olympicbrand.com

[ebrandman]

I have a question.

Is buying domain names for the purpose for
resale for a profit a legitimate and legal business? If so, are
there any case references to that effect?

Olympic.com belongs to a paint company; olympic.org belongs to a sports entity, olympicbrand.com belongs to me. I purchased it to resale it to anyone who would buy it. I intend for them to comply with existing laws. Would Olympic Brand Grecian Foods, for example, be a legitimate use for a future business venture? Or Olympic Brand household cleaners? Does the future use of the word "olympic" belong exclusively to the Sports Entity?

They are on me like stink on socks. Any advice from anyone?

 

[jberryhill]

Unlike run-of-the-mill trademark claimants, the USOC has its OWN law:
<p>
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/220506.html

 

[ebrandman]

If there are third partys with legitimate rights to use "olympic" (reference http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/220506.html)

"such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial"

would not olympicbrand.com be a legitimate marketable asset.

If I contacted a trademark holder in error, would that forfeit my right to own and market for profit olympicbrand.com?

 

[jberryhill]

You understand that the carve-out there is for the region of Olympia, Washington, yes?

"If I contacted a trademark holder in error, would that forfeit my right to own and market for profit olympicbrand.com?"

A UDRP panel would be unlikely to interpret that as an "error" and would most likely conclude that you intended to sell a trademark owner a domain name incorporating their trademark.

Much of what goes on in UDRP disputes is not about the 'truth' in some absolute sense, but what the panel finds to be the most credible version of it.

Which, off on another tangent, is frustrating when well-meaning people do things that make them appear to be not so well-meaning, such as the perfectly honest and reasonable registrant who obfuscates the registration data because he/she does not want to be bothered by spammers or does not want to use his/her real name. It is difficult to argue that, yes, the registrant breached the registration contact by providing false data, but they had a *really good* reason. It just doesn't work that way.