Is it common for WIPO to take away LLL.com's?

[domainiac4ever]

Hi,

Fortunately, I've never been sued or had any issues with WIPO. However, I do have some general questions.

If someone were to put pornographic content on a generic three letter .com, and a company or corporation with those same letters didn't like it... would any company with that acronym basically have a fighting chance at winning the domain?

In the past I've done something similar with a great LLLL.com, and ultimately it resulted in me selling the domain to a corporation for six figures. Though, I do know I was extremely lucky in that case.

The reason I'm considering the pornographic content is not because I hope to recreate a similar situation/sale (though that would be nice), but because the content I have in mind is very funny and having it on the site would greatly increase my site popularity, therefore increasing my monthly revenue.

I know a lot of you think any kind of adult content on a great domain is a big no no -- that it will lower it's value. Maybe it does put off some resellers. But I personally believe, if an end user wants or needs the domain, their main priority is the future content of that domain. I just don't think it would detract the big buyers, for instance, if a domain had adult content in 2002, and they bought it in 2004 when the site owner decided to try something different. I doubt they look through the old archive entries and really care.

Sorry for rambling. I would appreciate all of your thoughts on the matter.

 

[katherine]

There have been quite a few cases of LLL.com lost in WIPO. But these types of names are more coveted than others so it's no wonder the risk of litigation is higher. As a rule it boils down to how the name is used and whether there is a potential for confusion with a known trademark etc. If you use the domains carefully you should be fine.
Here are two sample WIPO decisions:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0386.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0044.html

 

[domainiac4ever]

Thanks for the reply sdsinc.

Yeah, I'm just afraid that having adult content on the domain would motivate some company to try to convince a WIPO panel that they deserve the domain more than me.

I'm probably not going to risk it, unless I feel more daring one of these days. :undecided:

 

[james2002]

I wonder SEX has been trade marked. If not, I will try to trademark SEX and I will go through WIPO.

 

[DNBA]

first off porn is nothing new to the internet. i would only be worried if the LLL belonged to a company that was in that industry. or if you are that worried make up a company name (LLC) using the acronyms and place that in the whois.

 

[jimbaggs]

If someone were to put pornographic content on a generic three letter .com, and a company or corporation with those same letters didn't like it... would any company with that acronym basically have a fighting chance at winning the domain?

Maybe. The very best advice is to hire a lawyer. But I can tell you the following from my own experiance-

Companies file UDRPs becasue its cheap, their chances of winning are high, and there is virtually no downside risk if they lose. They usually will not file a federal lawsuit unless they have a bona fide case with a good chance of winning.

A good defense in UDRP is to have put the name in the hands of a Corp/LLC entity with a name as INDENTICAL as possible to the domain in question. You can also file for trademarks within your local state registry, or any state where you intend to do business, usually for a far smaller sum than a US reg. You must have accomplished this before you are contacted by or else the value will be dimished.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

Look up the name John Zuccarini on Google. It probably depends on how strong the mark is for the company who would object.

Here's some more info:

http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/truth.htm

 

[jimbaggs]

Look up the name John Zuccarini...

Thats right, there is the possibility of a criminal charge for violating the truth in domains act for sending minors to porn from "misleading domains". Forgot about that. Ooops.

I wonder if anyone else has ever been charged for that?

 

[domainiac4ever]

Thats right, there is the possibility of a criminal charge for violating the truth in domains act for sending minors to porn from "misleading domains". Forgot about that. Ooops.

I wonder if anyone else has ever been charged for that?

Same here! I completely forgot about that as well. I remember when the bill was first passed, several people I knew were talking about the new law, and how things were going to change.

I guess because there hasn't been any new publicized cases involving the bill, a lot of us forgot about it.

Happy New Year everyone! :cheers:

 

[Yusio]

My response to the original post: I believe it would help sell the domain faster. If a company was looking at it and they saw there was porn going up on it, they would likely want to buy it faster in order to protect their company name from being disgraced.

 

[Giode]

Look up the name John Zuccarini on Google. It probably depends on how strong the mark is for the company who would object.

Here's some more info:

http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/truth.htm

Didn't this slime ball have Disney related typos that forwarded to porn sites, that had a high percentage of children visitors? I'm pretty sure he's the one. In any event, that's a little different than using some random 3-letter domain, although I would stay far away from putting that kind of crap on a nicer domain.