Domaincar

[Focus]

Typos are not my primary business...but just for fun I do have some that make me a few HUNDRED dollars a day...how does that affect you?

...no on second thought, since you said so.. let me just go delete them all from my domain account..then someone else can have them and make all my money instead, or you can buy them...

 

[dvdrip]

When did the ICANN's rules become the law, in US or the world?

Do you want to tell me that you are subject to Japan jurisdiction because you used the Japan rootserver?

BTW, not all companies are multinational and not all US companies are known all over the world. I had never heard in my life of a certain bank in the US. I own the .info version of their name. Their name happens to be a dictionary word.

If you register a .COM domain, you are subject to ICANN's rules and the UDRP regardless of where you live. It forbids abusive domain registrations.

If you use the root server in Virginia, you may may be subject to US jurisdiction.

BTW, many multinational companies have trademarks in many different countries.

 

[katherine]

DaddyHalbucks do you realize what you are saying.
Soon you will say typo owners are terrorists.
Back to topic. There's a difference between 'legal' and 'ethical', maybe the people like Domaincar et al are able to get away with it simply because they stand in the grey area. Their way of business may be unethical, that doesn't mean you have a strong case against them.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

When did the ICANN's rules become the law, in US or the world?

You can't register an ICANN domain without consenting.

 

[dvdrip]

Do you understand that ICANN rules are not the law?

You can't register an ICANN domain without consenting.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Do you understand that ICANN rules are not the law?

When you register an ICANN domain name, you consent to their rules.

 

[financialtraffic]

Many just can't seem to understand how ridiculous typo-squatting is. And I'm talking about pure TM typo-squatting. For example, "googleinc.com."

Many claim there aren't laws against it or they are exempt because they live in a certain region.

Do you realize how foolish that makes you sound? If you truly believe in your rationale, try this out....

Start a company and manufacture aluminum red cans and fill them with soda. Make a pair of crossed silver lines and label it Coca-Colea.

Then, start to distribute it. See just how long it takes for you to be sued by international lawyers, depleted of your assets and thrown in jail. I don't care if you live in Siberia, or New York City, someone will find you very quickly.

It's common sense, what good are trademarks if they aren't enforceable worldwide? If they weren't, then you'd have "Wal-mart" owned by different companies in each individual country.

Do you think it's OK to produce your own DVDs under the MGM or Sony label if you're in a certain region of the world? Of course it's not OK. You're using the brand goodwill of an existing company and it's wrong.

Typo-squatting is violating trademarks and copyrights. And there isn't a difference between using a tangible brand to make counterfeit products and using a landing page that you feed with a variation of someone else's brand.

It's using the tangible goodwill of existing companies to enrich yourself.

If you don't accept it, that's fine. But don't pretend that you're not breaking laws. So few people take responsibility for their own actions. And so many seem to feel that anything is legal as long as you don't get caught.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Many just can't seem to understand how ridiculous typo-squatting is. And I'm talking about pure TM typo-squatting. For example, "googleinc.com."

Many claim there aren't laws against it or they are exempt because they live in a certain region.

Do you realize how foolish that makes you sound? If you truly believe in your rationale, try this out....

Start a company and manufacture aluminum red cans and fill them with soda. Make a pair of crossed silver lines and label it Coca-Colea.

Then, start to distribute it. See just how long it takes for you to be sued by international lawyers, depleted of your assets and thrown in jail. I don't care if you live in Siberia, or New York City, someone will find you very quickly.

It's common sense, what good are trademarks if they aren't enforceable worldwide? If they weren't, then you'd have "Wal-mart" owned by different companies in each individual country.

Do you think it's OK to produce your own DVDs under the MGM or Sony label if you're in a certain region of the world? Of course it's not OK. You're using the brand goodwill of an existing company and it's wrong.

Typo-squatting is violating trademarks and copyrights. And there isn't a difference between using a tangible brand to make counterfeit products and using a landing page that you feed with a variation of someone else's brand.

It's using the tangible goodwill of existing companies to enrich yourself.

