Was my domain taken?

[hotdog_pk]

BEing only new to the industry I have never had a problem with domain isuues, however lately a domain i had was declared 'not active' with a registrar lock, your going to know why when the domain is m9crosoft.com.

i have had no notification and namecheap still lists it under my account??

what has happened, no tm issues are infringed but microsoft are known for their powers.

 

[jberryhill]

What has happened?

What has happened is that a clueless typosquatter registered a clear mis-type of "Microsoft", acknowledges "your going to know why", and amazingly believes "no tm issues are infringed". That's pretty much the amazing part, to me at least.

 

[hotdog_pk]

What has happened?

What has happened is that a clueless typosquatter registered a clear mis-type of "Microsoft", acknowledges "your going to know why", and amazingly believes "no tm issues are infringed". That's pretty much the amazing part, to me at least.

this is the first typo i have made, and i didnt think it would violate tm because it is not an actual spelling of the actual trademark.

also, yes i deserved the name 'clueless typosquatter', because that what i did but only because it seems other are doing it therefore i thought it was legal.

sorry for invading your ethics.

 

[ToastyX]

What makes you think your domain might have been taken? Nothing has happened as far as I can see. The domain appears to be registered to you. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[hotdog_pk]

because the nameservers that i send it 'cant't see it', and whois says not active... i have even pointed to sedo, but to no avail.

 

[Mr Webname]

It resolves to Sedo - enjoy it while you can.

 

[ToastyX]

Never mind.

 

[jberryhill]

"i didnt think it would violate tm"

You didn't? Yet despite your ignorance of DNS address cache propagation latency (the domain was registered something like two days ago), you suspect that Microsoft would be upset enough to exercise undefined mysterious powers to render the domain name inoperable. Why did you think they might do that?

"sorry for invading your ethics."

No problem. After all, if you wait long enough, noted legal authority Garry Anderson will pop in here to tell you how you have nothing to worry about, and only corrupt monkey-brained domain thieves would think otherwise. So, by all means, don't let my personal "ethics" bother you.

But in the real world, it works like this:
http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/zuccarini.htm

 

[hotdog_pk]

other people have made me paranoid regarding the tyranny of the microsoft corporation, as if i have made a fatal move.

like i said, this is the first typo i have therefor i am unsure of the legalities

 

[Garry Anderson]

The "noted legal authority Garry Anderson" - methinks you take the p*ss John :-(

I make no claims to legal expertize - I am but a small amateur in trademark law that had some very disturbing findings.

I only ask very simple questions that you do not want to answer.

Why is that?

The authorities are very much against answering me honestly.

It is as though everybody is afraid to face the facts.

Hot Dog - you admit to being a typosquatter - shame on you.

Incidentally Hot Dog, every domain you buy will likely be similar to a registered trademark.

This is because virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country.

 

[hotdog_pk]

thanks garry... knowing somebody who knows something about the legal system has explained, i dont have to worry now, thanks

 

[jberryhill]

"Hot Dog - you admit to being a typosquatter - shame on you."

Garry, I'm shocked. Are you saying that he COULD NOT have had a perfectly lawful and legitimate reason for registering this domain name?

I mean, golly, I'm sure the citizens of Crosoft have been trying to persuade the authorities to build an off-ramp on the M9 motorway for years now. Who are you to denigrate their attempt to build a website for this noble effort?

"This is because virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country."

But the statistical risk of losing a domain name that is a generic word, merely on that basis alone, is about nil. In response, Garry will trot out examples of bad decisions, but he will not make any kind of analysis of whether those bad decisions were statistical outliers. Though Garry hasn't been gainfully employed in something over four years, even the prospect of offering to pay him to do this kind of analysis is asking too much.

