Lost DisneyMovie.com

[Lew]

Lost DisneyMovie.com and DisneyCard.com today - I didn't even respond to the complaint because I figured it was a lost cause.

 

[stuff]

Originally posted by Lew
Lost DisneyMovie.com and DisneyCard.com today - I didn't even respond to the complaint because I figured it was a lost cause.

When You not respond and defend Yourself, do they take the name? I mean the simply remove them from Your account?

 

[Lew]

Well - they do not automatically take the name but most times you lose if you do not reply to the complaint.

They also give you 10 days to file an appeal before they snatch the name.

 

[stuff]

Originally posted by Lew
Well - they do not automatically take the name but most times you lose if you do not reply to the complaint.

They also give you 10 days to file an appeal before they snatch the name.

I had my first case few days ago, they already sued me, I did recive all the paper work, they payd the fee $1500 , and then I sayd that I will give the name back, and they susoended the case, and I pushed the name into theyre account

 

[Lew]

It's usually best to either give them the name or have them pay a nominal amount for it. This way you do not become known as a "squatter" by the arbitration boards.

As for me, F them, I really don't care how they view me. I don't believe Disney has any right to the NON word "disneymovie" but I am also not willing to fight them because they will probably win anyway.

 

[stuff]

Originally posted by Lew
It's usually best to either give them the name or have them pay a nominal amount for it. This way you do not become known as a "squatter" by the arbitration boards.

Ok I will do that,

 

[stuff]

Someone just today got WORLDDISNEY.COM for $25 in namewinner.

 

[Drewbert]

>because I figured it was a lost cause

That doesn't help our case at all.

A site at disneymovie.com offering critiques of disney movies would be perfectly legal, and certainly not "cybersquatting".

Yes, you may lose via UDRP, and yes you would then be labelled a cybersquatter, but this will all come out in the wash when the over-extension of corporations rights is reigned in, and you would be vindicated.

If we all lie on our backs and show our genitalia to them, they'll just get all pompous and bring in further limitations to your rights.

If you want to be a wimp, send me a list of all of your names, I'll tell you which ones have a TM string within them, and take them off your hands. Might as well give them up now rather than later.

 

[DomainPairs]

I think you have a shakier case if you just point it at a parking service. If you create a valid site, it seems that in many cases you can keep the domain.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Lew
As for me, F them, I really don't care how they view me. I don't believe Disney has any right to the NON word "disneymovie"

You don't think they have any right to a name that uses their trademark in a field for which the trademark is used?

Hmm, novel belief, but not really matching with reality.

but I am also not willing to fight them because they will probably win anyway.

You never can tell, as sometimes they're unpredictable, but under the laws of the US and the dispute policy governing domain names, you would have had next to no chance to keep them.

And rightfully so, IMNSHO.

 

[Lew]

Hey namepopper,

Nobody asked you to comment on my sense of reality. If you believe that disney should have disneymovie.com then you believe that they have absolute rights to all names with disney in it. Including disneysucks.com Iamgoingtodisneynextweek.com

I don't see how you draw the line wherever it seems to suit you. If they had a TM on "disneymovie" - I would probably agree but that isnt even a word or a term in the english language and thus in my "reality", not a valid reason to have rights to it.

You have a corporate mentality - you probably work for a large corp

 

[avs162]

Hey namepopper,

Nobody asked you to comment on my sense of reality. If

dont think that namedropper and popper same
fyi

 

[Lew]

Oh! - Is there an actual namepopper? (I was just making fun of namedroppers name) sorry popper - was going for dropper

 

[Lew]

BTW - I think what happened was they figured out that it is cheaper for them to arb the name than it was to keep paying me commissions on selling their products.

 

[Tippy]

I agree 100% with what namedropper said, you regged it in bad faith trying to make money off the Disney name, your intentions are so obvious.

Mike

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Lew
Nobody asked you to comment on my sense of reality.

If you aren't looking for comments, why on earth are you posting? And in the Legal Issues section, no less!

I don't see how you draw the line wherever it seems to suit you.

You are so far into the area on the wrong side of the line that you don't have to worry about quibbling over the exact place it should be drawn, as it'll never come anywhere near you.

If they had a TM on "disneymovie" - I would probably agree

Probably agree? You aren't sure? LOL. Man, you're just amazing.

Disney already has a trademark (one that is worldwide and famous, I might add) on the term "Disney," and the trademark is specifically for use in the movie industry (and others). Adding the word "movie" to the end of "Disney" does not mean it's not a trademark anymore, it means it's a stronger trademark.

In fact, owning DisneyMovie.com is probably the most obvious and most severe trademark violation possible. This is a textbook example of the types of infringements that the term cybersquatting was created for, and the anti-cybersquatting law that followed.

but that isnt even a word or a term in the english language

What part of the English language are you having difficulty with?

