Urgent advice needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BLazeD]

There is so many things wrong with this thread its not funny.

You need to contact a proper lawyer outside of these forums, maybe that guy who posted on the previous page.

Rest assured though, Nick will have lots of lawyers, and they will be on retainers.

 

[Bionic]

he has a lawyer already!

MTV contacts you saying we are only dealing with you because you are just
a family with a website, so you'd get your lawyer!! Not unlike the PCDOS author
who couldn't be bothered signing a non-disclosure form with IBM until his lawyer
arrived and lost the deal to microsoft.

 

[jlc]

Think about the headlines, Nickelodeon "bullies" little Nick's parents into selling domain name.

Just a thought.

JC

www.inventingfordummies.com

P.S.
yes, I've received a letter from Wiley publishers.

 

[jberryhill]

There is so many things wrong with this thread its not funny.

Yep.

 

[namedropper]

Freakin' train wreck of a thread. What you should have done step one was contact a lawyer with experience in domain names. Taking advice from a bunch of noobs on a board has made you look like a bumbling idiot. You already agreed to sell for $100 and now you are claiming that $1,000 isn't enough? You were happy before at one tenth of that, why did you stop being happy? You didn't want to feel cheated out of money? And what made you feel cheated? That's right, taking legal advice from a bunch of yammering yahoos.

At this point I think they can show bad faith. Confusingly similar to their trademark is a given (any person claiming they ca't have a trademark on the word "nick" clearly has no clue at all about how trademarks work). The only way you could prevail at this point if it goes to dispute is on the legitimate other purpose clause, which you have a strong argument for, but often they ignore that one if your bad faith is bad enough.

If you agreed to $100 before they threatened you, how can you sit there and tell us you aren't selling on principle? There was no principle involved when you were going to sell on $100. Then you show up here, display the whole thing in public, start following what any person shouted out without checking their credentials, and now you are ina pickle.

Hopefully this will be a learning experience.

 

[Bionic]

Confusingly similar to their trademark is a given (any person claiming they ca't have a trademark on the word "nick" clearly has no clue at all about how trademarks work). The only way you could prevail at this point if it goes to dispute is on the legitimate other purpose clause, which you have a strong argument for, but often they ignore that one if your bad faith is bad enough.

If you agreed to $100 before they threatened you, how can you sit there and tell us you aren't selling on principle? There was no principle involved when you were going to sell on $100. Then you show up here, display the whole thing in public, start following what any person shouted out without checking their credentials, and now you are ina pickle.

Hopefully this will be a learning experience.

Legitimate use is easier to show if the trademark is a common name. If you have a precedent similar to this case lets hear it? In effect, NICK is an odd TM, MTV went on and on 'our famous TM for NICK' even they were surprised by the sounds of it.

If MTV is so sure of their TM why lie about a verbal contract? why offer $1000? why keep saying they want to deal? why send the legalese?

The fact the TM is common (which correlates to having legitimate use) weakens the TM, and I don't think MTV want to go to court with it.

He's said 5 times he never agreed to $100, everyone is just reading the MTV mail as factual, when THEY are the ones trying to make a deal.

A lawyer might handle the case differently, but MTV wanted to speak directly to the family. Its not a legal issue yet, its a deal with both sides pannicking. Frankly if you skipped the lawyers he'd be up $35K by now.

 

[namedropper]

If MTV is so sure of their TM why lie about a verbal contract? why offer $1000? why keep saying they want to deal? why send the legalese?

Because they want the names without the time and expense of a dispute process, duh.

The fact the TM is common (which correlates to having legitimate use) weakens the TM, and I don't think MTV want to go to court with it.

The fact that Nick is a name and common and has other meanings in no way weakens the trademark. If you are envisioning some scenario where they don;t want to go to court for fear the judge will declare the TM invalid, then you are simply showing how little you know how about how trademarks work. You're talking out of your ass. You don't have a clue.

The channel has been saying "Nick nick nick, nick NICK nick nickkkk -- kids" for a decade or two branding their channel. The fact that it's a common word for other things is completely meaningless on whether it is a strong trademark or not.

