buying a domain with trademark

[Garry Anderson]

Jim or John Walton are initials JT?

What tablets have I been taking?

Oops, very poor - sorry.

I quickly looked on google for world richest JT while thinking of those I know and somehow changed to JW

Anyway, you get my point - that rich people might want to buy it for themselves or family (initials JT).

Obviously there are others known as JT:

James Taylor - Also known as JT was born in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He has earned over 40 gold, platinum and multi-platinum awards for his music. In 2000, Taylor was inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Some of his hits include "Fire and Rain," "Country Road," "Carolina on my Mind," "Sweet Baby James," and "Copperline" just to mention a few.

http://www.travelsouthusa.com/themes_facts_music.html

Of course Jethro Tull fans know them as JT.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q="jethro+tull"+JT&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Which was pointed out by me long time ago in SWIPO spoof - WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000 - exactly one year before that terrible day.

http://www.dnso.com/words/WIPO

I see my arguments are just too good for any lawyer to challenge ;-)

 

[jberryhill]

Yes, Garry, lots of people's initials are JT.

Were those the registrant's initials? No.

Was the registrant James Taylor or Jethro Tull? No.

Did the registrant bother to answer the complaint? No. But the registrant apparently had no problem negotiating a price for the domain name in email correspondence prior to the complaint.

Was the registrant obligated to answer the complaint? Yes. The UDRP is included in domain registration contracts. If you snooze, you lose. There is nothing particularly shocking about that principle.

Ummm.... you just *might* want to find out who runs dnso.com and its sister site at www.gnso.com before making more dumb comments about lawyers. We've added an "apparel" link on the home page for you.

Relative numbers do matter when you are talking about a system that has dealt with 7,000 cases. You want to argue that it is biased, and act as if one bad early decision is a crime against humanity, but you are not willing to demonstrate that bias by answering a simple question.

Are there bad decisions? Sure there are. That is not a situation unique to domain name disputes.

 

[Garry Anderson]

1. Sorry John - I looked everywhere but cannot find it.

I scoured ICANN website but cannot find anywhere that says you can only register your own initials.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to it ;-)

Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY initials (or words) for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?

The most important point AGAIN - It was up to the Prosecution (Complainant) to PROVE their case.

2. Glad to see that there can be no denying that US registered trademark system is a Zip Code Lottery. Or as you say - it has "geographic restrictions on concurrent registrations" - but no way of knowing from mark if the registration is concurrent or not.

3. You obviously cannot see that the bad decisions are because of a flawed and corrupt system - UDRP.

You obviously cannot see that UDRP is flawed and corrupt because UN WIPO made it easy for their customers to overreach with trademark.

You obviously cannot see they made it as easy as a, b, c.

e.g. JT.com
a) Looks like my initials - even though many others can use them.
b) It is not his initials even though it is not legal requirement and he can use them for any lawful purpose.
c) He was conducting lawful commerce by trying to sell a generic domain name.

You obviously cannot see that the WIPO mission to "promote intellectual-property rights" is to the detriment of the publics rights.

We shall have to agree to disagree - relative numbers of decisions would certainly matter to me in a fair balanced system - this is certainly not a fair balanced system - it is ALREADY biased to make it easy to 'steal' domain.

As shown - the flaws are built in.

Equal numbers in favour of the complainant and the respondent - your plan - would NOT show fairness.

It would simply just show a breakdown of the decisions.

Again - EVERY three-letter domain name decided in favor of the Complainant show BIAS - unless Accused use it unlawfully of course. It is not a matter of numbers, but that it happens at all.

Sorry - I am a bit logical like that.

=========

I am also sorry you are offended by my "dumb comments about lawyers".

I presume you mean my generalizations - like they are not interested in finding a solution to conflict because it would cut into their income ;-)

Sometimes the only way I can get a response is to provoke one.

I thought you guys liked the adversarial nature of courtroom exchanges - partly the reason for my style.

It is especially difficult to get to the centre of problem with lawyers.

As can be seen by your VERY late opening of my eyes to Zip Code Lottery ;-)

You should know I am always grateful of any feedback (+ve some -ve) and any support.

 

[jberryhill]

"The most important point AGAIN - It was up to the Prosecution (Complainant) to PROVE their case."

...and in the absence of the Respondent answering, that's a pretty simple thing to do, since "proof" depends on balancing the evidence and arguments presented by two sides. What they had were certain trademark rights in JT, and they had a guy trying to sell them JT.com. In the absence of a response, the inference that he was trying to sell them JT.com due to the fact that it was their trademark is a reasonable inference to draw.

You see that balance that lady justice is holding? If you don't put anything on your side of it, it tilts the other way.

"Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY initials (or words) for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?"

That is true. But your proposition is that everybody is entitled to win a dispute proceeding when they decide not to participate. Life doesn't work that way.

"I thought you guys liked the adversarial nature of courtroom exchanges"

Good lawyers stay out of courtrooms, and keep their clients out of them as well.

