Is TM typosquatting ok?

[StockDoctor]

Just thought I'd bring this topic over here and start a new thread so we can get into this issue a bit.

I'll start it out with sharing my opinion.

Trademark Typosquatting is wrong. It is the straight out theft of traffic (and revenue) intended for the owner of the trademark. Those that practice it are leeching off the hard work and investment of the rightful owner, rather than making/working their own way to success. More than that, they give the rest of Domainers a bad name. It's pretty slimey.:cheeky:

 

[AmericanBulldog]

Domains are still first come, first served. Typo's by their nature are not the TM, but a variant of. Yes, they do generate traffic and $$ from mistypes, but, if my destination is bigbrand.com I will likely still end up there.

If I am the CTO of a bigbrand.com, is it not my responsibility to register all tld's, typo's, bigbrandsucks etc if I want to control every possible variation of bigbrand.com?

Is the CTO of bigbrand.com negligent in looking after bigbrands brand name if he does not do that? or, does the CTO of bigbrand make a conscious decision that all typo's, tld's etc that they do not register are not required or needed, and thus available to the general public? or is just incompetence that all those typo's are available?

 

[actnow]

Here is a different twist on this topic.

I just learned if Verisign's new proposal is accepted.
Besides, the increase in the cost of domains and how
domains will drop, "site finder" will come back.

That means that Verisign will become the largest owner of typo TM domains.

Does that mean Verisign is stealing money from the TM owners?

 

[Leading Names]

Comments Removed.

 

[stuff]

Just thought I'd bring this topic over here and start a new thread so we can get into this issue a bit.

I'll start it out with sharing my opinion.

Trademark Typosquatting is wrong. It is the straight out theft of traffic (and revenue) intended for the owner of the trademark. Those that practice it are leeching off the hard work and investment of the rightful owner, rather than making/working their own way to success. More than that, they give the rest of Domainers a bad name. It's pretty slimey.:cheeky:

This is very funny
You say that Typosquatting is wrong, but I know at least one off Your domain, that has obvious TM issue, but You have parked it in Fab and it has a "for sale" sign.
Just my 2 cents

Stuff

 

[fatter]

I feel same way typos of TM are stealing, but I think some typos are ok. IE: company A is a wholesaler and has a TM of a consumer product, which they dont sell directly but just ship to many different retail outlets and want as many sales as they can get from whoever.
a personal experience of mine is i regged ragshops.com because i saw it had traffic, I made 300.00 a year parked, when i saw ragshop advertising on parked page, i emailed them and offered to sign it over free of charge, they accepted and even sent me a check for 200.00. it was obvious people wanted to go to ragshop.com when typing ragshops.com another factor is when people clicked on a competitors link, i was using a tm name to send business to their competitors which wasnt right. I beleive udrp had decsions just because there is an s on the end doesnt negate the tm rights to domain

 

[JuniperPark]

Just thought I'd bring this topic over here and start a new thread so we can get into this issue a bit.

I'll start it out with sharing my opinion.

Trademark Typosquatting is wrong. It is the straight out theft of traffic (and revenue) intended for the owner of the trademark. Those that practice it are leeching off the hard work and investment of the rightful owner, rather than making/working their own way to success. More than that, they give the rest of Domainers a bad name. It's pretty slimey.:cheeky:

SCENARIO #1
A friend recommends a great Chinese restaurant on Main Street, "China House". You decide to go, head down Main Street, see a nice looking new Chinese restaurant, pull in, have dinner, and it's good. But it's "China Wall"; China House was further down the street. You don't realize till the next day you were at the wrong place.

By your rules, China Wall should sue Chine House for "stealing", when in fact China Wall simply chose a better location (more traffic, closer to the freeway).

SCENARIO #2

Similar to above, except you KNOW you're not at the right restaurant but cannot seem to find China House. You give up looking and enjoy a meal at China Wall.

Are we still suing?

SCENARIO #3

Another (real) example. We're heading for Squid Roe (a bar) in Cabo San Lucas. Along the way, we pass another bar, and the doorman shouts to us "first round of drinks free!". We go in, stay, and never get to Squid Roe.

By your theory, Squid Roe could sue the cheaper bar.

 

[StockDoctor]

This is very funny
You say that Typosquatting is wrong, but I know at least one off Your domain, that has obvious TM issue, but You have parked it in Fab and it has a "for sale" sign.
Just my 2 cents

Stuff

Stuff, I have a ton of domains as I think you know, and some of them get stuck in with the flow of ppc portfolios at a few thousand at a time. I do NOT have any TM issue names that were not picked up for the benefit of the Trademark holder.

 

[stuff]

I do NOT have any TM issue names that were not picked up for the benefit of the Trademark holder.

tell that to theyre lawyers! they will belive You for sure

 

[StockDoctor]

tell that to theyre lawyers! they will belive You for sure

I talk to them all the time Stuff, what name are you talking about?

 

[stuff]

I talk to them all the time Stuff, what name are you talking about?

Stoc don`t take me wrong I am not trying to upset You or anything, just it was a little silly in my opinion that You are talking about typosquatting as it is very bad and its not tolerated by You. But then doing it yourself.

