wipo case

[jberryhill]

If you still believe that this case is justice then you are proberbly the same as wipo....biased and unjust .....In fact you proberbly work for them..

Curses... unmasked again!

 

[JuniperPark]

I was approached by otis by telephone initially....

they rang england from america.....shows how much they wanted it....

FYI,

It's only about 2 cents per minute to call England from America using a calling card, so don't assume they want a name badly just because they forked over 10 cents

 

[Steen]

FYI,

It's only about 2 cents per minute to call England from America using a calling card, so don't assume they want a name badly just because they forked over 10 cents

I pay seven! :emba:


I was going to say the exact same thing

 

[Domagon]

...
-----Original Message-----
I receive over 5 e mails a week which are meant for different departments of
the Otis Group.
Your customers are miss typing the o for a 0 (zero).
I need to get in contact with the relevant person to discuse this matter as
it appears to be upsetting your customers when the are not receiving
reply's.
Please get in touch soon.
Regards
J. Cordingley
www.0tis.com

Wow, you just made their case for them - all nice and neatly packaged ... you might as well just transfer the name to Otis now; delete it.

Ron

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Nameslave wrote:

FIRST RULE: NEVER say you have intercepted THEIR e-mail.
+++++++++++++++++

Correct.

You sealed your fate by admitting to erroneously receiving their email.

Why?

The whole body of trademark law revolves the concept of avoiding consumer confusion about the source of goods and services --that is the basic idea of trademark law in a one sentence nutshell.

BINGO.

You have proven their point that your domain is causing confusion!

Jump! Swoosh. SLAM DUNK!!

 

[john cordingley]

They should still have to prove i bought in "bad faith "
Which as i said, i did not.....

And the email proves that otis approached me with the intent to buy..
Not that i approached them with the intent to sell to them, as they say in their evidence....so who's telling little porkies.....

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

John Cordingley wrote:

They should still have to prove i bought in "bad faith "
+++++++++++++++++++++++

You have proven it for them.

Under the ACPA and the UDRP, offering to sell a domain is statutory proof of bad faith.

 

[john cordingley]

Am i missing something here....
They approached me with an offer to purchase
see above e-mail

"Good afternoon, Mr. Cordingly.
As a courtesy, would you forward me those e-mails intended for Otis.com for
the next 30 days? After that I will make an assessment as to whether to
purchase this domain"

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

John Cordingley wrote:

Am i missing something here....
They approached me with an offer to purchase
see above e-mail

"Good afternoon, Mr. Cordingly.
As a courtesy, would you forward me those e-mails intended for Otis.com for
the next 30 days? After that I will make an assessment as to whether to
purchase this domain"
++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not believe either the UDRP or the ACPA makes an allowance or a distinction for the one party to "first" contact the other, or "first" suggest a deal.

You offered to sell; that activated the trap.

 

[Garry Anderson]

Nameslave wrote:
FIRST RULE: NEVER say you have intercepted THEIR e-mail.
+++++++++++++++++
Correct.
You sealed your fate by admitting to erroneously receiving their email.
Why?
The whole body of trademark law revolves the concept of avoiding consumer confusion about the source of goods and services --that is the basic idea of trademark law in a one sentence nutshell.
BINGO.
You have proven their point that your domain is causing confusion!
Jump! Swoosh. SLAM DUNK!!

So when people cannot address mail properly it is somebody elses fault?

This reminds me of a very old post:

The Government are pleased to announce - a Postal Service.

Only one business is to be allowed for each word.

All post with 'apple' will go to Apple Computers.

The thousands of other businesses using word 'apple' will never receive mail.

The same for EVERY other business unlucky enough not to have got first chance to get their word (or rich enough).

As all words are trademarked, people using ANY dictionary word (or initials) can have their post taken away - indeed, they will be chucked out of their home.

When new delivery routes put in (new TLD), they will go to the same businesses as before e.g. letters with 'apple' on, will always go to Apple Computers.

http://forum.icann.org/newtldagmts/3C3276DA00001E57.html

Why can nobody see the big picture?

Why is it that corporate trademarks do not want anybody to know which domains are owned by them (e.g. with an identifier like .reg)?

Perhaps so that they can lay claim to every domain on the Internet that dare utter the same name used legally by others - and pretend it is a tort against them.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Perhaps so that they can lay claim to every domain on the Internet that dare utter the same name used legally by others - and pretend it is a tort against them.

