Blatant TMs

[Gerry]

Guys, can we please not turn every single thread into a political flame war? Stay on topic!

It was time to inject a little humor.

The problem with UDRP and/or WIPO is expense. If a TM owner can reclaim their domain by simply placing a $60 bacorder, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? And it is simply not practical for a drop catcher to maintain a constant up-to-date TM database for all TM offices world wide. There are companies that provide that service at a fee of course. But with 50,000 domains dropping each day do you really think someone has the resources to idenitfy daily what domains pose a TM violation? As I said some companies do that but they charge a feeto make that determination.

Indepent of the issue of making dropping TM domains available to TM owners, DocCom you seem to think the problem of monitoring dropping domains against a TM database is an easy enough task to do, why don't you do it? And offer the service for free to all potential purchasers so that they can assess the possible TM issues before placing an order.

It is not my job to do it.

It will be yours.

Expense?

A program.

Impossible to do?

I have already outlined how it is done.

You know this can be done and you know it can be done at a reasonable cost .

You act like you have to hire an entire staff to do it.

This is not the case and you know it. A name gets red flagged and it is checked.

How difficult can that be.

Some companies do that and charge a fee.

Like Pool catching domains and charging a fee to the buyer and winners?

Great concept of doing business.

Playing dumb is not going to make this issue go away. It is not just Pool and it is not going to go away.

Seriously, time to implement some measures to protect the consumer and protect these brands before it is written into law and ICANN is replaced by another body.

As for a TM holder just paying 60 bucks (if that ever happens) vs UDRP/WIPO, how about the TM holder just filing suit in district and federal court.

What, costly you say?

What kind of mileage and traffic and notice such a filing would bring to the general public?

Seems to me Microsoft could easily seized the 44 names from the three individuals typosquatting in the state of Indiana.

Why do that when every newspaper and internet media outlet picked up the story and ran with it.

Cost to microsoft? Court filing fees.

Free publicity? Priceless.

Even microsoft would have to had shelled out millions to sway every print and internet media outlet to make this story a feature.

 

[katherine]

Hey Raider, I appreciate your comments but you are missing one very important point, we are only going after domains that our customers place backorders for. If our customers order TM domains, we will try to get them. Our business is not to mediate on trademark disputes and believe me we have acquired names in the past where we acquired a TM name that was UDRP'ed, and our customer WON the dispute! I only provide this to exemplify that not all TM orders are as bad as you suggest and who should be the arbitrator? Well, ICANN has said the arbitrators are those who have been authroized to conduct UDRPs and such.

You are skirting the issue.
Nobody is saying you must monitor all names for possible TM violations, but when you dispatch a daily 'selection' of drops to your customers, it is your editorial responsibility not to appear to be endorsing the registration of blatant TM domains.
It's no wonder domains have such a bad rep when the industry leaders set the standards. Seriously, it's an invitation to another Snowe Bill.
Maybe one day Verizon et al will have had enough and they will sue you like they did to onlinenic. When they drive you out of business I will place a backorder on the pool.com domain :worried:

 

[Biggie]

if i were on a fence, i'd have to fall on the side of pool in this argument

why, because the issue of screening a list, means that those customerrs who bidded on any domain, that you feel is Blatant TM, then that customer is deprived of seeing the name on the list to possibly confirm his order.

in other words by screening a list, you would be censoring it.

you are attempting to deprive other entrepreneurs from engaging in the nature of their business, because you want to dictate what a domainer is and or should be about.

emotions aside, and speaking only from an "if, then" philosophy.

not trying to judge what is right or wrong, because only a judge/panel can deem a domain to be "infringed" upon and not any of us....unless we sit in those chairs.


now if i were to get back on that fence and fall on the other side, i could argue that if pool has any of these domains parked and receive any revenue from traffic, then after the name is won, the buyer gets a C&D, but pool does not.

now that would be something to argue about...imo


but i think it's good to have the list as is, so that if any tm holders see their names, then they can bid on them like we do.

then they will learn the value of domains and start regging the typos too




the real fight is at the registrar and ppc

as long as you can register one (TM) and as long as the registry continues to let the exisiting one's drop, then the cycle will continue.

as long as ppc's pay for parking them, then the cycle will continue


it's hard to blame the middleman, when it's so many middlemen

 

[Gerry]

If I thought for one minute that the list compiled and sent out to each subscriber was randomly selected by a computer then there would be no issue.

