How Much Is Enough $.. Does It Need To Really Hurt The Buyer For You To Feel Happy?

[brian1234]

So, Rick Schwartz has been "WIPO-ed" by SaveMe.com.br, regarding
his ownership of SaveMe.com.

Rick has explained in his blog, in full excruciating detail, that this may
be a "pre-meditated hit" against him, and 'domaining' in general. It
appears, however, that SaveMe.com.br had made made several offers
to him for the SaveMe.com name, and were not willing to meet his price.

So they "WIPO-ed" him for the domain...

I understand what the typical domainer's response to this will be, but
let me just pose this question:

Someone who has registered a domain name...

And they've done nothing with it, since the date of registration...

They've openly entered in to negotiations to sell that name...

And they've shown no intention of doing anything with it (other than
sell)...

The name is worth very little, by anyone's estimation...

And they also have a reputation for 'sitting on' domain names, and not
developing them...

Is it ok for that person to continue to hold on to that name, and ask
whatever price they like, or is the above evidence of BAD FAITH?

Cheers,

 

[Biggie]

consider this perspective:


if i buy a vacant lot and keep paying the taxes every year, does someone have the right to come and take it because i have not contructed any buildings on it or developed the property.


should i be forced to sell it to someone at "their" offering price or the price i want for it?


am i, or should i be restricted to buy only "one" parcel of land?

or should i be able to buy as much land as i can afford?

 

[brian1234]

if i buy a vacant lot and keep paying the taxes every year, does someone have the right to come and take it because i have not contructed any buildings on it or developed the property.

Actually, yes they do, through the legal process of Adverse
Possession; something that was introduced in the US over
100 years ago, to ensure that land and property was being
made use of.

I'm not talking about real estate 'though, i'm referring to
domain IP, where you are only ever the 'registrant' and the
normal legalities of ownership (associated with real estate)
do not apply...

 

[Tia Wood]

Is it ok for that person to continue to hold on to that name, and ask
whatever price they like, or is the above evidence of BAD FAITH?

Cheers,

Yes, it's perfectly fine. The reason is because the Bad Faith which needs to be proven is Bad Faith against a trademark, not against perceived non-usage.

#1 - Just because you don't see a website there doesn't mean it isn't being used.
#2 - Even if it is just a parked page, an undeveloped domain or perceived non-usage is not sole evidence of "bad faith".

Speaking in terms of Rick's SaveMe.com, he obtained that domain years before SaveMe.com.br. Don't know what your point is?

 

[brian1234]

Speaking in terms of Rick's SaveMe.com, he obtained that domain years before SaveMe.com.br. Don't know what your point is?

Oh yes, I know that, and SaveMe.com.br do have a TM...

I thought that in cases where the registrant can clearly be proven*
to have registered a name for the purposes of reselling it, it can be
deemed an abusive registration... Is that wrong?


* The 'proof', as I understand it, can be obtained by looking at the
registrant's other (and past) DN dealings, the comments they've
made publicly, and so on.

 

[Biggie]

Oh yes, I know that, and SaveMe.com.br do have a TM...

according to the pdf's, the granting of a tm has been held-up due to "court backlog".


but the premise of their argument is:

domainname.com is a "typographical error" of domainname.com.br


thus if they win based on that argument, then every .com domain holder will/could be subject to a wipo based on this "typographical error" usage decision and cctlds holders will be filing suits like they were "buy one get two free" just to grab your .com


how would you feel then?

 

[barrysanders]

I get your point, the fact is that it sucks... I've seen a few premium .com's that I'd love to develop, the owner is doing nothing with them (I mean literally nothing, just a blank white page up) and their price expectations would even make Rick blush. Nothing you can do though, you can't try to take it from them just because they aren't using it. They own it fair and square. It's just a waste. Kinda like someone sitting on 500 pounds of lobster (and they aren't eating any of it) while everyone else is eating bread and they want your left arm and your first child for one of the lobsters.

 

[brian1234]

according to the pdf's, the granting of a tm has been held-up due to "court backlog".

