Respond/ignore experiences and ideas

[anony]

Hello All,

I want to share my ideas on dealing with CD/Trademark letters.

I have seen that in 99% of the time, companies write you one or two letters (I mean baseless letters when they don't really have a case) and then give up if you do NOT respond at all.

And if you ever respond, generally then they even make bigger demands.

So I have (so far) just ignored few such letters that I received in last few years and so far its so good. Never lost a domain until now.

** Please share your experiences about what is the best strategy to deal with such letters.

Questions to the experts on DNForum:

Q: Apart from losing your domain in a UDRP case (whether you respond to or totally ignore the UDRP), what else can be consequenes for the person who loses domain in UDRP?

Note: I understand then:

1. it will establish your cyber-squatting history for future, or

2. the winner can file to recover his expenses from the loser (which I have not seen happening much so far...may be 1% of the time).

So what else can be really the bad consequence (especially monetary consequences) for the person losing domain?

Please advise.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

 

[jberryhill]

which I have not seen happening much so far

Why do you think you would have "seen" it happening?

 

[anony]

Why do you think you would have "seen" it happening?

I think I have read it somewhere that in trademark issues (and of course in other legal matters) legal expenses can be claimed via brining another suit against the person that loses.

But why doesn't it happen often when many companies win UDRP cases is what I am wondering about?

Thanks for your response.

 

[jberryhill]

But why doesn't it happen often when many companies win UDRP cases is what I am wondering about?

What makes you think it doesn't happen often, is what I am wondering about.

The vast majority of lawsuits don't attract a whole lot of attention, and the vast majority of lawsuits are settled long before they do.

 

[anony]

What makes you think it doesn't happen often, is what I am wondering about.

The vast majority of lawsuits don't attract a whole lot of attention, and the vast majority of lawsuits are settled long before they do.

As I have not really heard much about recovering legal expenses after UDRP cases, that why I am under the impression that may be the 'mega' companies just want to grab domains and hardly care about the legal expenses after they win.

If it does happen quite often, then may be I am not really aware of it.

Btw, what % of UDRP cases you think actually result in leagl expense recovery?

Thanks for the info.

Regards,

 

[namedropper]

And of course in the US there's the whole $100,000 fine per violating federal law.

Excuse me for pointing out, anony, that it seems like you started this thread to compare notes on how to best violate other people's rights and get away with it... The best way to deal with C&D letters is to not engage in the kind of immoral practices that would get anyone to send them to you in the first place, and then if you get some baseless accusations you have demonstrated good faith and are much, much more likely to survive any potential challege (and maybe even get them for reverse cynersquatting).

 

[Dave Zan]

Q: Apart from losing your domain in a UDRP case (whether you respond to or totally ignore the UDRP), what else can be consequenes for the person who loses domain in UDRP?

Note: I understand then:

1. it will establish your cyber-squatting history for future, or

2. the winner can file to recover his expenses from the loser (which I have not seen happening much so far...may be 1% of the time).

So what else can be really the bad consequence (especially monetary consequences) for the person losing domain?

You practically answered your own questions. :wink:

But to answer your last question, two words: John Zuccarini.

 

[DomainEngineer]

You practically answered your own questions. :wink:

But to answer your last question, two words: John Zuccarini.

Who is John Zuccarini?

What happened?

Thanks,

 

[Anthony Ng]

The best way to deal with C&D letters is to not engage in the kind of immoral practices that would get anyone to send them to you in the first place, and then if you get some baseless accusations you have demonstrated good faith and are much, much more likely to survive any potential challege (and maybe even get them for reverse cynersquatting).

With all due respect, I have to disagree. There's hardly any justice when money talks. A LOT of "cease and desist" letters sent are baseless, with the intention to scare ignorant registrants into giving away the domains. It doesn't really matter whether you are right or wrong, the party with more power (resources, a.k.a. money) wins.

 

[Dave Zan]

Who is John Zuccarini?

What happened?

Thanks,

He's arguably the world's most notorious cybersquatter, currently doing hard
time. Here are some dnforum threads about it.

Zuccarini arrested http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=38570&highlight=John+Zuccarini
Zuccarini pleads guilty http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=45686&highlight=John+Zuccarini
What ever happende to John Zuccarini? http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=58324&highlight=John+Zuccarini

 

[namedropper]

With all due respect, I have to disagree. There's hardly any justice when money talks. A LOT of "cease and desist" letters sent are baseless, with the intention to scare ignorant registrants into giving away the domains. It doesn't really matter whether you are right or wrong, the party with more power (resources, a.k.a. money) wins.

The fact that someone sends a C&D letter doesn't mean justice was perverted. The taking of domain names away from their rightful owner by false claims of trademark infringement is more rare than is generally believed.

Regardless, my point that your best defense is to not engage in trademark violations in the first place holds whether the system is corrupt or not. It's a sound strategy to take no matter what. I'm not sure how exactly you can disagree with a statement that the best defense is not to do the crime they accuse you of in the first place. If you do do it you should have no defense and deserve to lose.

 

[jberryhill]

The taking of domain names away from their rightful owner by false claims of trademark infringement is more rare than is generally believed.

Depending on one's definition of "rare". UDRP proceedings are about .02% of registered .com domain names. So transfers based on true claims are pretty rare as well.

Above a threshold number of domain names, c&d letters, whether they have merit or not, are just another fact of life. Folks love to get hot & bothered about them, but a rational person evaluates the claim and responds accordingly. Some are so far out as to not merit a response. Some are based on inherently distinctive marks you might not have heard of, and might be worth simply acceding to the request. Some are debatable. Some are from a party with enough of a track record for disputes that it is worth pointing out if the name is defensible. They come in all flavors, shapes and sizes.

But just because an attorney doesn't follow up in the "ten days or else" period stated in the letter doesn't mean much. A lot of attorneys have a lot on their plate, and they might not get around to doing anything until much later down the road. Could be weeks, could be months, and yes it could be that the letter was just a "nibble" to see if they could get the name by raising a threat.

It's very hard for me to say what is "rare" in an absolute sense, since obviously I don't hear from people who say, "Hi John, I'm just writing to let you know that I don't have any legal issues."

your best defense is to not engage in trademark violations in the first place

That's certainly true, with emphasis on the word "best". There are enough groundless accusations to be a bother. But the thing about meritless cases is that they don't win very frequently, and I don't relate well to people who have overdeveloped martyr complexes. It's not a "moral" issue, it's a business issue. Part of any business is dealing with legal risk in a rational way.