If you don't accept it, that's fine. But don't pretend that you're not breaking laws. So few people take responsibility for their own actions. And so many seem to feel that anything is legal as long as you don't get caught.

All true.

The difference between the theft of a physical product and an intangible product is irrelevant. Only the cybersquatter attempts to justify it that way.

But it's more than that. In many cases, it is not just a lone instance of poaching. It appears to be much more than an isolated case of theft.

In many instances, famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks are stolen by one person from many corporate victims in a systematic way.

It appears to be racketeering.

Is it criminal racketeering or civil racketeering? I don't know. I would love to know what a lawyer says.

Is is truly bizarre to listen to these folks try to justify their likely criminal actions:

"It's not a physical product."
"I don't live in the jurisdiction."
"It makes me money."
"Mind your own business."
etc..

How do you OTHER people feel about the invasion of DNF by criminals? How do you feel about the higher costs that legitimate domainers pay because of these people's actions?

 

[Focus]

How do you feel about the higher costs that legitimate domainers pay because of these people's actions?

Dude, what kind of propaganda is that? Please justify this statement..

As I said before, TM domains are surely not my business and only a small percent of any names I own would be considered questionable but I feel that this area is very unregulated as of now and you simply cannot tell people how to run their business or not to own typos in the domain world, it is an acceptable risk we run in the PPC game..

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Dude, what kind of propaganda is that? Please justify this statement..

As I said before, TM domains are surely not my business and only a small percent of any names I own would be considered questionable but I feel that this area is very unregulated as of now and you simply cannot tell people how to run their business or not to own typos in the domain world, it is an acceptable risk we run in the PPC game..

It's the best kind of propaganda --THE TRUTH.

Cybersquatters prompted the ACPA of 1999 and the UDRP and and and and..

Complainants, judges, and arbiters routinely lump all small entity domain owners, especially ones with large portfolios, in the same category with cybersquatters.

This is NOT theory. This is Real World 101.

This means UDRP and trademark infringement cases are brought which would otherwise not be brought. This means hiring lawyers.

Cybersquatting also makes defending cases more expensive due to the improper but very real presumption of guilt for all small entity domain owners, etc.. Small entities have a harder time in the dispute resolution process because of the cybersquatters who came before.

 

[dvdrip]

You have mixed TM Cybersquatters with typosquatters.
It is not the same owning mcrosoft.com or mbile.com.

And it is not the same owning wlmart.com if you live in the US and if you live in Italy or Greece if walmart it not known in any way in that country.

Hugo Boss was importing clothes in Greece for many years. They had a TM with "BOSS" for selling clothes(not shoes) in Greece. Guess what? Someone started making shoes and named them "Boss". Hugo Boss couldn't sell shoes as "Boss" in Greece.
I think they made an agreement with Boss Shoes now so they can sell shoes as well.

So no, trademarks are not universal and no, US laws are not THE laws of the world.

 

[financialtraffic]

You sound mixed up yourself. Why else would anyone own "mcrosoft.com" if it were not for the brand MICROSOFT. Are you stating that if you start with a trademark name and magically remove a few letters, all of a sudden you have a generic term of your own?

Your logic doesn't make sense to me.

 

[actnow]

I am contacting the other member of this forum that have not posted in this thread.

We are going to initiate a "class action lawsuit" against most of the posters on this thread.

We will prove that you guys are causing bodily injury to the rest of us.

The rest of us are suffering from neck and shoulder pain caused by our continous
shaking of our head from side to side in disbelief.


:-D

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

You have mixed TM Cybersquatters with typosquatters.
It is not the same owning mcrosoft.com or mbile.com.

And it is not the same owning wlmart.com if you live in the US and if you live in Italy or Greece if walmart it not known in any way in that country.

Hugo Boss was importing clothes in Greece for many years. They had a TM with "BOSS" for selling clothes(not shoes) in Greece. Guess what? Someone started making shoes and named them "Boss". Hugo Boss couldn't sell shoes as "Boss" in Greece.
I think they made an agreement with Boss Shoes now so they can sell shoes as well.

So no, trademarks are not universal and no, US laws are not THE laws of the world.

You think the above is news to me?