So?.. I'm in the UK, and over here 'unregistered' TM's are
every bit as powerful as registered marks, and i'm sure the
same is true in most other countries.

but the premise of their argument is:

domainname.com is a "typographical error" of domainname.com.br


thus if they win based on that argument, then every .com domain holder will/could be subject to a wipo based on this "typographical error" usage decision and cctlds holders will be filing suits like they were "buy one get two free" just to grab your .com


how would you feel then?

I agree item 13(i) is a bit of 'filler', but of course you've
neglected to refer to all the other items in their complaint
which are highly credible.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

They own it fair and square.

Own what? Domain registration 'interests' are not the same as
the interest you might acquire in real estate, or any other property...

 

[Biggie]

I get your point, the fact is that it sucks... I've seen a few premium .com's that I'd love to develop, the owner is doing nothing with them (I mean literally nothing, just a blank white page up) and their price expectations would even make Rick blush. Nothing you can do though, you can't try to take it from them just because they aren't using it. They own it fair and square. It's just a waste. Kinda like someone sitting on 500 pounds of lobster (and they aren't eating any of it) while everyone else is eating bread and they want your left arm and your first child for one of the lobsters.

member the american indians,?

they weren't using the land either, they were just living on it

then some folks from across the water came over and saw the land, and knew that it was good land, so they took it


now you got some folks from .com.br and they see your .com and they know it's good land, so they try and take it



funny or not

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

So?.. I'm in the UK, and over here 'unregistered' TM's are
every bit as powerful as registered marks, and i'm sure the
same is true in most other countries.

if unregged tm's carry as much weight as regged tm's, then what's the point of registering one in first place?

you can't give equal weight to two things that aren't equal


can i put up a website on an unregistered domain name?

I agree item 13(i) is a bit of 'filler', but of course you've
neglected to refer to all the other items in their complaint
which are highly credible

if you give credibility to the filler, then yeah, you'd have to give credibility to the other complaints, but

since the filler is illogical, then the rest is irrelevant

their initial argument rests with the statement "simple typographical error" and therefore the registration of the .com should be cancelled, deleted or given to them.


read the pdf backwards and i'll make more sense

 

[DigiNames]

It's his domain, he registered it first. He can do whatever he wants...Give it away, not sell it for $1M, use it for a website, not use it for a website. It's his, period.

If someone registers a trademark for the purpose of selling it to the TM owner, that is "bad faith" and cyber squatting. If someone registers a generic term like "save me" and you want to own it, you have to pay them what they want or you simply can't have it.

 

[brian1234]

It's his domain, he registered it first. He can do whatever he wants...Give it away, not sell it for $1M, use it for a website, not use it for a website. It's his, period.

If someone registers a trademark for the purpose of selling it to the TM owner, that is "bad faith" and cyber squatting. If someone registers a generic term like "save me" and you want to own it, you have to pay them what they want or you simply can't have it.

Ok, so none of the following circumstances could ever have
an influence on whether you're able to hold on to the name
or not?...

i) Never using the domain, or (2) using the name in connection
with a service that is likely or intended to cause harm to or
defame an individual or trading business, whether a TM holder
or not (e.g. using a name to direct visitors to a porn site).

ii) Registrant has a previous, provable, history of doing this (2).

ii) Publicly making abusive and defamatory remarks about parties
who have sought satisfaction via WIPO, prior to a panel hearing.

iii) Maliciously forwarding sex-related domain name 'traffic' to
parties who have sought satisfaction, and then actually giving
proof of what you have done on your website.

iv) Breaking copyright law, by using image-based material on
your website (that relates to parties seeking satisfaction) and
not obtaining permission.

v) Registering domain names, where the latter part of the name
end in "sucks", e.g. nbcsportsucks.com (such registrations can
only ever be considered "abusive", with the intention of causing
harm to established brand owners and TM's).

