cybersquatting on DNF

[DaddyHalbucks]

the question was this - who will be the judge and jury to decide if a name should be here for sale at DNF? Who here knows more than the URDP panels, ICAAN (well, stupid question there), the attorneys here and the seasoned domain name sellers present?
+++++++++++++++

That is ridiculous.

We don't need judges and juries to decide any other matters of judgment on the boards, so why for this, why now?

We just need good policy, and mods to enforce it.

The trading in famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks on this board -- such as MICRASOFT.COM, SEADOOS.COM, GOOGLER.COM, etc..-- is flagrant. It is obvious to anybody with half a brain.

The only people who will object, such as with ridiculous "judges and juries" arguments, are other low life cybersquatters, or folks who need to WAKE UP.

 

[LewR]

is flagrant. It is obvious to anybody with half a brain.
*********************

This is STILL an opinion - so you are saying names like

Sears.com
Crest.com
Tide.com
Target.com

are not generic since they are "famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks"? Where are YOU drawing this line?

DCC, you have a good basic point, but restricting "free speech" (for a lack of a better term) is wrong.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

In my opinion, Crest.com, Tide.com, and Target.com are not distinctive enough to automatically indicate cybersquatting. They are dictionary words.

I think most of the other people on this board would agree.

In any gray areas, the board should allow members to conduct business unfettered.

Again, the problem is the flagrant cybersquatting, which is undeniable and obvious.

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by LewR
who will be the judge and jury to decide if a name should be here for sale at DNF? Who here knows more than the URDP panels, ICAAN (well, stupid question there), the attorneys here and the seasoned domain name sellers present?

Just a question I would love to have answered.

Your question sounds like you're saying cybersquatting is ok as long as you don't get caught. It also appears that you don't care about the risk to the buyer, or the reputation of your fellow domainers. Who's to say if it's cybersquatting until it goes to a UDRP process right? Playing dumb is profitable for some. You know better.

Well, some of the "seasoned domain sellers present" are complaining about these sales right now. It's easy to check trademarks for free, and everyone in this industry should take a little time to actually read the guidelines on the WIPO or NAF sites upon which complaints or responses are judged.

If members here show no concern for these issues and think they should be able to post anything they want for sale without being called on it, then other members with a little integrity should also have the freedom to question obvious or potential trademark infringements in those same sales threads.
Doc

 

[LewR]

It's easy to check trademarks for free
******************

Very true - but having a TM on a generic name DOES NOT constitue illegal cybersquatting - don't you folks get it?

Sheeesh, you're missing the forest for the trees.

I guess if you own and control DNF - then do whatever you want.

This thread is like debating my wife....ROFL

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by LewR
is flagrant. It is obvious to anybody with half a brain.
*********************

This is STILL an opinion - so you are saying names like

Sears.com
Crest.com
Tide.com
Target.com

are not generic since they are "famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks"? Where are YOU drawing this line?

DCC, you have a good basic point, but restricting "free speech" (for a lack of a better term) is wrong.

If you would just read the guidelines at WIPO, it's not so tough to draw this line, and has nothing to do with restricting free speech.

You can check the classes for goods or services upon which the trademark was granted. If you're knowlingly competing in that class of goods with the holder of that trademark, you're infringing. Typosquatting as DCC has illustrated above is even more obvious.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Lew,

It seems you do not want to understand. You are hunting for exceptions.

We are not talking about gray areas. We are not talking about weak or descriptive trademarks. WE *ARE* TALKING ABOUT FLAGRANT CASES:

LambourghiniSpyder.com
MicraSoft.com
Googler.com
SeaDoos.com
Disny.com
NiemanMarcus.com

 

[GT Web]

here's one.....I own JaguarXJ8.com - but I am planning to develop, what about that case?

----------------------------------------
LambourghiniSpyder.com

first of all, there has never been any car named that by Lamborghini.....and look at the spelling..... There is no U

so owning LambourghiniSpyder.com would not be really be cybersquatting - I dont think

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by LewR
It's easy to check trademarks for free
******************

Very true - but having a TM on a generic name DOES NOT constitue illegal cybersquatting - don't you folks get it?

Sheeesh, you're missing the forest for the trees.

I guess if you own and control DNF - then do whatever you want.