Yes, the fact that it COULD be used for other purposes is a potential Legit Use defense... Although this sounds fishy to me, and if I think it sounds fishy you can be damn sure the panelists are going to think it stinks to high heaven.

He's said 5 times he never agreed to $100

He said he's probably do it, and he seemed like he was perfectly willing to do it when he first posted here, otherwise he wouldn't have even asked us if he should accept it. Now he bungled his way and managed to get them to offer ten times that, and instead of accepting the cash and making off like a bandit you yahoos got him asking for more based upon the value to the trademark owners. So what if MTV goes away, what value do those names hold? Nothing, other than his story that he got them both for his kid Nick. So he can sell and have a lot of money (10 times what he was probably going to take earlier) for names that, let's be honest here, he probably got because of the cable channel, or he can decide not to, risk being dragged through court or a dispute where he goes up there and has to tell his weak sounding little story and how a bunch of wannabe legal experts told him to extort more money (and MTV's lawyers will say: see thread attached, exhibit A, printout). The judge or the panelists are going to say, aha, clear cybersquatter and do whatever they can to take the names away.

This is the house that dumbasses built.

Frankly if you skipped the lawyers he'd be up $35K by now.

Oh, yes, because going into negotioation without solid legal representation is a GOOD thing in your delusional little world... :laugh:

 

[Bionic]

well MTV stopped responding as soon as the lawyer joined the picture, go figure.

I'm just saying the TM has a weakness, if you can't comprehend a quantitative analogy of STRENGTH of a TM and prefer to be literaly qualitative about the effects of the TM then I guess millions will have to agree with you that all TMs are created equal. The fact MTV will clearly lose in their bid to steal NickKid.com off a boy named Nick is irrelevant (to you). The Nick Kid TM is just as strong as Linux Documentaries TM, what rot.

A guy wrote: Dear DNF, I have an offer from a big company who asked only to deal with me because I'm just running a family website. We helped this request, perhaps legal was the wrong forum to shift this thread to, because 6 pages seems too much for some people here to get a thorough comprehension of the matters.

 

[Nodnarb]

well MTV stopped responding as soon as the lawyer joined the picture, go figure.
...perhaps legal was the wrong forum to shift this thread to, because 6 pages seems too much for some people here to get a thorough comprehension of the matters.

MTV involved their attorney after the seller balked at the agreement MTV overnighted to him. :huh:

 

[izoot]

Do you guys have any clue that all these posts are easily searchable? ( Which btw I thought was going to be stopped? )

You've given MTV/NICK 6 pages of ammunition to show bad faith.

SJP its time you got a good lawyer involved on this instead of taking legal advice from this board...you have been ill advised here. ( No offense ) Cover your ass before you lose it...

 

[sjp]

Yes, I see.. This is all good advice..

However I DID NOT ACCEPT THE $100 a name and DID not give oral agreement.

HOwever Under the circumstances, I feel it is going to be best for me to sell the names and go on with my life.. However This is just a lesson for all of us to learn.

I can assure you of one thing.. If and when I get contacted by another company, I will have a broker and a lawyer on stand by.

As far as the trade mark issue..

I am still confused.. My sons name is NICK, I bought these sights for the same reson I bought my wifes nickname and my name..
Same reason why julia roberts WON her name,, It is our name.. What right does some big ass company have to go just take it from me for $1000.??????

Anyways, There is 6 pages here and I have read every thread more than once,, I own my last name and I bet you my last name has a trademark on it.. So SHould I be worried about being sued over that?>???

Once again I never accepted the $100 a name or $1000 a name.. I simply told them I had to talk it over with my family. Now they are trying to scare me with a breach of oral contract, which there was never one.
I got the documents here next to me.. And I am going to continue to read this thread and I am going to make my final decision my tonight.

I do appreciate everyones advice and I hope we ALL learned alot from this one.

Thanks

 

[izoot]

Hi SJP, I am not telling you to do anything besides talk to a good domain lawyer rather than taking our advice.