Those names appearing on the list are hand selected and that listing is compiled by a human and send to subscribers.

The argument of no resources is shallow and full of holes as that resource you just assigned to that task could have easily selected a non-tm.

Lets face it. 820996arringtiinoons.com on the list is not going to garner the attention or the bids that the verizon names do.

All I can say is thanks for providing me a topic for my blog.

 

[Raider]

You are skirting the issue.
Nobody is saying you must monitor all names for possible TM violations, but when you dispatch a daily 'selection' of drops to your customers, it is your editorial responsibility not to appear to be endorsing the registration of blatant TM domains.
It's no wonder domains have such a bad rep when the industry leaders set the standards. Seriously, it's an invitation to another Snowe Bill.
Maybe one day Verizon et al will have had enough and they will sue you like they did to onlinenic. When they drive you out of business I will place a backorder on the pool.com domain :worried:

Agree with you on both points here... Well said.

 

[Gerry]

In related issues,

US Governments Still Trying To Regulate the Internet
March 9th, 2009 · 3 Comments

Two actions taken last week, in two separate jurisdictions, show that governments around the US are still intent on individually regulating the Internet.

According to Media Post, on Friday, the Utah House of Representatives, narrowly passed H.B. 450, which would bar companies from using rivals’ trademarks to trigger ads on search engines, directories or other Web sites.

--------------------------------

It is almost as if we (or this industry) is asking or daring someone to do something.

And someone will.

Then every one will ***** and complain and cry how unfair it is.

 

[katherine]

that you feel is Blatant TM

Who is in the opinion that verizonaccountonline.com is not a blatant TM
Raise your hand.

in other words by screening a list, you would be censoring it.

Don, I don't want them to censor the whole droplist, it's nobody's business.
The issue is their selection.

but i think it's good to have the list as is, so that if any tm holders see their names, then they can bid on them like we do.

The TM holders are going to pay for these names ?
You bet they're going to sue. I would.

It is almost as if we (or this industry) is asking or daring someone to do something.

And someone will.

Then every one will ***** and complain and cry how unfair it is.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Snowe Bill is a warning of the things to come but our industry still doesn't get "it".
The auction houses are greedy outfits that behave like there's no tomorrow.

TBH I don't care about Verizon or their brands, but I do care about the implications for our business. What goes around, comes around.

 

[draggar]

The problem with UDRP and/or WIPO is expense. If a TM owner can reclaim their domain by simply placing a $60 bacorder, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? And it is simply not practical for a drop catcher to maintain a constant up-to-date TM database for all TM offices world wide. There are companies that provide that service at a fee of course. But with 50,000 domains dropping each day do you really think someone has the resources to idenitfy daily what domains pose a TM violation? As I said some companies do that but they charge a feeto make that determination.

Indepent of the issue of making dropping TM domains available to TM owners, DocCom you seem to think the problem of monitoring dropping domains against a TM database is an easy enough task to do, why don't you do it? And offer the service for free to all potential purchasers so that they can assess the possible TM issues before placing an order.

The real question is that if a TM holder lets a domain drop and doesn't do anything throughout the entire redemption period - do people really think they'll pay attention to drop lists for their domain? Maybe very few will who might have just hired someone "in the know".

The registrar will point the domain to their parked page if the fee isn't paid (technically making them guilty of cyber-squatting).

Plus, if they are one of the few who do monitor for it, any TM name being dropped will most likely go to auction since there are many people out there who would either blatantly exploit and try to profit off of the TM or take advantage of the already existing traffic.

As for filtering the list, I'm taking a step back seeing how it could backfire.

OK, Apple is a TM. They put Apple in their block list so it would block:
ApplePie.com
AppleTrees.com
AppleTarts.com
Applesauce.com

None of which Apple computers would have any claim on (based on domain only, not usage).