This thread is like debating my wife....ROFL

Nobody is missing the forest here except cybersquatting members who choose not to look at it due to their own selfish interests, no matter the damage done to the profession's reputation.

Let's not beat around the bush here. Some members use cybersquatting to profit by piggybacking on the famous brands of others. They pay big bucks for a famous generic trademarked name counting on the traffic from the confusion and knowing that they can argue a case. The attorneys are no better as they are ready and willing to make a buck defending the ownership.

They might say that they bot target.com just to sell their 49 cent paper targets and had no intention of diverting traffic away from the company of the same name. We all know the real reason they paid what they did. As long as they make a buck they think it's ok to redirect people who were expecting to find the company. This has the continued effect of the public losing confidence in domains as an indicator of content, hurts resale value of all domains, and brings heat upon our profession.

Stop it.

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by GT Web
here's one.....I own JaguarXJ8.com - but I am planning to develop, what about that case?

----------------------------------------
LambourghiniSpyder.com

first of all, there has never been any car named that by Lamborghini.....and look at the spelling..... There is no U

so owning LambourghiniSpyder.com would not be really be cybersquatting - I dont think

You have to ask yourself if you're looking to profit by the use of a famous trademark? Are you looking for traffic based on typos of the famous trademarks in question? Are you planning on offering products and services in the classes that the famous trademark is registered in?

How would regging DisneyXJ8.com or DisneySpyder.com be different? Of course there is no DisneyXJ8 either, so what is the reason someone would reg such a name if not to profit by the confusion. That's cybersquatting or typosquatting, and it should be obvious.

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by Stocdoctor


Nobody is missing the forest here except cybersquatting members who choose not to look at it due to their own selfish interests, no matter the damage done to the profession's reputation.

Let's not beat around the bush here. Some members use cybersquatting to profit by piggybacking on the famous brands of others. They pay big bucks for a famous generic trademarked name counting on the traffic from the confusion and knowing that they can argue a case. The attorneys are no better as they are ready and willing to make a buck defending the ownership.

They might say that they bot target.com just to sell their 49 cent paper targets and had no intention of diverting traffic away from the company of the same name. We all know the real reason they paid what they did. As long as they make a buck they think it's ok to redirect people who were expecting to find the company. This has the continued effect of the public losing confidence in domains as an indicator of content, hurts resale value of all domains, and brings heat upon our profession.

Stop it.

Hmmm - so by your account - when I bought Act.com - I was buying it because of all the traffic I could divert away from...OH MY!!!, there were more than 400 ACTIVE TM's on that name - and even Symantec, owner of ACT! software (at that time) admitted they would not win a suit for the name (they thought about it, then their own lawyers realized the futility..LOL).

I'll tell you what, I wish I WERE selling 49 cent paper targets and owned the name Target.com ... So call me whatever you think, but legally - and morally - I would be able to sleep well at night.

So please, stop it!! (lol - just a joke there...)

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

They might say that they bot target.com just to sell their 49 cent paper targets and had no intention of diverting traffic away from the company of the same name.
+++++++++++++

Target.com and Act.com are NOT good examples of the cybersquatting problem. Those are generic words. "Act" may be trademarked by many companies in many different fields.

However, a large entity can probably improperly grab such generic domains through an arbitration or lawsuit --due in large part to the destructive actions of the many cybersquatter parasites who have preyed on truly distinctive trademarks such as Lambourghini, MicroSoft, Neiman Marcus, Disney, etc..

Cybersquatters caused such a problem that harsh legislation and Draconian arbitrators were a natural backlash.

Cybersquatters are the enemy of small entity domain owners as much as they are the enemy of multi-national corporations. In fact, cybersquatters should be hated *more* by small entities.

If any small entity has ever had a domain challenged, they know it is a far more serious problem for the small entity than for corporation. The corporation just calls its legal team and starts throwing money at the case. The small entity trembles.

 

[DotLeader]

ok

well i am admiting i buy the domains for traffic purposes
and this was a one off sale where i needed money as paypal is ***ing up and didnt uploadthe funds i requested from my bank

i will not stop registering or buying these domains
but i will stop selling them here at dnforum
i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it

 

[StockDoctor]

Originally posted by DotLeader
ok

well i am admiting i buy the domains for traffic purposes
and this was a one off sale where i needed money as paypal is ***ing up and didnt uploadthe funds i requested from my bank

i will not stop registering or buying these domains
but i will stop selling them here at dnforum
i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it

If you don't get it, read the threads above.