It's a nice try to escape in a smoke screen, but we are talking about the theft of famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks, you know, the ones "worth stealing."

Call it whatever you like --if it makes you feel better.

 

[denny007]

Another piont of view: I am buying domains based on its OVT score. The only reason why I should check if is it a trademark or not would be to protect MYSELVES from loosing the domain in a WIPO. There is no law saying "you have to check TM database before you register any domain" - it even can not be, as internet is global (so is .com domain) and there is hundreds of TM databases (every country in the world has probably at least one). So it is actually even impossible to do that.

The only way for me how to acknowledge the domain is breaking a trade mark would be, if someone inform me about that fact. Unfortunately if I got any such information via email, it has been mistakenly deleted by my spam-filter. And as the ESSENCE of BAD FAITH is INTENTION, which can not be proved in this case, I can not be liable for it. That means, I am using all domains BONA FIDE.

Yes I am no lawyer, this is just what my common sense tells me.

I can tell you, there are billions of people out there (yes, there are REAL countries accross the ocean too, not only terrorists living there), which never heard of names like Starbucks, Bed bath and beyond, Sears, Walmart, Capital One and thousands others.

But people like Stocdoctor, DaddyHalbucks and possible others will never be getting that anyway...

 

[dvdrip]

What is famous for one person might not be for the other.
This is what you don't understand.

Here are a few companies denny007 mentioned:
"Starbucks, Bed bath and beyond, Sears, Walmart, Capital One"
I have never heard of Bed bath and beyond ,Sears and Capital One.
Starbucks only came to Greece a couple of years ago and I know Walmart from the movies.

I would probably(maybe not) pay $7 to buy CapitalOne.com and I would haven't bought Bedbathandbeyond.com in a million years.
Do you think I would care what capital one is the us if I had the domain and was making money? And I still don't know what the heck this is.

You think the above is news to me?

It's a nice try to escape in a smoke screen, but we are talking about the theft of famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks, you know, the ones "worth stealing."

Call it whatever you like --if it makes you feel better.

 

[Focus]

This is so ridiculous...it's none of anyones business but a potential "TM" owner/holders if anyone uses typos to make some PPC money...if they dispute a domain and go thru the proper channels to do so (and it should rightfully be theirs)...then you give it to them, clear and simple..Daddy wants to make it seem like those rare TM battles are going on over domains like silly low traffic typos of shopping sites, etc...in reality..this does not occur..it is cases like "Nissan.com" and similiar that "cost" us money..well in some strange related way...everything he said on the previous page makes me feel like I am listening to a George Bush speech..."because of terrorist now orange juice costs 10% more"...lol

Daddy, for you to try to quanitfy the effects or costs of ICANN related proceedings and somehow relate them to the members of this forum using typo domains for PPC profit you are just gonna make yourself dizzy man...the actual effect is inconsequential..what gives domainers a bad name is people directing kids to porn sites like that John character and he got what he deserved and probably should have gotten worse...

I guess this guy must be a terrible evil typosquatter too huh?

http://www.dnforum.com/f5/small-por...ds-com-sure-biz-thread-130234.html#post744196

No...really just a good fellow domainer with traffic names trying to make a living..is this wrong?

 

[StockDoctor]

Hey, I haven't posted because I told you (Skipper) to leave me out of it from now on. I decided to take Stuff's advice and "Not try to save the world". It's not my forum after all.

I've said my piece, and you know my take on the issue. I have other more important things to deal with, so you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

Fair enough?

 

[denny007]

Skipper and Hocus Pocus

You call this "leaving alone" Idioctor ?

 

[dvdrip]

You probably didn't read what I wrote:
"You have mixed TM Cybersquatters with typosquatters.
It is not the same owning mcrosoft.com or mbile.com."

Translation:
TM Cybersquatters=mcrosoft.com
"typosquatters"=mbile.com

You sound mixed up yourself. Why else would anyone own "mcrosoft.com" if it were not for the brand MICROSOFT. Are you stating that if you start with a trademark name and magically remove a few letters, all of a sudden you have a generic term of your own?

Your logic doesn't make sense to me.