Speed Channel, Inc. v. This Domain Is Not For Sale and Louis Filipescu
Complainant, Speed Channel, Inc., brought this action against Respondent, This Domain Is Not For Sale and Louis Filipescu, asserting that Respondent’s <speed.tv> domain name was identical to Complainant’s SPEED mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 15, 2003, and used the domain name to link Internet users to a retail website at <inbox.tv>, offering antique replicas and other curios with no connection to Complainant’s business. Complainant did not hold a registration for the SPEED mark, but the Panel found that Complainant had developed common law rights in the mark. The Panel ordered the disputed domain name transferred to Complainant. Speed Channel, Inc. v. This Domain Is Not For Sale, FA 566696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2005).
The original owner held the name for over 2 years. His site and products had no connection with the complainant. The complainant did not have a registered trademark for the term.
Yet the original owner loses the name?
__________________ I support Children:Wish.org | MissingKids.com
I support Animals:SPCA.org | SPCA.com Jeff | Armstrong | Grrilla - First 3 inductees into NamePro's Hall-Of-Fame.
Bizarre, maybe, Dangerous - Definitely! This could start the snowball rolling, because now any new suit brought has precedence.
Courious, the complaint was filed September 28, 2005, the domain was registerd July 15, 2003, and the TV Registry was active prior to that. Does this mean that the Big Media Co's are just now learning about .TV?
Another decision by a bunch of crackerjacks behind a desk, When will the insanity stop the domain in question reads Speed Tuvala not speed Television
This decision will set an undesired precedence that will be felt throughout the domain world for a long time to come. Basically this decision will grant any television related entity rights to a domain that has .TV as the extension
I would really like to hear Jberryhills stance on this one
The Complainant is the company that runs www.speedtv.com. The decision in only a week old so they have not received the domain yet from the original owner.
__________________
testing 1..2..3... is this thing on?
I think the "Blog" idea was from his lawyer. If you look at Archive.org and do a search of Speed.TV, it was redirected to his commericial site, Inbox.TV
I disagree with everyone having to worry if you regged a domain named after a channel maybe I can certainly see Discovery Tv saying Discovery.tv is using their name. ANd the panel looked and felt common law was established which is all that's needed you do not need A Registered trademark and for all those that think you do you are mistaken common law with regards to Trademark was around long before domains.
Respondent’s creation of a weblog at the <speed.tv> domain name is further evidence of bad faith. This weblog was created only after receiving a cease and desist letter, and so skimpy and unmodified as to constitute a mere pretext. Cf. Dinex Group, LLC v. Undici Design, FA 231668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2004) (bad faith found where respondent stated he wished to set up a weblog to comment on complainant’s restaurants, but failed to do so for over a year). Respondent’s virtually identical actions in creating a short and similarly-formatted weblog at <spike.tv>, provides further evidence of bad faith. Like Speed Channel, which operates at <speedtv.com>, Spike TV is another cable television service provider, and it operates on the Internet at <spiketv.com>. Respondent’s pattern of similar registrations undermines any credibility in its claim to have merely chosen an ordinary English word with no intent to free ride on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks. The weblog’s disclaimer that it is not affiliated with Speed Channel is insufficient to prevent a finding of bad faith. See Computing Tech. Indus. v. Moran, FA 464331 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2005) (“Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on its website is not enough to negate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.”).
THis guy also hurt himself with owning SPIKE.tv Sorry but IMO he is nothing but a squatter who knew what he was doing. Does he think spike.tv is not known to stick for people like this I don't understand becuase they are what hurt this industry IMO .
Nice to see someone else with an accurate angle as to what really happens in these situations.
And whilst i wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to award the domain to the claimant, despite whatever strong intimations and examples of bad faith the respondent managed to demonstrate, in no way whatsoever should the owners of speedtv.com have any more rights to such a generic term such as "speed" as either you or I.
What happens next, I contact the owners of "ian".com they say they are willing to sell to me and i say that constitutes bad faith and take the name. . . . .
A bizarre decision..
And for all you others posting your worries and concerns in this thread, sleep easy ffs.
Your registration of "house".tv will not be contested by me simply because i own one. This guy lost the domain only it seems because it was shown (as Ray points out) that he has shown a trend of registering names that correspond to a certain specific market.
And, for you Adrian, I would set about developing such a valuable name as "discovery".tv as fast as poss. And distance yourself from any connection with a channel of a similar name..
thanks badger any suggestions on how to develop fit.tv into something that isnt about being fit. having just checked its ...tv.com counterpart (which I should have done before I regged it) it looks to have many of the things I wanted to include in mine.. which seems out of the question now.
something about fitness in tuvalu ? a site showing ways of fitting shelves ? how to fit things ? lol would I be in trouble if I turned it into a fitness site coming from a different angle ?
I am not sure but I think you will probably be ok. The term is so very generic and so widely used with TV already (as in women’s daily shows etc). However, if you are looking for inspiration:
I dont think any english speaking person in the world wouldnt understand the term. Also, there must be 000's of fit related tv shows and websites.
You also have no problem developing ANY fitness related streaming tv web site. Provided you dont attempt to gain from anothers brand or image or attempt to try and sell the name to any of a similar name, you dont have a any problem whatsoever.
One minor point of note : if your intention is to sell the name, then just be a little wary in responding to solicited offers as it has been upheld in the past that to simply reply to an "enquiry to sell" constitutes that desparate term, "bad faith". Receive offers, reply with terms like "I intend to develop but I would consider offers". Also writing "without prejudice" on reply emails helps..
What A Bunch of BS... 
any suggestions on how to develop fit.tv into something that isnt about being fit. having just checked its ...tv.com counterpart (which I should have done before I regged it) it looks to have many of the things I wanted to include in mine.. which seems out of the question now. 
would I be in trouble if I turned it into a fitness site coming from a different angle ?