Someone who gives the rest of us a bad name due to their lack of concern and selfish profit motives does rile some of us.

Someone who even proudly displays such slimy activity in a signature under their member name is just amazing to me.

Too bad there is a character limit on those signatures.

It should read:

I don't care if a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark.

I don't care if I have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

I'm going to register and use it in bad faith.

 

[namedropper]

Originally posted by DotLeader
i will not stop registering or buying these domains

Well, that's your choice. Typosquatting has had severe fines on it in many court cases, so the person above who thought it wasn't a big deal (I forgot who it was exactly) is out of the loop. If you don't care, then you take your chances. Microsoft is probably the last company you want to take your chances with, though.

but i will stop selling them here at dnforum

That'd be very much appreciated.

i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it

Because it's against the law *and* makes the rest of us look like we break the law too by association. I don't know how anyone can be more clear than we already have been.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it
++++++++++++++

Because:

1. Cybersquatting costs us money.
2. Cybersquatting increases our legal costs.
3. Cybersquatting has resulted in harsh laws and harsh public relations backlashes which have hurt us.
4. The cybersquatting epidemic and resulting war has resulted in us losing title to legitimate and truly generic domains.
5. Judges and panelists now hate small entity domain owners.

Does that answer your question?!

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it
++++++++++++++

Because:

1. Cybersquatting costs us money.
2. Cybersquatting increases our legal costs.
3. Cybersquatting has resulted in harsh laws and harsh public relations backlashes which have hurt us.
4. The cybersquatting epidemic and resulting war has resulted in us losing title to legitimate and truly generic domains.
5. Judges and panelists now hate small entity domain owners.

Does that answer your question?!

How does Cybersquatting cost us money (individually that is)?? I totally agree with #3 & #4, but I think you're stretching things a bit on #1, #2 and #5.

I think someone has yet to truly define "Cybersquatting" before we label someone a "Cybersquatter". It could simply mean someone who buys a name, and does nothing with it. Or it could mean someone who buys an obvious TM'd name, and extorts a company into buying the name. Which is it? I don't think we should turn DNF into the "trademark" gestapos. If some someone wants to sell a obvious TM'd name, then I say let whomever is dumb enough to to buy it, take it from him/her.

By the way.... Is there a "obvious" TM issue with "Google-Dance.com"?... Seems to me, the owner of this site is covered with his legal statements. Also it appears "Google" understands the power of a very popular tool site that happens to be responsible. I think if someone bought "Googler.com" and were responsible invididuals, I don't think Google would have a problem. Remember the Google Fight site...

In the end, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, even the persons who do not believe people should sell TM'd names. I think this leads to very productive discussions. Let's just not get too "far fetched" with our claims, eh?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

By the way.... Is there a "obvious" TM issue with "Google-Dance.com"... Seems to me, the owner of this site is covered with his legal statements. Also it appears "Google" understand the power of "fan" help type sites that are responsible.
+++++++++++++

Far flung exceptions with different facts do not disprove the point we are making.

The cybersquatters on DNF do not have legitimate uses for the stolen domains. In most cases, they do not create any unique corresponding webpage. They simply register the trademark domains and redirect the traffic to a sponsor. The cybersquatter then offers the domain for sale on this forum.

Does that sound like the fact set and scenario with Google-Dance.com

?

NO.

Google-Dance.com is a legitimate use. But Google, Inc. has the final say over their Google trademark, and they would have the right to shut it down if they didn't like that derivative website.

 

[dtobias]

Those who say that "it's just the obvious cybersquatting cases" they're going after will always wind up with a borderline case where a good argument can be made for free speech or generic uses but some overzealous trademark owner wants to fight anyway... should this forum get into a position where it's compelled to knuckle under to all of them?

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by DotLeader
ok

well i am admiting i buy the domains for traffic purposes
and this was a one off sale where i needed money as paypal is ***ing up and didnt uploadthe funds i requested from my bank

i will not stop registering or buying these domains
but i will stop selling them here at dnforum
i still dont see why you guys let yourself get rilled up over it

Dot, Just wait until you get a lawsuit..

I really think it will be a leason for you.


Also, the use of your title like that, to think your being funny or "cool" is absolutly ludacris.