...rands-already-taken-on-new-co-domain?success#


If I am wrong let me know Or If I am right...or somewhere in between....LOL

I just have to 'Rant'...every once in a while.

Best!



______

 

[draggar]

While companies did have the chance to register their TM's in the .co and didn't, that doesn't give people the right to scoop up their TM names in the .co

Generics are a different story, though.

 

[katherine]

I think .co is going to get bad press if there are too many obvious squatting issues.
If I were strictly end user, I would probably view 'new' extensions as a nuisance because of the need to protect my TMs.

 

[randomo]

Wanna see a ccTLD with "obvious squatting"? Check out some of the .me's in the TDNAM Expiring Names listing:

americanidol
yahoomail
internetexplorer
barnesandnoble
lexus
louisvuitton
washingtonmutual
radioshack

etc., etc., etc. ....

 

[katherine]

You have to admit that .co's likeness to .com is taking squatting one step further than .me

 

[companyone]

Hi,

I totally agree 1000%... on 'normal cybersquatting'.... that is not the issue for me. The rightful owners should get their domains..no matter what...even if they missed the sunrise period.

_____

But I was concerned with how this guy made this "Andrew Quinn" look....I think he did NOTHING wrong....and I think he may win any case brought against him.

AND THESE:

"Intellectual property and Internet law attorney's" that already have many clients and do work for them on almost a daily basis~ should be well aware of "proactively protecting" their clients brand...

I do not think company's like ..."Microsoft's" or "Google's" or "Apple's or "Cisco's...."Intellectual property and Internet law attorney's" MISSED REG their brands in .CO (did not look up in .co whois )...but the point being...thousands of big brand and Big TM's...were all on top of this....with no problems...AS they should be as part of doing business.

If they do: 6 minutes of work @ $300+ an hour..plus $27.00...cost for their client(s) Total billed to client: $50.00

____

Not "proactively protecting" their clients brand... ( NOT DOING THEIR $^% JOB)

Least case: C&D letter works (prepared by a "para legal"): $300+ then $27 at least for one year. Total Cost To Client for one domain: $327.00+

2nd worst case: Filling of a WIPO action...Wins domain: Total cost to just one client: $1500+ another $1500 t0 $3,000+: Total cost to their client: $3,000 Plus....

If I was this: "ManTech, a multinational corporation with roughly 9,000 employees and more than $2 billion in annual revenue"

I would be asking my great " Intellectual property and Internet law attorney(s) .."in house or outside firm(s)"

What have you been doing and reading for the past YEAR? Why did you NOT take care of this during the "sunrise period" for $27.00?

That's all....

Thanks for the comments... I am firmly against 'cybersquatting' someones TM Property on purpose....

But this domain Mr. Quinn REG....had no bad faith... and if the jerk-offs who are in charge of their brand/TM/ IP...where looking out for the best interest of their client...this would have never been an issue.

But attorneys need "problems" to make real money ~ no problem, no real money to count on.

They are just plain lazy and doing their clients a huge dis-service....now making Mr. Quinn out as some big evil cybersquater...and that seems plainly not to be the case.

IMHO as always..

Peace!
Dan

 

[randomo]

I don't think companies, to protect their intellectual property, should be required to reg their trademarks in every new TLD that gets hatched ... and I don't think that failure to reg a trademark in some goofy TLD should be construed as failure to protect their brand. If they choose not to reg their trademarks in those TLD's, that doesn't mean Joe Schmo should be able to use them.

 

[katherine]

Life is not fair, but TM holders have little choice. If they own famous marks somebody will most likely attempt to snatch their name(s) in popular extensions.
From an economic point of view it's not cost-effective to sue later. And if there is a single one TLD in which you should watch out for typo traffic, it is .co. So I agree that there are no excuses for laziness.

As you say Dan, the legal counsels benefit more from sending C&Ds than making defensive registrations on behalf of their clients...

 

[companyone]

Yea...

So happy on this Thursday... 'Katherine' and I agreed 99.999% on 'something'...'cool'



____

randomo....again I agree with you 100%...you have a TM brand name...do not register nothing but the ,com then.... End of story.


And YES "Joe Shmo" can and will use 3 - 50 domain extensions of your TM brand name...if you do nothing about it.

Is it right?...no...it is the way life is and has been since the first domain was REG.

So do you as a TM holder want to spend $27.00 now or $100 to $3000 later?

Depends on how big your company is and your resources I Guess etc.....

Or just "ignore" the whole thing...and move on with your life with just your 1 or 2 domain extensions.

____________



BTW: Just because say "Apple" has a A Trade Mark on its name for everything they make in the Tech space.,.Computers Iphone, Mac's...etc...

Doe not mean they can claim I or anyone else violate(s) any of their TM's...

If I own an 'apple farm in' California and grow "APPLES".... and own the domains...say : 'apple. net or apple .org"

APPLE INC... Would loose Every time.


TRUE STORY: APPLE INC tried to get Apple .com From a apple farmer in Central Cal in the early1990's...

OF COURSE....They tried to claim and sue for Trade Mark infraction's...etc....And LOST every time.

Then ended up having to BUY the domain apple .com from the apple farmer....

Bet the "farmer wish he held on to that the name for 5- 10 years more.... can you say 15 - 20 million would not be a problem for Apple inc to pay for apple .com.

I think they got the domain apple.com..... for just a tad below 100K...if I remember right.





A very good weekend to ALL!
Dan

 

[katherine]

TRUE STORY: APPLE INC tried to get Apple .com From a apple farmer in Central Cal in the early1990's...

OF COURSE....They tried to claim and sue for Trade Mark infraction's...etc....And LOST every time.

Then ended up having to BUY the domain apple .com from the apple farmer....

Apple.com was registered on 19-Feb-1987 so I guess it must have been another domain. There are few stories like this one though.
armani.com is a great example

 

[companyone]

Thanks...man time fly's.

1987 wow... but The company Apple inc was not the original owner of apple.com ~ my story stands ~ it was not another domain name.

And now that I think of it... I think they got the domain for closer to 50K.

Something like that...50K -100K

I said early "90"s....it not like I was 20 years off...lol

Peace!
Dan