"I make no claims to legal expertize"

You don't? Oh come now, don't be modest. I am fully aware of at least one recent situation where someone received specific legal advice from you, believing from your "informed opinion" assertions, that your advice was reliable, and intended to rely upon that information to their potential detriment. And, oh yes, this person was also a disabled retiree with few assets who would have been completely incapable of defending against the obvious, and meritorious, claim which had been asserted by the trademark owner. But don't let the practical circumstances of others, or the messes they make of their lives based on your blather disturb you.

 

[Garry Anderson]

John> Garry, I'm shocked. Are you saying that he COULD NOT have had a perfectly lawful and legitimate reason for registering this domain name?

Duh - I read the message - he admitted it saying, "i deserved the name 'clueless typosquatter', because that what i did".

Had he been using the name for legitimate criticism - then my answer would be different.

Garry> "This is because virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country."

John> But the statistical risk of losing a domain name that is a generic word, merely on that basis alone, is about nil. In response, Garry will trot out examples of bad decisions, but he will not make any kind of analysis of whether those bad decisions were statistical outliers.

Statistical analysis is only as good as the system i.e. half going to Respondent and half to Complainant does not mean the system is fair.

Should all those decisions gone to Respondent - then giving half to Complainant is clearly wrong - and vice versa.

What John evades, is the fact that the rules (on which these decisions are based) is using a biased system in favour of trademark owners.

UN WIPO wrote these rules to help their customers win domains from legal owners.

John> Though Garry hasn't been gainfully employed in something over four years, even the prospect of offering to pay him to do this kind of analysis is asking too much.

I think that was some sort of dig - like I am work-shy or something.

I did go back to work twice after operations at Papworth hospital went wrong - unfortunately I was forced to retire.

I can tell you about my medical problems etc. - if it will cheer you up.

I try to keep my mind occupied - by asking you and the authorities simple questions that you both are just to afraid to answer ;-)

Would you believe, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority refuse to tell me if my wife and I have been defrauded by the Building Society (with many other customers).

I made an official complaint to the FSA about them not answering - and won.

But they still would not tell me if we had been defrauded.

After going to SFO - to the top person there - there is nowhere else to go.

Such honourable people - not.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Garry> "I make no claims to legal expertize"

John> You don't? Oh come now, don't be modest. I am fully aware of at least one recent situation where someone received specific legal advice from you, believing from your "informed opinion" assertions, that your advice was reliable, and intended to rely upon that information to their potential detriment.

That is exactly what it is - "informed opinion" - no more - no less - true or false?

I have never advised anybody to take on a corporation without seeing a TM Lawyer - please provide a link.

You may remember reading things like, "Seriously though - I have stated that my opinion (although well informed) is nothing compared to legal advice from John B. etc."

As to assertions - you have not disproved my assertions that US Trademark System is at best a Zip Code Lottery.

You use a loose wooly statement - "US places geographic restrictions on concurrent registrations" - completely failing to acknowledge that there is no way of knowing by the mark if it was concurrent registration or not - completely failing to acknowledge that this could have been bought from reseller, magazine or Internet - completely failing to acknowledge that the consumer could have recieved this as present from relation in different State -

 

[mole]

You use a loose wooly statement - "US places geographic restrictions on concurrent registrations"

If you can't fool them, confuse them :evil:

 

[jberryhill]

Garry, 15 USC 1502 (d) is the law.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

The USPTO is required to carry it out. You know absolutely nothing about what is required to conduct a concurrent use proceeding, so you call it a "lottery". Your opinion that it is a "lottery" is not a matter subject to "proof" or "disproof". A lottery is a game of chance, a concurrent use proceeding is not. You can call whatever you like to be "woolly", but that is what the law authorizes:

"In issuing concurrent registrations, the Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the mark or the goods [...]"

I didn't write it, Garry. It's in the statute. And if the products themselves were both being distributed nationwide, and if that was presented in the concurrent use proceeding, then it is unlikely in the extreme that a concurrent registration would issue, because likelihood of confusion with the respective existing markets is an evidentiary matter that is expressly considered in a concurrent use proceeding. No, they don't call up Garry Anderson's House of Hypotheticals, but you just try trucking tortillas from New York to LA sometime.

