Lawsuit claim

[MrGoodhost]

I'm being pursued by a large casino and hotel chain for TM. I've received what I think is a legal claim and lawsuit for a TM Infringement. Though, I have several doubts about the claim, but there continues to be other domains hosted at PPC's & owned by others that are still in existance with the same TM issue that they claim I possess. These domains have been live since 2003. Mine were a year old and about to expire (may 2006) and auto renewed, which I didn't want to happen and that's when I was informed of the claim being sought after me. A couple of days later.

I didn't know about any trademark infringment. Honestly, it was one of the first domains I ever registered.

I think someone is trying to make an example out of me. It literally makes me sick to my stomach that this is happening.

Is it ok if I post this information on the web without consequence. I have the information on one of my sites in a folder, but there isn't a direct link from any website to the information. There isn't a gag order. I don't have an attorney. And I don't have any money.

Can anyone give free legal advice? (link to info by pm)

Thanks,
Sean.

 

[Dave Zan]

If the name in question indeed infringes their mark, you're better off giving it
to them if they're especially pursuing this in Court. It's really up to you if the
domain name's that important (or not) to defend your rights to it.

Has the name been autorenewed already? You posted it expires May 2006.

 

[Creature]

I guess if you can't find a free lawyer and if the names not making money and if it's making you ill, then just give it up.

 

[DNQuest.com]

First - It does not matter what everuone else is doing. It is completely irrelevant unless you pursue dillution of the TM.

Second - Did you receive a C+D or an actual lawsuit? Wither way, just give them the name and explain that you did not realize you were infringing on the TM. Most of the time, companies won't go forward with a lawsuit if you give up the domain and don't give them a hard time.

Third - If someone is trying to make an example of you, just co-operate with them and claim ignorance. Make sure you get a pillow to protect your knees when begging for mercy.

 

[MrGoodhost]

I never received a C&D. I told them they could have the domain, they said they won't settle unless I pay them monetary damages and give them the domain.

I didn't know I was violating a TM. I sent yall a PM with the link to my conversation with the attorney and all the files I have.

Take a gander - tell me what you think.

Thanks Guys, - Sean.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I read all the documentation and it looks like they are making an axample of you. But to be honest, you followed some advice by some domainers I tend to disagree with and you made the lawyer angry. You also gave too much information about your knowledge of domain names. Unfortunately, it looks like they want pursue this to the fullest extent possible. I offered a couple options to you in a PM. good luck to you.

 

[JuniperPark]

I assume the registration still shows expiration of May 2006... if that's the case, just write them a simple, certified letter saying the domain name expired (with exact date), and that the matter is out of your hands, period. Done. Nothing else to explain. If you really have no assets, nothing to worry about -- they'll look that up and see there is nothing to gain by suing you.

 

[Fearless]

There is a lawyer in Oregon that sends you a cookie cutter lawsuit by courier. The cover letter demands the domain name and $5,000.00. I ignored everything and deleted the domain name. Never heard anything about it again. I figure this guy in Oregon gets to collect whatever cash he can get and turns over the domain name to the client.

 

[LeeRyder]

If I were you, I'd contact DotComGod about this. he seems to specialize in hotel domains (as per his DNJournal interview) and would most likely be your best contact source for information on this.

 

[MrGoodhost]

I appreciate the feedback. Anyone can drop me a PM for a link to this information that contains more details. I'm trying to avoid making this a public issue.

"Better to Burn Out, then to fade away."

 

[Ian]

But there is always the question of when was the TM created? Was it before you reged your domain or afterwards? Should it be the later case, then they have no case against you, but since I dunno which is your case maybe you need to think of that option as well. Good luck.

 

[Fearless]

I read some of the stuff. You will likely have to pay something. It's questionable whether you can talk them down on their settlement offer. Their attorney bill is probably very close to what they offered or more. They've done some extra work that really wasn't required. Getting a TRO on a worthless domain name is stupid.

 

[DNQuest.com]

To keep some people up to speed, there is no question about the TM or the attorney, or who he works for or any of the other "make sure it's real" talk. This is a company looking to make an example of an alleged squatter. (that is their thought process in this matter, not my words).

Right now, the domain is in the hands of the TM holder, but it seems they still want retribution and may not back down.

 

[MrGoodhost]

Thanks for clarification Phil.

I couldn't have said it better myself. But you did it for me. (Your hired. :O)

 

[Deleted member 70408]

If this company is trying to make an example of you, it might be worth your while to consult an attorney and try to reach a settlement with them. It is better to pay an attorney and receive his guidance and assistance than to travel down this road blindly. A highly respect attorney in this business is John Berryhill. You may want to get in contact with him. Good luck with your situation.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I already gave him John's email address.

I just hope the TM holder somes to their senses, but I think it might be more of the attorney being p***ed off and wanting to pursue it (and collect more money). If it's any consellation, it seems that the TM holder is going after quite a few others too, so this isn't an isolated incident.

 

[MrGoodhost]

The injunction was approved by the court on the 19th of June 2006. Of course it was approved by the judge, because there was no way for me to attend on such short notice. They already had the domain names, so there wasn't just cause for an injunction or restraining order.

I do not approve by the means to which I'm being notified and communicated of what is going on in this case. I do not feel that Email communications from the Attorney are appropriate. Nor do I believe that only document copies are sufficient. The only means of communication that I feel is substantial and worthy at this point, are true certified copy's from the courts. I get so many emails a day, it would be easy to miss it, inbox to become full or inadvertantly delete an email.

I'm representing myself. It's like David and Goliath against a shepards' sheep. I'm the sheep. Not a wolf in sheeps' clothing.

 

[Dave Zan]

Here's a guy who went through defending it himself mostly before Paul Levy of
publiccitizen.org pitched in:

www.taubmansucks.com

Doesn't necessarily mean you'll come out happy, just related reading.