When dealing with large corporate entities, who are known for pursuing domains whether or not there was definate TM infringements, its not generally a good idea to discuss legal issues involving them on a publically searchable forum.

Also..not that is terribly important... but archive.org shows you put "for sale" notices on the landing pages in Feb 2004. Thats not going to help your statement that you bought them "only" for family purposes. Archive.org doesn't show any later pages so I can't comment on those.

If you put NICK in the postion of having to purse the names legally they will use this info...and this thread to make their case. If you could resolve this with them amicably then great...but personally at this stage...I would contact a good lawyer with domain experience and at least get a consultation on this.

If it were me in this situation..I would take take the $2k and move on with my life...the names aren't worth the aggravation. Plus its not like you actually have a site up here dedicated to your son...all you have are non rev producing landing pages with for sale links.

my 2¢ for what its worth...

 

[sjp]

Yes, I do appreciate all the advice. I was unaware that These pages are searched for in indexes.. I just learned alot of info of this thread and I appreciate everyones advice.

THanks

 

[Domagon]

sjp-

If you haven't agreed to anything, then basically all options are still open ... get an attorney experienced with domain names and/or domain broker to assist in negotiations; you could go it alone too, but be sure you have a price in mind and be ready to deal - offer to fax back an agreement, etc if that's what it takes to get the money asap - *demand a bank wire* (can't be reversed) ... NOT check, not ACH (direct deposit), etc; bank wire ensures you get your money in a timely manner and further so they don't change their mind.

Ron

p.s. feel free to pm me if you'd like.

 

[Bionic]

sjp-

If you haven't agreed to anything, then basically all options are still open ... get an attorney experienced with domain names and/or domain broker to assist in negotiations; you could go it alone too, but be sure you have a price in mind and be ready to deal - offer to fax back an agreement, etc if that's what it takes to get the money asap - *demand a bank wire* (can't be reversed) ... NOT check, not ACH (direct deposit), etc; bank wire ensures you get your money in a timely manner and further so they don't change their mind.

Right! Landing pages are fairly standard and most have FOR SALE on them by default so don't worry about it. SEDO recommends putting FOR SALE on them even if you don't want to sell, "you never know what offer you will get".

I don't know where all these accusations came from, nearly every sentence I suggested to write to MTV included the clause 'for my son Nicks website" if thats evidence of bad faith or more bad reading.

I said set a high price but you asked for a higher offer, MTV went on in legalese
1 not for an undisclosed amount (MTV was somewhat outraged)
2 only deal with you as a family website
3 cybersquatters do this

I said don't pannic, they have their backs against the wall because they are not in a position to make offers. I said keep them talking and they will negotiate again, then you have to set a price.

I WAS EXACTLY RIGHT. They
1/ apologised for legalese
2/ "look forward" to next communication
3/ quoted word for word in the first paragraph (we would pay $20,000)

That means, 'set a price in that range' without being legally commited to making a high offer.

Now that lawyers are involved you cant just quickly ask for $xx,xxx. Its a legal matter now. The 1st thing the lawyer said was "now you have to ask for more to cover legalities, exactly what MTV was against.

"ask for your lawyer" is the biggest cliche in history, its what police dramas every night on TV try to trick you into saying. It literally means you refuse to cooperate, whether its criminal or civil case. Once you get a lawyer the prosecutor/claimant will use the full route of the law they can muster.

e.g. if you refuse a police interview, the police prosecutor will use all the evidence they have against you the next day in court. if you cooperate with police, they go on and on about 'we didn't coerce you to this interview without a lawyer' even they will try hard for it, the prosecutor in court the court the next day will go with your side of the story. no bull, NEVER ask for a lawyer, you will go straight to prison, your lawyer will make money from that.

Public archive works both ways, if MTV read the appraisal thread for 3 pages it would work for us, with people here deliberately posting negative pro MTV comments because they have lawyers then sure, dont say anything.

 

[Nodnarb]

Any news on this SJP?

 

[sjp]

Still waiting on what MTV wants to do..