As far as your gift example goes, we addressed that before. The (R) symbol is used in more than one country. So if you get a gift with an (R) symbol on it, you don't know what country in which that mark is registered. But that is not a situation in which the question is relevant, since a gift recipient is not choosing among competing brands on a store shelf.

You have concurrent registrations in the UK as well, but it is fascinating how, after that was pointed out to you, you continue to only spout your criticism of the US statute.

You don't like the law. That's fine. I understand that being the victim of an unresponsive bureacracy is a large part of your psychological make-up. But please stop misleading people into believing that your opinions have anything to do with what the law is, instead of what you in your feverish imagination wish it to be.

You are also wrong about who wrote the UDRP. A first draft was written by this panel, which did not receive a dime for so doing:

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/experts/

Is Mike Froomkin one of your corrupt officials too?

The report on the draft was submitted to ICANN in April 1999, which made it available for comment and review by interested parties, including the public, and a number of revisions were made to the policy prior to the October 1999 final draft - including the provision that *any* UDRP decision may be undone by court proceedings that either party may institute during, or after, a UDRP proceeding. What the WIPO panel wrote *is not the UDRP*.

"half going to Respondent and half to Complainant does not mean the system is fair."

Nobody said that would be a criterion of fairness. But your endless "argument by anecdote" approach is as meaningful as saying that modern medicine is no better than shamanism, solely on the basis of your botched hernia operation.

"I did go back to work twice after operations at Papworth hospital went wrong - unfortunately I was forced to retire."

I said "four years", Garry. Here you are, on January 9, 2000:

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

...spouting the same .reg stuff, and referring to your retirement. So, how many times *did* you retire in the last four years?

But, while we marvel at your remarkable consistency, let's take a look at some of your predictions from four years ago. You said, in 2000:

"You are not going to be able to register a domain to complain about a
bad product, nor one to satire anything, nor one in homage to your favourite
football team."

Let's break these out, shall we.

1. You are not going to be able to register a domain name to complain about a bad product:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1647.html
"The ICANN domain name proceedings were intended to provide a swift and inexpensive remedy for cybersquatting, not to provide trademark holders with a monopoly over every permutation of their marks in domain names or a weapon to employ against domain name registrants exercising legitimate free speech and fair use rights."
- Complaint Denied

2. nor one to satire anything:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0260.html
"The Respondent’s web site is a clear and obvious parody, which makes no attempt to cause brand confusion to internet users. The disputed domain name, <aberzombie.com>, is distinctive, and not confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks."
-Complaint Denied

3. nor one in homage to your favourite football team:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1313.html
"Respondent claims that she has a desire to use the domain name for a legitimate fan site and, if she follows through on that intention, it would not constitute the kind of abusive, bad faith cybersquatting that the Policy is designed to prevent."
-Complaint Denied

That's zero for three. Could we persuade you to retire from making predictions of dispute policy outcomes?

"I have never advised anybody to take on a corporation without seeing a TM Lawyer - please provide a link."

It was private correspondence you had with the individual in question. Your advice to him was positively outrageous, and could have easily cost him everything he owned.

It is one thing to be amusing and harmless. It is another to be inept and dangerous.

 

[mole]

Garry, 15 USC 1502 (d) is the law.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

The USPTO is required to carry it out. You know absolutely nothing about what is required to conduct a concurrent use proceeding, so you call it a "lottery". Your opinion that it is a "lottery" is not a matter subject to "proof" or "disproof". A lottery is a game of chance, a concurrent use proceeding is not. You can call whatever you like to be "woolly", but that is what the law authorizes:

"In issuing concurrent registrations, the Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the mark or the goods [...]"

