Reverse CyberSquatting - Second Opinion Required

[namestrands]

WITHDRAWN By Brandstrand

 

[Dave Zan]

Not an attorney but...how have you used the name ever since?

I tried to pull it up using the www and without but it's giving me the page
can't be displayed message....

Oh, and you might want to take the name off your first post, too. The other
party might be searching for any online reference to the domain name and
thus find your thread here and possibly use it against you.

 

[namestrands]

Not used the domain since I acquired it. The domain name has never been used to confuse or gain any profit.

 

[Dave Zan]

Just some personal additional thoughts.

Not used the domain since I acquired it. The domain name has never been used to confuse or gain any profit.

It would've helped if you had made active use of it ever since, especially non-
commercial use. If I remember it right, the domain's not going to an active
website isn't an "excuse" to claim it's not being used in bad faith.

(Anybody know better, feel free to correct me...)

The For Dummies mark is pretty well-known, so you'll probably have difficulty
proving otherwise. If you especially have a previous UDRP ruled against you,
you're a gone goose.

I'd probably do what they ask. In a way, it's kind of them to tell you to let it
expire instead of transfer ownership.

 

[namedropper]

Myself and our lawyers in the UK say they have no claim...

You need to hire more competent lawyers.

Or just skip paying big bucks to try to defend such an obvious trademark violation and give the name up before you waste more time and money.

 

[namestrands]

You need to hire more competent lawyers.

Or just skip paying big bucks to try to defend such an obvious trademark violation and give the name up before you waste more time and money.

Your opinion is appreciated...

 

[GeorgeK]

Not a name worth fighting to keep. Wiley would have a very strong case against you. And even if you somehow won, it's a name with very little value, in my eyes.

 

[namestrands]

Not a name worth fighting to keep. Wiley would have a very strong case against you. And even if you somehow won, it's a name with very little value, in my eyes.

The value of the domain is not of any importance to me. I just dont take to well to people demanding things.

 

[GeorgeK]

The value of the domain is not of any importance to me. I just dont take to well to people demanding things.

All I have to loose is the domain name, if they want to pursue it then let them waste their time... for $7.95 they could of had it if they asked :approve:

They just sent out a standard form letter, to any domains that matched a pattern (i.e. *fordummies*.*). They're in the stronger position, in my opinion. They really don't care about your personal feelings, whether you "don't take too well to people demanding things" -- they simply want you to obey. They run a business, and not only do they have a RIGHT to enforce their trademarks, they have an OBLIGATION to do so (if they willingly let others infringe upon their registered marks, they could end up losing those marks).

Some folks mistakenly think that "all they have to lose is the domain name". That's incorrect. If you were in the US (you're not) you could be liable for up to $100,000 damages due to the anticybersquatting laws. Even without that, having a UDRP loss on one's records can tarnish one's reputation, and also threaten one's claims on other more generic names (once one has lost a UDRP, it's easier for future complainants to demonstrate bad faith, due to your prior losses).

 

[diverge]

I agree with George. Chances are this letter was sent automatically, so no offense should be taken.

Seeing as though you are NOT using the domain there is no value in keeping it -- and should you decide to use it at some later date, you would be in clear violation of their trademark -- I see no reason to fight this one. I would let it go quietly, and spend my efforts in a more profitable direction.

 

[jberryhill]

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm
The domain name at issue is idiotsguide.com

I have no opinion on whether the dummies are better than the idiots, but I suspect they may be. Perhaps someone could write the Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies.

One source of trouble is that likelihood of confusion in trademark cases is determined with reference to the relevant consumer of the goods in question, and their degree of discernment in discriminating between competing goods. I would love to see someone claiming, "But my consumers are dummies." I wonder if the dummies and the idiots ever get confused about which guide to buy....

 

[Salient]

One source of trouble is that likelihood of confusion in trademark cases is determined with reference to the relevant consumer of the goods in question, and their degree of discernment in discriminating between competing goods. I would love to see someone claiming, "But my consumers are dummies." I wonder if the dummies and the idiots ever get confused about which guide to buy....

This brought about a chuckle. Thank you very much, sir.

In all seriousness though, I would write back immediately and express my deepest apologies for impinging on thier trademark.

Then as an aside ask them when thier "Cease and Desist Letter For Dummies" was published.

Regards,
Stuart.

 

[MerlinK]

You should ask them to pay you something for it -- a UDRP filing will cost them $1500 -- it's easier to avoid that with a small payoff, although, they may have a "we don't negotiate with terrorists (cybersquatters)" policy.

Let them waste their $1500 if they want to pursue it that far -- you paid for your registration.

 

[Dave Zan]

You should ask them to pay you something for it -- a UDRP filing will cost them $1500 -- it's easier to avoid that with a small payoff, although, they may have a "we don't negotiate with terrorists (cybersquatters)" policy.

Let them waste their $1500 if they want to pursue it that far -- you paid for your registration.

If you're willing to push your luck...

An oldie but a goodie

Speaking of which, I just remembered this one:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/96635.htm

Anyone care to coordinate with Wiley to write "UDRP for Dummies"? :-D

By the way, brandstrand, why'd you title the thread "Reverse Cybersquatting"?
You didn't think you'd get responses on how to secure that if this reached the
UDRP, did you?

 

[namedropper]

The value of the domain is not of any importance to me. I just dont take to well to people demanding things.

Yes, heaven forbid the owners of the trademark demand you stop infringing upon their trademark. That's like somebody caught robbing a store and then getting all pissy because the police demand he drops his gun. Idiots get shot for things like that, and you could end up screwing yourself over between your misplaced ego and your appalling ignorance of the law. Grow up already.

 

[Honan]

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95559.htm
The domain name at issue is idiotsguide.com

I have no opinion on whether the dummies are better than the idiots, but I suspect they may be. Perhaps someone could write the Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies.
snip....

LOL, Thanks for the laugh
Yes, myself and many other DNf members appear to be suitably qualified to contribute to such a worthy project as the Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies

 

[namestrands]

Domain is in the process of being detagged... as I mentioned there was no intention to squat or otherwise

Thanks all for your comments all appreciated