I will Pm me You the name.

 

[StockDoctor]

Stoc don`t take me wrong I am not trying to upset You or anything, just it was a little silly in my opinion that You are talking about typosquatting as it is very bad and its not tolerated by You. But then doing it yourself.

I will Pm me You the name.

No prob. The name you sent is a definate TM and is held by me for my brother who is a honcho at Xerox. He owns it, and it's not a typo, but the real thing. just caught in the loop of those names pushed to Fab in bulk. I should get it out of there for sure.

 

[actnow]

I don't think all typo domains are a question of guilty or innocent.

Or, a case of "being pregnant or not pregnant".

There are situations where people are really helping a TM holder.

I own one of the tld's of the college I went to. I have it pointed at the college.

One day, when I need a write-off I will donate it to them with some other domains they would want.

Another case. I'm an active member of a national organization which is TM'd.
I have two of the tlds which is being used by a chapter of the national organization.

If I hadn't aggressively acquired it, it would be a ppc site (or worse).

The point I'm making, is that, it is not a case of black or white. There are a lot of grey areas.

 

[StockDoctor]

I don't think all typo domains are a question of guilty or innocent.

Or, a case of "being pregnant or not pregnant".

There are situations where people are really helping a TM holder.

I own one of the tld's of the college I went to. I have it pointed at the college.

One day, when I need a write-off I will donate it to them with some other domains they would want.

Another case. I'm an active member of a national organization which is TM'd.
I have two of the tlds which is being used by a chapter of the national organization.

If I hadn't aggressively acquired it, it would be a ppc site (or worse).

The point I'm making, is that, it is not a case of black or white. There are a lot of grey areas.

Yeah agree. I have a bunch of names held for the TM owners. To make things clear again, I'm not against typos at all, just against "bad faith" TM typos, where the typosquatter regs a name with the intention of siphening off traffic from it's intended goal and profitting from that misdirection at the TM owner's loss. That is theft pure and simple. Not hard to mistake unless the typosquatter works real hard at trying to baloneytize some excuses like we've already seen earlier in this thread.

 

[DNjet]

"baloneytize" is a typo of bolognatize

what about this situation , I have several typos with traffic of domains that aren't TM'd and are parked more or less at the moment , what about if those domains are bought and developed with a TM , but mine were parked before their purchase and development , isn't that the classic "I was here already" scenario in my favor?

 

[ShaunP]

Stoc:

You might want to watch out on your upcoming MotorcyclistMagazine.com project. The following from the USPTO;

Word Mark MOTORCYCLIST
Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: magazines relating to motorcycles. FIRST USE: 19120000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19120000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76139325
Filing Date October 2, 2000
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition August 7, 2001
Registration Number 2501973
Registration Date October 30, 2001
Owner (REGISTRANT) EMAP USA, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 6420 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90048
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record David Jacobs
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I'm not a lawyer, but just wanted to help you avoid potential future problems like being accused of cybersquatting or something.

Shaun

 

[StockDoctor]

I'm not a lawyer, but just wanted to help you avoid potential future problems like being accused of cybersquatting or something. Shaun

That's pretty obvious, and I know the difference, have been thru WIPO actions myself, and I assure you I'm well protected and entitled, prior to that TM.

I'd say that most of us know the difference between generic names and obvious TM typosquatting, it's not that tough to recognize. ((removed reference to Rob's post as requested))

Also, as one suggested here, it is NOT the resposibility of the TM owner to reg every typo version. If he doesn't, that does NOT mean that it's open season on his traffic as some imply.

 

[ShaunP]

Stoc:

Their TM registration date is October 30, 2001, and your domain registration is April 2, 2003. I know it's not typosquatting, but maybe TM infringment? But hey, I'm no lawyer, and as you said "and I assure you I'm well protected and entitled, prior to that TM." You know better than me, as you seem to be a self professed expert. I'm sure you'll have no problems.

Shaun

 

[StockDoctor]

Stoc:

Their TM registration date is October 30, 2001, and your domain registration is April 2, 2003. I know it's not typosquatting, but maybe TM infringment? But hey, I'm no lawyer, and as you said "and I assure you I'm well protected and entitled, prior to that TM." You know better than me, as you seem to be a self professed expert. I'm sure you'll have no problems.

Shaun

Better to stick to the topic of the thread rather than to try to discredit me. On that drawing TM by the way, I'm protected to prior use all the way back to 81. I also never "professed" to be an "expert" and I don't know why you have to result to that kindof of personal slam. On the other hand, I do know a couple things about the process having never lost 1 case on my own behalf or that of helping other domainers.

Like I said, typosquatting is pretty easy to define. Ask yourself, did you have a TM in mind when you came up with the typo? Did you intend to try to get some revenue based on the typo error of the person searching for a particular trademark. If yes, then that's typosquatting and you're profitting by misdirecting traffic away from the intended goal.

 

[ShaunP]

I have a bunch of names held for the TM owners.

Stocdoctor:

On this we agree. I personally know hundreds of guys and gals that like you, hold TM typo names for the TM holders ... they also "store" them at PPC sites until the TM holders want them.

Shaun