UK Trademark issue

[flamewalker]

Honestly I don't see how serving ads on a page could possibly grant you any ip/tm rights...unless you claim that serving ads is the tm, which i highly doubt would fly in any tm office.

You have prior registration of said domain name, which goes to your benefit if they UDRP, but like someone else said, if you try to sell it, that could hurt you or the new buyer(s). Also, if you serve ads related to their TM (should it be accepted), you will be in the crosshairs, I believe.

I don't see how you will be able to stop a TM registration just because you were serving ads on the name first... The other thing is whether the term is generic or descriptive... that will make a big difference in a UDRP case as well.

From my impression, if you want to protect the name, develop it. Displaying ads isn't development, and I think most people would agree including the WIPO panelists. The Kareem Abdul Jabaar domain made that very clear (granted it was a very bad decision based on false facts).

 

[denny007]

Maybe have the real whois records subpoenaed?

And HOW exactly could be subpoenaed a whois record FROM THE PAST ???

Honestly I don't see how serving ads on a page could possibly grant you any ip/tm rights..

Well DG obviously does NOT want apply for TM, DG just wants to avoid their future claim for the domain. And I can see this comming in the future a lot. Recent example I know of - breedersclub.com regged 1998, breedersclub.net regged 2000 yet those commie panelists decided to TRANFSER breedersclub.com to complainant. And the lost domain does not have enough value to persuade it further.

 

[flamewalker]

And HOW exactly could be subpoenaed a whois record FROM THE PAST ???

Well DG obviously does NOT want apply for TM, DG just wants to avoid their future claim for the domain. And I can see this comming in the future a lot. Recent example I know of - breedersclub.com regged 1998, breedersclub.net regged 2000 yet those commie panelists decided to TRANFSER breedersclub.com to complainant. And the lost domain does not have enough value to persuade it further.

Fair enough. As far as the whois subpoena... whoever is providing the whois privacy is legally bound to comply with a discovery order (I believe is what its called) and reveal the true identity. Privacy only protects you from a joe blow out there that wants to abuse your identity... not the law.

erm... can't edit...
Anyways there are companies like DomainTools.com that can reveal historical whois information as well... for a fee.

 

[denny007]

whoever is providing the whois privacy is legally bound to comply with a discovery order (I believe is what its called) and reveal the true identity.

Yeah but CURRENT ocntact, not a contact in the PAST

Anyways there are companies like DomainTools.com that can reveal historical whois information as well...

Well THATS WHY is good whois protection. I will explain it to you more: genericdomain.com is owned by ABC inc., which can be found in whois-history. This ocmpany sell the domain to 123 INc. According WIPO communists it is same as new registration.

Now lets say ABC inc. uses whois protection, which can be found in whois-history. ABC inc. sales the domain to 123 INc. which also use whois-protection. So for WIPO old and new owners are same - whois protection and they can only subpoeana a NEW owner, they should be never ableto find the owner change.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

And HOW exactly could be subpoenaed a whois record FROM THE PAST ???

Dohhh. The whois privacy contract is a simple lookup at the registrar's records. A court could get access to this FROM THE PAST.

 

[flamewalker]

denny007: The point is not what SHOULD be able to be done, his comment was simply to state that there are ways to uncover the real registrant of a domain regardless of whois protection. The new owner would have to use the exact same whois privacy info (and never have it actually under their own name) for your theory to work, and even then, a court will be able to determine who really owns it and who DID own it. While retaining the exact same whois information might fool a WIPO panelist, a smart one will still know how to get the correct information regardless (old and new).

Simply put, whois protection is not protection from the law, its protection from would-be abusers from using your information (to a degree).

EDIT: Actually, even more precise, a WIPO panelist or court would be able to ask the whois protection service who owns it and whether it changed ownership at all... if the first company that sold the domain didn't have their underlying data removed/changed when the new company took over, it would appear that the first company still owns it - which would be utterly ridiculous for the second company to not put the hidden info in their name.

Of coarse the second company could produce proof of sale to them if that were to happen anyhow.