Cheers,

 

[katherine]

Brian,

I was going to address a few of your points, but I will refrain from doing so. I want to be prudent for the time being and not give ammo to either party

I would just say that while some panelists are clearly biased against domainers, merely acquiring domains for resale is normally not enough to establish bad faith. But the fact can weigh in the balance, along with other findings.
Complainant and respondent clearly have differences but only the facts are relevant for the WIPO, the rest is a matter of personal appreciation, but of course that counts too

More comments when the ruling is out maybe

 

[brian1234]

some panelists are clearly biased against domainers

Yes, and I suspect the reason that they are has a lot to do with
a***hole, loudmouthed, 'domainers' who are spoiling things for
everyone else...

A decision in favour of SaveMe.com.br will prove, irrefutably, that
you can be judged not just by the names you own, but how you act
with regard to them.

Anyway, I hope they win, and if they do, I suspect it will provide an
"open door" to others who want to challenge Schwartz for some of
his big ticket names.

 

[varlov]

Anyway, I hope they win, and if they do, I suspect it will provide an
"open door" to others who want to challenge Schwartz for some of
his big ticket names.

Brian, forget about Schwartz and think of you. What if was your name? Is everything you hope for is OK in that case?
I see you are selling a nice 4L.com here at the forum. The same name is free at .com.br
So, now i come with an offer $5 or will register .com.br and take it for free?

 

[brian1234]

Brian, forget about Schwartz and think of you. What if was your name? Is everything you hope for is OK in that case?
I see you are selling a nice 4L.com here at the forum. The same name is free at .com.br
So, now i come with an offer $5 or will register .com.br and take it for free?

Ok, fair enough, lets talk about me

No, I don't have any fears about someone trying to grab
any of my names. The reasons for that are because:

1) I am not a domain name trader, per-se, nor can it be
proven that I have acquired any domain purely for the
purposes of re-selling it.

2) I do not, and never have, engaged in BAD FAITH
registrations; e.g. regging nbcsportsucks.com, in the
hope that I can malign NBC Sports, and profit from
doing so.

3) I don't have any TM names, and have no intention
of trying to make money out of these names.

I say there's a big difference between me, and a guy
like Schwartz, and because of that I need have no fears
about losing any name. But why don't we put your idea
to the test? You reg tunq.com.br, and try and take the
.com from me ;-)

 

[varlov]

1) I am not a domain name trader, per-se, nor can it be
proven that I have acquired any domain purely for the
purposes of re-selling it.

So you are just collecting offers in your 4L thread? Not willing to sell/trade?

2) I do not, and never have, engaged in BAD FAITH
registrations; e.g. regging nbcsportsucks.com, in the
hope that I can malign NBC Sports, and profit from
doing so.

I don't think "Save me" is anything close to BAD FAITH domain as your example.

3) I don't have any TM names, and have no intention
of trying to make money out of these names.

The TM of "Save me" is 14 years late (or more). I can register whatever i want today and steal a 15-16-20 YO .com domain?

I say there's a big difference between me, and a guy
like Schwartz, and because of that I need have no fears
about losing any name. But why don't we put your idea
to the test? You reg tunq.com.br, and try and take the
.com from me ;-)

Indeed, there is a big difference between you, me and a guy like Schwartz ... but i don't think it's enough to be happy when someone stealing one of his domains.
... and no, no worth registering a TM to take off your domain. But be careful what you wish for ...

Regards,
Borislav

 

[brian1234]

Borislav, you're making a valiant attempt with the English
language, but you really do need to take the time to read
what has been said previously...

And, no, you can't just go out and create a TM and then
try to snatch my domain from me. The main reason for
that is because I do not display 'bad faith' in any of my
dealings.

If you want to learn more about this case, please visit:
http://www.erealestate.com/savemewipo2.pdf

But, again, I would urge you to read everything through
carefully, including this thread, before making any more
comments.

Best regards,

 

[varlov]

Sorry about my bad english Brian.

Good luck!
Borislav

 

[katherine]

What about the many of us who buy domains for resale but carefully avoid bad faith registrations ?
Be careful what you wish for.
Not commenting on the merits of this particular case but in general.

 

[silentg]

1. SaveMe.com was not registered in bad faith.
2. SaveMe.com was not used in bad faith.
This is another example of Reverse Domain Hijacking attempt by a company that was started in 2010.