I didn't write it, Garry. It's in the statute. And if the products themselves were both being distributed nationwide, and if that was presented in the concurrent use proceeding, then it is unlikely in the extreme that a concurrent registration would issue, because likelihood of confusion with the respective existing markets is an evidentiary matter that is expressly considered in a concurrent use proceeding. No, they don't call up Garry Anderson's House of Hypotheticals, but you just try trucking tortillas from New York to LA sometime.

As far as your gift example goes, we addressed that before. The (R) symbol is used in more than one country. So if you get a gift with an (R) symbol on it, you don't know what country in which that mark is registered. But that is not a situation in which the question is relevant, since a gift recipient is not choosing among competing brands on a store shelf.

You have concurrent registrations in the UK as well, but it is fascinating how, after that was pointed out to you, you continue to only spout your criticism of the US statute.

You don't like the law. That's fine. I understand that being the victim of an unresponsive bureacracy is a large part of your psychological make-up. But please stop misleading people into believing that your opinions have anything to do with what the law is, instead of what you in your feverish imagination wish it to be.

You are also wrong about who wrote the UDRP. A first draft was written by this panel, which did not receive a dime for so doing:

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/experts/

Is Mike Froomkin one of your corrupt officials too?

The report on the draft was submitted to ICANN in April 1999, which made it available for comment and review by interested parties, including the public, and a number of revisions were made to the policy prior to the October 1999 final draft - including the provision that *any* UDRP decision may be undone by court proceedings that either party may institute during, or after, a UDRP proceeding. What the WIPO panel wrote *is not the UDRP*.

"half going to Respondent and half to Complainant does not mean the system is fair."

Nobody said that would be a criterion of fairness. But your endless "argument by anecdote" approach is as meaningful as saying that modern medicine is no better than shamanism, solely on the basis of your botched hernia operation.

"I did go back to work twice after operations at Papworth hospital went wrong - unfortunately I was forced to retire."

I said "four years", Garry. Here you are, on January 9, 2000:

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

...spouting the same .reg stuff, and referring to your retirement. So, how many times *did* you retire in the last four years?

But, while we marvel at your remarkable consistency, let's take a look at some of your predictions from four years ago. You said, in 2000:

"You are not going to be able to register a domain to complain about a
bad product, nor one to satire anything, nor one in homage to your favourite
football team."

Let's break these out, shall we.

1. You are not going to be able to register a domain name to complain about a bad product:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1647.html
"The ICANN domain name proceedings were intended to provide a swift and inexpensive remedy for cybersquatting, not to provide trademark holders with a monopoly over every permutation of their marks in domain names or a weapon to employ against domain name registrants exercising legitimate free speech and fair use rights."
- Complaint Denied

2. nor one to satire anything:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0260.html
"The Respondent’s web site is a clear and obvious parody, which makes no attempt to cause brand confusion to internet users. The disputed domain name, <aberzombie.com>, is distinctive, and not confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks."
-Complaint Denied

3. nor one in homage to your favourite football team:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1313.html
"Respondent claims that she has a desire to use the domain name for a legitimate fan site and, if she follows through on that intention, it would not constitute the kind of abusive, bad faith cybersquatting that the Policy is designed to prevent."
-Complaint Denied

That's zero for three. Could we persuade you to retire from making predictions of dispute policy outcomes?

"I have never advised anybody to take on a corporation without seeing a TM Lawyer - please provide a link."

It was private correspondence you had with the individual in question. Your advice to him was positively outrageous, and could have easily cost him everything he owned.

It is one thing to be amusing and harmless. It is another to be inept and dangerous.

 

[jberryhill]

""

If you liked that, Mole, be sure to check out who owns bbc.org, about which Garry was venting in that 2000 usenet article. He was wrong about how that would turn out, too.

 

[jberryhill]

"I have never advised anybody to take on a corporation without seeing a TM Lawyer - please provide a link."

Oh, really...

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

"It is not illegal, YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON A TRADEMARK, else you would be
arrested"

...as if people were arrested for trademark infringement. I see a legal opinion, but I don't see you suggesting they see a lawyer there...