I don't know how the courts operate where you are from, but court proceedings certainly don't consist of lawyers arguing with each other where I am from.

 

[oberheimer]

Thanks for everything this really help me. Now i know abit more.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Sorry it took me so long responding John.

I had trouble knowing how to phrase my reply - I have no wish to offend you again.

After all, you are one of a few with the courage to stand up against some of the injustices of current system.

I am very disapointed that you close your eyes to all the facts - there certainly is no need for Respondent answer.

To be honest - when the good guys think like this I despair.

You totally misrepresent the Law - not only does "proof" depend on balancing the evidence and arguments presented by two sides - it depends on the facts of the case.

Unless you would judge a man guilty because he was absent.

The OVERRIDING EVIDENCE OF FACT is this:

1. JT.com could be used by untold numbers of current or new businesses - the legal owner was doing NOTHING UNLAWFUL.

2. It is clearly overreach for ANY trademark to claim this generic domain as theirs above everybody else.

You balance substancial fact with 'froth' evidence used in UDRP.

For that is what it is - FROTH.

Lawyers do not argue with you?

I am happy for you - it must make your cases a breeze ;-)

To quote a brilliant lawyer, George Carman, the legal system and authorities have "behaved like an ostrich and put [their] head in the sand, thereby exposing [their] thinking parts".

If people like you cannot rise to the level of events - we have little hope for Justice.

 

[jberryhill]

"Unless you would judge a man guilty because he was absent."

"Guilt" is not a relevant concept in the area of civil liability, in which decisions are made on the basis of a preponderance of evidence before the factfinder, and not on a "beyond a reasonable doubt basis". The domain registration contract imposes the condition that the domain name is subject to the UDRP. So, no, I don't consider it a great injustice if people don't bother to submit a response and lose. If the only thing before the panel is "froth", then that's all they have on which to base a decision.

----
You totally misrepresent the Law - not only does "proof" depend on balancing the evidence and arguments presented by two sides - it depends on the facts of the case.
----

I see, and these "facts of the case" fly down from heaven and land on the panelist's desk, without the respondent having to lift a finger. Or perhaps these "facts of the case" are carried there by the monkeys which fly out of a bodily orifice of mine.

"You totally misrepresent the Law"

Goodbye Garry. Enjoy your rubber room.

 

[HOWARD]

In any litigation, be it civil or criminal, the "burden of proof" is on the claimant or Plaintiff or Prosecutor, to prove that he/she/they are entitled to judgment. There have been a number of UDRP cases where the Respondent did not "respond", tet the Claimant lost anyway because it did not meet its "burden of proof". However, if the claimant can show a PRIMA FACIE case entitling it to the domain in a UDRP action, the panel will award the domain to the claimant if the Respondent does not counter with a defense. It's really as simple as that Garry. No disparagement of the law or the attorneys that practice the law will change that.

 

[jberryhill]

Good point. There is also a difference of opinion among panelists concerning how to handle respondent default cases.

The prima facie burden on point 2 - legitimate interest - is generally a light one, since otherwise it would literally require proof of a negative proposition.

 

[Garry Anderson]

John, I am well aware of the difference between level of proof between civil and criminal cases.

I know in civil cases the person suing for a wrong has the burden of proving case on "balance of probabilities" - not "beyond reasonable doubt".

I know a civil defendant is neither "guilty" or "not guilty".

I thought you would realise I was using that as analogy.

John> I see, and these "facts of the case" fly down from heaven and land on the panelist's desk, without the respondent having to lift a finger....

Errr no - I guessed you would take offence - even though I lowered adversarial response.

Okay then - A, B, C style:

A) It is overreach for a trademark to prevent others from using these initials lawfully - true or false?

B) The panelist Judge SHOULD KNOW that it is overreach for a trademark to prevent others from using these initials lawfully - true or false?

C) This is so blinking simple - it does not need a C).

Howard, that it is overreach is evident - it is most obvious - PRIMA FACIE: where in the Claimant's "burden of proof" does it overrule this fact?

If nobody can, then it is my informed opinion that the Judge (Teruo Doi) is either monkey brained moron or is corrupt. He aided and abetted overreach of trademark.

John> There is also a difference of opinion among panelists concerning how to handle respondent default cases.

Guess why that is.

I am amazed that such intelligent people seem to have such a hard time seeing that UDRP process is corrupt - and designed that way by the clearly biased people in WIPO.

Or perhaps you even deny that UN WIPO is biased towards big business with intellectual-property rights - both in principle and with cash?

My disparagement is solely for the ABUSE of the law and those that support it - I am sure you must see that.

Why do I get the feeling you are going to take my response the wrong way - when it is purely meant to challenge your skills, intellect and knowledge?

Have you ever had your belief in the integrity of US Registered Trademark System challenged like this before?

I am not quite ready for the rubber room - some time soon though ;-)