Trademark claim w/threats

[xecutech]

I own a domain name and have had it since 2002.
I get an email today offering me $50 for it.
I replied that I would need more than that.
I get an email asking for a price.
I email back and say $500.
Then I get an email with a google search copy/paste article about trademarks.
Then I get an email about cybersquatting.
I email back and asked for proof of the trademark.
Then I get an email back with legal threats if I don't take $65 for the name.

I am using the name for a ppc page and I have had other websites on it before. I don't believe the name was trademarked, but I want this person to leave me alone! BTW, none of these emails were from a lawyer, just the person wanting the name.

Suggestions and advice please??

 

[Creature]

Maybe you made a misstake. Never state a price to a trade mark holder. Perhaps a lawyer could confirm that and how best to proceed. You may need to justify the price with comparible sales. I don't know, however speak to a domain lawyer before doing anything else.

 

[xecutech]

I was asked for a price by someone who never mentioned that it was trademarked, so I gave him a fair price.
I have had the name for 4 years and paid for hosting and registration.
I checked with the city he is in and doesn't even have a business license listed for the name he said was trademarked. Wouldn't you have to own a business to trademark it's name?

 

[Domagon]

In general, unsolicited emails offering $50 or some other relatively low amount are often spams / scams...

Sounds like someone has noticed your domain has some value and is trying to intimidate you by copy and pasting TM stuff...

My suggestion is to ignore any further emails from them, and wait for a C&D ... and if one should arrive, be sure to verify it's actually from a law firm; takes virtually no effort at all for a scammer to copy someone else's stationary / logo to send out bogus C&Ds in hopes of scaring one into letting their domain go for cheap.

Ron

 

[xecutech]

Thanks Dom, I was thinking the same thing.
The person does have a domain name with the same words in my name, but with "the" in front of it. He regged that name in 2006.
I would think if he was legitimate, he would have contacted me back in 2002 to get the name.
I did a search on this forum of his name and found where he threatened someone else with a lwasuit in 2003, but not for a tm.
I think he's a nut.

 

[jberryhill]

I email back and asked for proof of the trademark.

That's a perfectly reasonable request.

Obviously, anyone can send you an email making any sort of assertion.

Politely asking for evidence of a trademark, its relevant jurisdiction, the goods and services associated with the trademark, and the date such rights were acquired, should not be offensive to any legitimate trademark claimant, and should demonstrate that you are treating the assertion seriously.

If he then proceeds to a UDRP, your exhibit A is your correspondence in which you asked for evidence, and your request was not answered.

I think he's a nut.

They are in good supply.

 

[Creature]

If he then proceeds to a UDRP, your exhibit A is your correspondence in which you asked for evidence, and your request was not answered.

Brilliant. Great to know that.

 

[xecutech]

Thank you very much jberryhill, I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
Since he hasn't sent me proof yet, I am afraid he may be trying to photoshop something. I did a tm search and nothing came up, but I know I need more in depth search to confirm.
I did check with the chamber of commerce for his city and he doesn't have a business license.

 

[jberryhill]

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/425410.htm
Unlike many other proceedings where Complainant’s correspondence is unanswered, Respondent actually went to some length to actively seek out (a) the identity of the complaining party, since Complainant was not even identified in the initial correspondence, and (b) the basis of a trademark claim. In response, after spending time and effort seeking to understand Complainant’s claim, Respondent was provided with the same home page print-out, and other similar undated material in which there was no evidence of “SJPL” being used as a trademark, along with the same unsupported and suspect contentions in the Complaint. Additionally, Respondent diligently investigated trademark databases, Internet search engines, and other sources for evidence of secondary meaning in Complainant’s claimed mark and found none. Ultimately, Respondent determined that it had spent enough time and money on sincerely attempting to understand whether there was a claim here.

 

[Dave Zan]

Politely asking for evidence of a trademark, its relevant jurisdiction, the goods and services associated with the trademark, and the date such rights were acquired, should not be offensive to any legitimate trademark claimant, and should demonstrate that you are treating the assertion seriously.

Dumb question, John: have you encountered any lawyer or lawfirm who simply
refused to provide the details you mentioned above and said something like,
"That's your problem, dude. Figure it out."?

Or I'll put it another way: someone got a C&D, asked him/her/it for trademark
details, then got told to find out for themselves. That someone then retained
you, you dug around, and you eventually verified such?

Sure it's reasonable to ask. But some nuts are just unreasonably nuts...

 

[jberryhill]

"That's your problem, dude. Figure it out."?

Generally, that sort of response, especially from an attorney, indicates they don't have anything. In order to pursue a civil action or a UDRP, they'll have to come up with the evidence anyway.

Of course when reviewing a c&d, I do independent research. This often provides the ability for the TM claimant to contradict the facts which they don't know I have already found. In any dispute or negotiation, there is a tremendous advantage in having as much information as possible, and more information than the other side.

Also in pre-dispute correspondence you do not want, in all instances, to let the other side know the defects in their arguments. It can be much better to disagree politely without educating them about how to make their case stronger. If, for example, they claim to have been doing business for ten years, but you find from the state corporation division that they have only existed for three, then it is much better to allow them to proceed to a UDRP with their claim, and then simply point out that they are lying. Once their credibility is shot, much of the rest doesn't matter.

We let these guys fall forcefully on their sword in this one:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/434268.htm
This conclusion is buttressed by Complainant’s bald assertion that it used the MULTICAST term continuously in commerce “since early 2000,” despite evidence from its own trademark registration application that Complainant did not use that mark until January of 2005.

 

[Creature]

Also in pre-dispute correspondence you do not want, in all instances, to let the other side know the defects in their arguments. It can be much better to disagree politely without educating them about how to make their case stronger.

Valuable information. More of the same in a book please!

 

[B.King]

I think they are bluffing, just another low baller

 

[xecutech]

I agree bking. I have not heard back from them either. I would have worked with him if he had proof of trademark.