closed Lollypops.com

[scizza]

. Btw - I already offered mid x,xxx for it Scizza! k:

I dont see your offer anywhere in this thread?

 

[Focus]

Word Mark LOLLYPOPS
Goods and Services IC 030. US 046. G & S: ice cream. FIRST USE: 19930402. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010815

IC 034. US 002 008 009 017. G & S: ice cream parlor services and catering of ice cream and desserts. FIRST USE: 19930402. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19930402
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Search Code
Serial Number 78724295
Filing Date September 30, 2005
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Sycamore Food Group, Inc. CORPORATION NEW JERSEY 21 Palmer Drive Moorestown NEW JERSEY 08057
Attorney of Record Norman E. Lehrer
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

And now look at the registration date of this domain. k:
http://whois.domaintools.com/lollypops.com

Is that 1997 you say? Seems that maybe this company is INFRINGING on the domainer this time?
mmm hmmmm...

And the other adult/magazine one does not apply in it's current usage (and the date) and there is'nt even a website at LollypopsMagazine.com

Like I said.. totally 100% safe name...no infringement or dilution here and the domain registration and usage predates any active registered TM.

Regards,
Chris

 

[domain54326]

"LollyPop" is actually the correct spelling in the UK.

 

[DNWizardX9]

Theres no infringement here as they are in totally seperate businesses. If domainer was running a catering business specializing in that TM holder's goods then domainer could go after him. As far as we know this domain has never been used for that purpose.

 

[Focus]

The domain existed before the TM was filed..period.
It is a generic one word domain, it has ovt with ext and rev.
He can sell lollipops or "lollypops" or all day on the website and nobody can say sh*t about it, not everything is illegal and almost every single domain about anything that gets any traffic relates in some way shape or form to someone's "TM"...half of them are'nt worth the filing fee and are basically uninforceable...just my wooden nickel! eace:

 

[tas38]

(( Yes limited use, nice name but weak on value.

$200 to $1000 would be my guess, watch for TM problems if you build it. ))

That is what I posted, how does that amount to being jump on by him. I don't see where, it's saying it can't be used I just said be careful if they build it. It's got a (s) on it, and I don't see lots of value for it as I put it at $200 to $1000. It may be worth more or less, the buyer say how much it's worth really.

As for the TM and the domain, being regged before the TMs. I did not do lots of research on it, and only said be careful because it's not my job to check all the details. If they would of just said that to being with, instead of jumping on me. There would not have been any problem, I've been a member of this forum for a long time now.

And have only tried to be helpful in all my posts, I think I'll just skip replying to Appraisal's from now on. I see why lots of people don't reply to them, it's not worth problems like this. And not worth the time, my time is better spent doing my own domaining.

 

[Focus]

Dude you psted alot more than that..Nobody jumped on you Tas, I agree you are a long time member here and all that jazz, same with me and the others here..you posted information and he and myself debated it..if anything, this is all just a business discussion of opinions from different people...you have to be prepared to back up any negative assesments of a domain in an appraisal thread, same as the person asking to be appraised needs to be prepared to deal with them reasonably. You posted, he posted, etc etc..there's no "problem" here I can see and I don't think he is "mad" at you or anything, and this is certainly not a waste of time if you learn something..it's just business. Relax, have a drink or smoke a bowl, register a real TM or typo domain or two! k:

 

[tas38]

It's true I said way more, but not untill I was told I need to be a lawer. Or I should delete my post, or they will get the mods to do it. And told to stop posting fake info, and that I'm a trouble maker and none of that is true at all.

He acted more like this was sales thread, then like a appraisal thread that it is. If you go back and reread all the posts, it's clear to see he made these claims. Based on his search for TMes on candy, and my post was clearly done on the name lollypop not candy.

The history of the domain name, shows it was indeed used to sell lollipops, for fund rising off it from jan 25 1999 to feb 13 2005. And that info is public record, so there is proof of what the domain was used for or was not used for.

 

[Focus]

Of course it was used to sell lollipops..it is lollypops.com k:
Tas, I agree maybe he did over react a bit..but no harm no foul...maybe it was because you were way off on the TM thing with this domain..again, it's not an issue.