Am I A Cyber Squatter?

[jberryhill]

John

Email sent!

While it may be among my current 675 unread emails which have accumulated during the last week in which I have been away, you should really consider whether you want to argue your case on DNForum rather than engaging a competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

It is clear that nothing in trademark law requires that title to domain names that incorporate trademarks or portions of trademarks be provided to trademark holders. To hold otherwise would create an immediate and indefinite monopoly to all famous mark holders on the Internet, by which they could lay claim to all .com domain names which are arguably ‘the same’ as their mark. The Court may not create such property rights-in-gross as a matter of dilution law. … Trademark law does not support such a monopoly.
– Strick Corporation v. James B. Strickland, EDPA (27-Aug-01)

They are not claiming a right-in-gross to the word SPIN. They are claiming a trademark in connection with certain exercise related things. The "pilates" part is pretty much irrelevant. If, for example, we were talking about "Shell Oil", then the fact that "oil" is a generic term doesn't really have a lot of relevance to the use of "SHELL" in connection with petroleum products.

The European decision is interesting, but has nothing to do with their claims in a US court relative to their US registered trademark - aside from which the decision in that European case was one of non-infringement, not invalidity.

 

[flamewalker]

Good point. You can argue on DNF till you are blue in the face, but it won't mean a dang thing if you don't hire a competent lawyer.

ReNQuest: sometimes the truth hurts