 

[Garry Anderson]

- completely failing to acknowledge that a person can drive across a State line and the registered trademark he believed to be such is no longer so, it is another completely different business -

Quote: "US places geographic restrictions on concurrent registrations"

It is a loose wooly statement - it hardly highlights the seriousness of the situation:

The US Registered mark does not identify the owner of said mark - does it?

This is why I was so gobsmacked - it makes the US Registered Trademark system a SHAM.

The Registered Trademark is said to give, "a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;"

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm

This is what most intelligent people believe - how is that true?

It is a "game of chance" - how do you know the US Registered product before you is the one you want from the mark?

"It's in the statute" - yes, you told me before - they were ignorant or corrupt.

"if the products themselves were both being distributed nationwide" - so these marks are banned from using national newspapers and magazines, resellers, the Internet or any such method of distribution or advertising then?

"As far as your gift example goes" - there you go with your "let us pretend this US Registered trademark came from another country" feeble excuse - again.

We are talking about US REGISTERED TRADEMARKS.

"since a gift recipient is not choosing among competing brands on a store shelf" - completely failing to acknowledge that the gift recipient is consumer of product - completely failing to acknowledge that a person may have asked an out of state friend to get this product for them -

"concurrent registrations in the UK" - is still under investigation. Moronic stupidity in one country does not excuse it in another.

"You don't like the law" - you misrepresent me - I do not like ABUSE of the Law or where it is perverted.

"unresponsive bureacracy" - WRONG.

When they have responded they have been most evasive - they cannot give straight answers to very simple questions - guess why.

"But please stop misleading people into believing that your opinions have anything to do with what the law is, instead of what you in your feverish imagination wish it to be."

I am sorry you believe that John.

I merely highlight the flaws and abuse of the Law - nobody has ever gave reasoned argument to show where this is mistaken e.g. Zip Code Lottery and fraud by Building Society.

Repeat - nobody has ever gave reasoned argument to show where this is mistaken.

Mike Froomkin provided assistance - I am sure he was most objective in his advice - he does not have a mission is to promote intellectual-property rights.

"*any* UDRP decision may be undone by court proceedings" - If somebody takes my domain name in UDRP - how do you suggest I pay for court proceedings and associated costs?

It "could have easily cost [me] everything owned."

You imply that UN WIPO are unbiased - when even a USPTO official recognized they are not - that WIPO's mission is to promote intellectual-property rights.

Hardly "argument by anecdote" when you ignore serious facts.

"But, while we marvel at your remarkable consistency"

I refuse to give in to abuse of people - surely, you can tell I would not give in without a fight.

"take a look at some of your predictions from four years ago. You said, in 2000:"

Ah - the year 2000 - my first year in 'legal practice' ;-)

I see you have to go back in time when I was but a fledgling novice to make your charges stick - haven't you got something more recent?

I am sure you will find other mistakes way back then - Oh I see you have - Let's break these out, shall we.

1. You are not going to be able to register a domain name to complain about a bad product:
2. nor one to satire anything:
3. nor one in homage to your favourite football team:

And I am sure you can find examples of decisions for counter argument.

"It was private correspondence you had with the individual in question. Your advice to him was positively outrageous, and could have easily cost him everything he owned."

Methinks you exagerate to blacken my character - this PM has to be taken in CONTEXT of forum text:

TWO DAYS EARLIER - I said, "He is perfectly right that you should get good intelectual property lawyer - of course."

BEFORE IT WAS SENT - I said, "I may not be as much help as real lawyers, JB etc. - but I can certainly give my view on it."

"It is one thing to be amusing and harmless. It is another to be inept and dangerous."

At least I am glad you find me amusing ;-)

It is another to avoid the *absolute crux* of UDRP - they take domain names from owners when doing nothing unlawful - it is called trademark overreach.

It is another to avoid the *absolute crux* of every countries trademark system - that the consumer can identify source directly from the mark.

You completely fail to acknowledge serious facts.