-
Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Open Debate - Please join in !!!
- Thread starter LewR
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
"My ownership of #######s.com is:"
...set forth without any indication of (a) your intent in registering the domain name, or (b) what you are currently doing or plan to do with the domain name.
Your question boils down to something like:
I just killed someone. I will get:
(a) a medal
(b) a conviction for first degree murder
(c) an acquittal for manslaughter
On the facts stated, (a), (b), or (c) might be correct.
...set forth without any indication of (a) your intent in registering the domain name, or (b) what you are currently doing or plan to do with the domain name.
Your question boils down to something like:
I just killed someone. I will get:
(a) a medal
(b) a conviction for first degree murder
(c) an acquittal for manslaughter
On the facts stated, (a), (b), or (c) might be correct.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
"Other than the name itself - I would be happy to provide any facts you would need to make a decision."
Oh, good. What is your checking account number?
Oh, good. What is your checking account number?
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
A lot of the discussions here treat all trademarks as if they were equal. They aren't. Also, the idea of a surname being "generic" in the trademark sense of the term seems a bit odd, unless the surname happens to be something like "Smith" which is also an English word for a person who pounds iron on an anvil.
When you say that #####.com is the company's website and ###### is "part" of the Company's name, those facts do not necessarily mean that ##### is used as a trademark by that company. Is it a distinctive part of the company's name? Are they primarily known as ######, or by the whole name?
And what about you? If I selectively went through all of the domain names you've ever owned or sold, would I be able to come up with enough terms that also happen to be trademarks, that I would be able to persuade a judge or UDRP panel that you've engaged in a pattern of registering trademarks?
It's not an "emotional debate", but it can be subjective, and can depend on how well you argue your point. Take Barcelona.com - a perfectly legitimate domain name registration. Now, it has taken one UDRP panelist, one federal judge, and then a panel of three appellate judges just to get that one boneheaded dispute to come out the right way. Was the registrant cybersquatting? No. Did it take years to prove that point? Yes.
JH3 also raises a relevant point about the history of enforcement that any of these parties might have had relative to similar variations on the term.
When you say that #####.com is the company's website and ###### is "part" of the Company's name, those facts do not necessarily mean that ##### is used as a trademark by that company. Is it a distinctive part of the company's name? Are they primarily known as ######, or by the whole name?
And what about you? If I selectively went through all of the domain names you've ever owned or sold, would I be able to come up with enough terms that also happen to be trademarks, that I would be able to persuade a judge or UDRP panel that you've engaged in a pattern of registering trademarks?
It's not an "emotional debate", but it can be subjective, and can depend on how well you argue your point. Take Barcelona.com - a perfectly legitimate domain name registration. Now, it has taken one UDRP panelist, one federal judge, and then a panel of three appellate judges just to get that one boneheaded dispute to come out the right way. Was the registrant cybersquatting? No. Did it take years to prove that point? Yes.
JH3 also raises a relevant point about the history of enforcement that any of these parties might have had relative to similar variations on the term.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks to jh3 and jberryhill for posting - and gt for sitting on the fence...LOL
Looks like no one wants to discuss this in a generic sense - so I will pull the plug. It was a worthwhile expericment, and now I know the result...LOL
I Thank everyone for looking!!
Looks like no one wants to discuss this in a generic sense - so I will pull the plug. It was a worthwhile expericment, and now I know the result...LOL
I Thank everyone for looking!!
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
"I Thank everyone for looking!!"
One of the reasons why I post here is to provide some general considerations for folks to think about, not to provide personal legal advice in response to specific questions. Going back and deleting the original question sort of defeats the purpose of having a public discussion, don' t you think?
One of the reasons why I post here is to provide some general considerations for folks to think about, not to provide personal legal advice in response to specific questions. Going back and deleting the original question sort of defeats the purpose of having a public discussion, don' t you think?
- Status