Disney is a word. Movie is a word. Is the lack of a space confusing you? You do realize that domain names can't have spaces, right?

and thus in my "reality", not a valid reason to have rights to it.

Your reality is very twisted, as it lacks even the simplest forms of logic.

You have a corporate mentality - you probably work for a large corp

Nope, not a corporate mentality, just well read and able to use common sense.

I side against businesses when they try to enforce their trademarks in ways that the law doesn't support. But the problem is that the laws specifically prohibit the exact thing that you did, no question about it.

Oh well. I guess there's no limit to the absurd and stupid lengths some people will go to trying to rationalize their actions.

 

[Lew]

namedropper - can I view your list of names? Let me see how many questionable names you may have?

If not - please do not cast your moral judgements on others or you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

" In fact, owning DisneyMovie.com is probably the most obvious and most severe trademark violation possible. This is a textbook example of the types of infringements that the term cybersquatting was created for, and the anti-cybersquatting law that followed "

And you say you are NOT a corporate sympathizer? You sound like WIPO material to me. Can you explain disneycard.com to me? I love to hear your explanations - they sound like they are pulled directly from the WIPO decisions themselves Maybe you should sign up to be a UDRP enforcer

Besides, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that "cybersquatting" was created to prevent people from purchasing company trademarks and trying to sell them back to the trademark holder for large sums of money. None of that occured. The greedy corporate people decided to try and expand the definition to include anything that included their name - whether the name was offered to them for sale or not.

"Disney is a word. Movie is a word. Is the lack of a space confusing you? You do realize that domain names can't have spaces, right?"

The dash is used and recognized as a space by every DN server in the world - so you DO REALIZE that you CAN have spaces - right?

I do not feel as strongly about disneymovie as I do about other clear examples that companies continue to try and reverse hijack, if I did I would have fought the battle, but there certainly can be a case made for both arguements. So please don't come in here and cast your negative judgements and opinions when they aren't asked for.

Have a good day

 

[jberryhill]

Pointing out that someone's view of reality has no connection with the law is hardly a matter of moral judgment. If you post here, you will get opinions, whether they are ones you wanted or not.

The idea that "DisneyMovie.com" (as you capitalized the letters in the subject line) does not have a direct relationship to the goodwill owned by Disney in making movies is ridiculous.

Explain disneycard.com?

Well, let's see, someone has disneymovie.com and they also have disneycard.com. Gee, you wouldn't think there was some kind of pattern there, would you?

Gee, whaddya know, Disney offers a service called "D-Cards" http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/8580.html#8580

They also offer a branded Visa credit card:
http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/9407.html

Naw... I can't see *any* connection between the mark Disney, and goods and services denominated by the word "card", duh.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Lew
namedropper - can I view your list of names?

Are you not capable of following the link that's listed at the bottom of all my posts?

And you say you are NOT a corporate sympathizer?

Sympathizer, LOL. You make it sound like you are on an anti-communist witch hunt or something.

Actually, I think corporations tend to be more bad than good. Most of them do immoral things solely to make themselves filthy rich. And I think Disney, as one of the largest supporters of needlessly increasing copyright terms way beyond any reasonable amount, is definitely guilty of that.

But my anti-corporation inclinations don't force me to assume that everything they do is wrong. What you did in this case was competely inexcusable, both on a moral and legal basis.

Can you explain disneycard.com to me?

First of all, it's almost impossible that Disney+anything.com could be anything but a trademark violation. When you clearly squatted on the name like DisneyMovie.com you've already proven bad faith.

But DisneyCard.com itself? Well, for starters, greeting card companies pay money to license Disney characters. Then there are the two John mentioned.

How about this: you tell me how *any* use of the name DisneyCard.com could possibly not infringe upon their trademark.

Besides, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that "cybersquatting" was created to prevent people from purchasing company trademarks and trying to sell them back to the trademark holder for large sums of money.

...and also the act of unfairly profiting of someone else's good name, which is exactly what you were doing.

The dash is used and recognized as a space by every DN server in the world - so you DO REALIZE that you CAN have spaces - right?

This is so lame. Dashes are not spaces, and they are not "recognized as a space by every DN server in the world." Some people use them as spaces, but it's very uncommon. In fact, most people avoid them like the plague and assume everyone is smart enough to realize that you just drop the spaces when typing in domains that have more than one word in them.

Not to mention that whether you assume a space is dropped or replaced with a dash, either way it has no effect whether a domain name is a trademark violation. Hell, you could decide to use the letter X in place of spaces and it'd still be a violation.

It takes a lot of nerve and an amazing amount of stupidity to come here, admit that you were making money off of DisneyMovie.com, and not expect to get flamed off the face of the planet. It's exactly these kind of actions that make the rest of us look bad.

 

[jberryhill]

There's a great joke about Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse in divorce court, but I can't post it here.