Pool (and any drop service) is just providing a service - domains that are going to be available to register on a certain date. Pay them a fee and they'll have one of their partners register it for you.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. The Snowe Bill is a warning of the things to come but our industry still doesn't get "it".

I agree with this but sadly, "the industry" only think that the domain owners would be affected, which nothing could be further from the truth.

Verisign won't be affected except collecting more fees. - A win for them.

Registrars won't be too affected by it since the names need to be registered somewhere and not many companies have their own registrars. Sure, they might get in less money with bulk registrations but that would just be a drop in the bucket. - I'll call this one a wash.

Drop catch services would still be collecting fees on acquiring dropped domains for people. I'll call this one a wash, too.

Parking companies and ad providers would lose out since many more domains would be snatched up and pointed to company websites. But, who cares about them? They only cater to unethical cyber-squatters, right? (That last part was sarcastic but how the general populace views them). They'll be a big loser. Does Google support the Snowe bill?

Domain owners would be the biggest losers. Not only would companies be allowed to snatch up our high priced domains for fractions of a penny on the dollar (I can see Dell doing one of the first ones for Computers.com, Laptops.com etc..), it would also be easier for them to sue for "damages" (what they claim they lost in sales, legal fees) quickly putting any domain owner millions of dollars in debt.

 

[katherine]

In today's list: sedo.org

Congrats Pool, way to go k:

 

[Pool.com]

It seems this thread goes all over the place and as usual people make blind accusations and suppositions strictly to support an argument and unless the statement gets challenged it is accepted as fact by everyone.

So, for the record... the Pool.com lists are totally automated and reflect what our customers interest are, nothing more, nothing less. I wish we had the extra manpower with nothing better to do than peruse lists.

Second, while any one of you may pose as an authority on who has the right to what TM, you should remember we have legal bodies around to make that decision on behalf of claimants. Many people may hold the right to the same TM for different uses.

The recent comment by sdsinc in regards to "sedo.org" is a great example. We are all aware of "sedo.com", one of Pool's competitors in the domain sales market. And I would certainly agree that they would have a prior right to the name.

But a quick google search would tell you that maybe DeNell Rehberg Sedo (a PhD at Mount St Vincent University), or maybe Sedo Snaxs (A South African Food store) or Sedo Treepoint (a process optimization company) or Sedo Dog (a MediaFreaks cartoon) or SEDO (Sustainable Energy and Development Office) or maybe even the guy that owns sedo.net and offers linguistic training... maybe anyone of these people or organizations might have an interest in acquiring sedo.org! Shouldn't they be given the chance?

 

[katherine]

So you mean all have got at least one backorder.
OK for sedo.org but the verizon typos...

 

[Mike Cruz]

I see them on all the drop catching sites, whether it be sedo or verizon or any other TM name. I don't think its fair to say its only Pool.com ~ and yes, in mailing lists / featured pre-release / deleting domains.

 

[katherine]

I see them on all the drop catching sites, whether it be sedo or verizon or any other TM name. I don't think its fair to say its only Pool.com ~ and yes, in mailing lists / featured pre-release / deleting domains.

Very true.

Now I just received today's hotlist from Pool and sedo.org appears once more. Gotta love the irony

 

[David G]

I find it amazing domainers get sued in Federal Court for TM violations (sometimes re non-valid claims or non-blatant names) but the peddlers of the blatant TM names (who also have deep pockets making them more lucrative to sue) are not being sued in Federal Court on a regular basis.

 

[Gerry]

I find it amazing domainers get sued in Federal Court for TM violations (sometimes re non-valid claims or non-blatant names) but the peddlers of the blatant TM names (who also have deep pockets making them more lucrative to sue) are not being sued in Federal Court on a regular basis.

They are. Not in federal court (yet) but with appeals such a case may go up the chain through the court system's levels.

I was reading about a case within the past two weeks. I will do my best to find it again. The ruling actually went in favor of the registrar. The entire ruling seemed odd.