It's EXACTLY what they have been doing. Nobody says it's right, but sadly it's the way how things are working right now, at least until "working men of all countries, unit" and get rid of capitalism: AGAIN, it doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right, those with more power (resources) rule.

 

[DomainShark]

hmm... I can't help thinking that the market value of the name is rather less than the UDRP fee...

 

[Anthony Ng]

hmm... I can't help thinking that the market value of the name is rather less than the UDRP fee...

One thing about the "market" of a domain name with trademark complications is that there is a prominent buyer which basically overshadows almost every one else. To Otis in this case, 0tis.com is worth way much more (probably from the confusion of marks and therefore loss of business, etc.) than it is to say a second speculator who might want to cash in on some typo traffic. Moreover, a couple of thousand dollars make no difference to corporates: it's like the changes in your wallets.

 

[jberryhill]

To Otis in this case, 0tis.com is worth way much more (probably from the confusion of marks and therefore loss of business, etc.) than it is to say a second speculator who might want to cash in on some typo traffic

So, what you are saying is that the value to the "second speculator" is based on Otis having the .com, and is not inherent in the name apart from that value?

 

[Anthony Ng]

So, what you are saying is that the value to the "second speculator" is based on Otis having the .com, and is not inherent in the name apart from that value?

Not exactly. What I meant was the business Otis could gain or lose because of 0tis.com (A) should probably exceed what a second speculator (or any speculator) could get from those typo traffic (B); and typo being 0tis instead of Otis, regardless of whether it's Otis the elevator company or Otis the whatever.

 

[john cordingley]

Thanks for the comments...
My anger doesn't lessen......still more than ever feel i was robbed...
If Wipo are to do dealings like this (taking domains without the owners consent,for the good of the greedy companies) Then maybe they should have a third party person that sets a fair compensation payment....
If only for a refund of you reg fee...then surely this at least some way as to
making a compromise on the need for domains and the small man who speculates on domains......and has to go through all the bullsh*t that real so called profesional and "honest" people give you.....
I cannot believe these people are running the world.......

 

[Anthony Ng]

I cannot believe these people are running the world.......

Trust me, nice people never rule the world. SOs do. Take care.

 

[chatcher]

...still more than ever feel i was robbed...

You obtained a number of very valuable lessons at what I consider to be a minimal cost. Whether you learn from them or not is up to you. If you insist on blaming others for what happened in this case, you probably won't learn much. (I don't mean that in a negative or condescending way. I learn things every day, often from my own mistakes. And some mistakes I repeat again and again.)

If you are going to play this game, know the rules, and know that if you don't play by the rules, there may be consequences.

Lesson #1, not everyone considers registering typos of famous trademarks to be a legitimate acitivity, or a good idea.

Lesson #2, if you do register typos of famous trademarks, it may not be wise to contact the owners of those trademarks and alert them to the fact that you have done so.

Lesson #3, not every inquiry is what it first appears to be. Not everyone asking for a price is in the market to buy.

Lesson #4, if you ever find yourself in another dispute, and want to win, it would be a very good idea to respond to the complaint (and make sure your response is accepted). If you really want to win, you might even consider obtaining professional assistance from an experienced attorney, preferably before you dig too deep a hole.

Lesson #5, free advice, including mine, is often worth less than you pay for it.

Lesson #6, be glad this dispute was pursued as a UDRP complaint and not another venue where you could have lost much more than a domain name.

Lesson #7, if you really, really, believe this was a case of the "people running the world" siding with a "greedy company" against "the small man", then maybe domain name speculation is not the right business for you.

(I am now hoping I do not regret clicking Submit Reply, even as I know I probably will...)

 

[john cordingley]

thanks for advise...not that i l believe in what you say....(you talk as though all us domainers need to be kept in chains..then again greedy companies would like that)
Thats the beauty of free speech though.....
thanks again ....and i do mean thanks..
john
I still know i was robbed......

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

nameslave wrote:

Moreover, a couple of thousand dollars make no difference to corporates: it's like the changes in your wallets.
+++++++++++++++++++

Not always true. Often large entities have corporate pride and hubris, and in these cases they stick to their guns when dealing with "cybersquatters" (ALL small entity domain owners, in their view). They can be just as cheap as your weird cousin Freddy.

For example, I had a dispute with a large entity over an alleged "common law" trademark, an acronym domain. This organization dumped approximately $300,000 into their attorney's pockets rather than pay me $10,000 for the name. Rational? Nope. But that's reality sometimes.