Is this a TM??

[PeterMan]

I searched on a Two Word combination (I own the two word combo but with a hyphen) and I was going to contact the owner of the two word combo to see if they want to buy my domain...

Obviously I am removing the real names:

Word Mark <POSSIBLE TM NAME>
Goods and Services <more removed info> FIRST USE: 19960601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960601
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number <more removed info>
Filing Date March 27, 2002
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition July 15, 2003
Registration Number <more removed info>
Registration Date July 6, 2004
Owner (REGISTRANT) <more removed info>
Attorney of Record <more removed info>
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "<more removed info>" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Thanks!!!

 

[DNQuest.com]

Yes it is a TM, it says so in the record "live". Even though you have a hyphen in the domain, is it CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR to the holders registered mark?? (once you answer that quesiton, then you know the end result)

 

[PeterMan]

Yes it is a TM, it says so in the record "live". Even though you have a hyphen in the domain, is it CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR to the holders registered mark?? (once you answer that quesiton, then you know the end result)

Thanks for the info, this one caught me by surprise, I regged the name a while back not even considering if it was an issue because it is basically two generic words put together, I will just sit on it for now....

 

[jberryhill]

It is two dictionary words, but if you think about it, those "info removed" don't sit around unclaimed for very long.

Another thing you would notice if you click on the TARR status button is that this particular application survived an opposition proceeding in the uspto, so the application received a thorough going over.

 

[PeterMan]

hehe thanks, your detective skills are way better than mine... I hope I didn't post any information here that I wasn't supposed to, I don't really know what those numbers mean, I am just a silly canuck ;-)

and I see from your city that you may know even more about this? I believe that is where this company is located...

 

[wienerdog]

Don't take this as legal advice, but as I see it the most significant clause is "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE"

Using two generic words as a trademark is SEVERELY limiting in its scope. Especially when it comes to domain names. see:

Men's Warehouse vs. suitwarehouse.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/117861.htm

 

[PeterMan]

Don't take this as legal advice, but as I see it the most significant clause is "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE"

Using two generic words as a trademark is SEVERELY limiting in its scope. Especially when it comes to domain names. see:

Men's Warehouse vs. suitwarehouse.com
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/117861.htm

Actually the "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE " only applies to one of the words, I guess I should have made that clear... so I guess this means that they do have a trademark on the two word combo only...

 

[jberryhill]

I hope I didn't post any information here that I wasn't supposed to

Enough to uniquely identify the registration.

they do have a trademark on the two word combo only...

Correct.

From the looks of things, they are one of the outfits down in a section of town called "Jeweler's Row", and they may or may not still use this as an advertising phrase. Not the sort of thing I buy, so I have no personal knowledge about that.

The mark is for retail sales of "more info removed", so the disclaimer of that word is not a big deal, since the two word phrase would have little utility for anything else.

If the mark were for, say, furniture polish, and you were using it to advertise "more info removed"s for sale, the situation would be very different.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I hope future postings will not be like this, cause people like [name removed] would start threads like [domain name removed] and only tells us that [domain removed] is generic and in the dictionary so [company name removed] doesn't have a TM of [TM name removed]. Then people like [name removed] will jump up and start giving bad advice based on assumptions instead of facts, and [DNRer name removed] will then try to set the story straight and make sure things are not taken out of context, then [member removed] will start calling [DNFer name removed] a [curse word, curse word] and [curse word]....

LOL sorry, I am very bored today at work..... carry on.

 

[PeterMan]

I hope future postings will not be like this, cause people like [name removed] would start threads like [domain name removed] and only tells us that [domain removed] is generic and in the dictionary so [company name removed] doesn't have a TM of [TM name removed]. Then people like [name removed] will jump up and start giving bad advice based on assumptions instead of facts, and [DNRer name removed] will then try to set the story straight and make sure things are not taken out of context, then [member removed] will start calling [DNFer name removed] a [curse word, curse word] and [curse word]....

LOL sorry, I am very bored today at work..... carry on.

I posted the information like that because I did not fully understand what the information meant. It does not matter what the domain was, what matters is the information that I posted. I was asking if that information = TM and the answer I got was YES, so now I know that in the future LIVE = TM

 

[jberryhill]

so now I know that in the future LIVE = TM

Incorrect.

If (a) it has a registration number and (b) says "LIVE", then it is a federally registered trademark.

Those are two binary parameters, which yield four different conditions. As you might appreciate, the data record contains quite a few entries.

 

[PeterMan]

Incorrect.

If (a) it has a registration number and (b) says "LIVE", then it is a federally registered trademark.

Those are two binary parameters, which yield four different conditions. As you might appreciate, the data record contains quite a few entries.

OK, NOW, I know when it is a trademark ... :lol:

 

[jberryhill]

OK, NOW, I know when it is a trademark

Well, now you know when it will be legally presumed to be one.

Presumptions can be challenged. After five years of registration, the mark obtains "incontestible" status, and certain grounds for challenging the mark are no longer available.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I posted the information like that because I did not fully understand what the information meant. It does not matter what the domain was, what matters is the information that I posted. I was asking if that information = TM and the answer I got was YES, so now I know that in the future LIVE = TM

I know, I was making an attempt at a joke... I apologize if you thought I was serious... but I REALLY was bored at work that day and losing my mind... I think I'm back now...

 

[PeterMan]

I kind of figured that, and I was not trying to come across like I was mad or anythign because I was not, I just wanted to make it clear what I was asking, after looking at this thread agian I think it may have been a bit confusing.

Basically I was just trying to understand the informaton that I got back from the trademark search, and I did not want to give away the domain name (even though I did)...

So, to make a long story short I now realize that the domain in question is most likely infringing on a trademark. I had no intention of this when I registerred the name, I was just searching for some terms using OVT and found that the domain had some OVT results with the extension so I regged it...

It is actually getting traffic parked, and the click through rate is amazing - 50% - I have no idea why but I will hold onto it now...

What started this thread was my thoughts on trying to sell it to the owners of the unhyphenated domain, but when I checked the TM I figured I better get some advice...

hwell:

 

[Dave Zan]

Just a thought: if your traffic provider allows you to filter ads and you don't
"input" those of the TM holder in question, see how your CTR goes. After all,
you said you had no intent to infringe in the first place. :-D