Trademark ?

karmaco said:

I believe it depends on the date they trademarked it versus the date the domain was created. Also it matters if the domain would be or is being used for a different purpose or not.

Click to expand...

If the domain is created first then it holds intellectual copyright and the Trademark may in fact be a breach of that in an attempt to undermine someones idea. (perhaps not in this case just in general)

It is at times like this I feel kind of slow!

If the domain coke dot com became available bc it expired, would you reg it? So coke still has the trademark, but somehow some way its available now.

Or say dove trademarked dove a few years ago and never registered dove dot com. Are you staying away from that one as well?

Want2learn said:

It is at times like this I feel kind of slow!

If the domain coke dot com became available bc it expired, would you reg it? So coke still has the trademark, but somehow some way its available now.

Or say dove trademarked dove a few years ago and never registered dove dot com. Are you staying away from that one as well?

Click to expand...

No as the trademark was first.

so stay away from idaye dot com then huh

Stay away from Trademarks period however if you thought of the idea first don't just cave in to an email if they came along second with same idea.

Want2learn said:

Or say dove trademarked dove a few years ago and never registered dove dot com. Are you staying away from that one as well?

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. "Dove" is a dictionary word that might have all kinds of uses.

NYT is recognizable as a substantial media company with significant business in virtual reality media (they even sent a cardboard stereopticon for use with a smartphone along with the Sunday edition a while back).

While a Google search for " 'not your type' nyt " turns up a HUGE 94 results, the credibility of the notion that you selected this string of characters for "virtual reality, not your type" depends on believing that other people are stupid and/or inordinately gullible. Again, what is "virtual reality, not your type" even supposed to mean? The fact that you ignored that simple, basic question suggests to me that you are simply trying to come up with some kind of threadbare excuse for registering a domain name which clearly relates to one of the lines of business of the New York Times.

I once had a situation with WFUBMC.com involving the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (WFUBMC) and a guy who lived a few miles from there who was intercepting patient emails, offering to sell them to the hospital, and who insisted that his name stood for "Web Forum of Unaffiliated Business Management Consultants", complete with bullshit web page and all.

That scene from "Coming to America", in case nobody gets it, is supposed to be FUNNY, because McDowell's bullshit rationalizations for running a carbon copy of a McDonald's restaurant are stupid. It's not funny because he's "clever".

"nyt" means "now" in Finnish and it is also a sometimes appearing magazine part of Finland's biggest newspaper.

MackieMesser said:

"nyt" means "now" in Finnish and it is also a sometimes appearing magazine part of Finland's biggest newspaper.

Click to expand...

That's great, but...

Want2learn said:

If NYT stands for the New York Times and I think it does...

Click to expand...

jberryhill said:

That's great, but...

Click to expand...

Yes, I never doubted that. Just wanted to add some more information

vacation rentals now yours too!

Want2learn said:

vacation rentals now yours too!

Click to expand...

So, let's be clear. You registered a domain name containing a well-known mark, and which is also a simple transposition of elements in a registered mark they own, and of which you are aware. And now you are looking for a credible excuse.

Do I correctly understand the situation?

No you do not understand the situation correctly. I am however very thankful for your concern. I appreciate all the feedback you have given on the matter!

[

jberryhill said:

So, let's be clear. You registered a domain name containing a well-known mark, and which is also a simple transposition of elements in a registered mark they own, and of which you are aware. And now you are looking for a credible excuse.

Do I correctly understand the situation?

Click to expand...

John, have you never defended a case in which the domain contained a known mark?.....Did you not think that your client was aware of the mark?.......Did you win?

Without researching the answer, I am going to go out on a limb and say you have.

My point is that registering a domain with "NYT" does not necessarily constitute bad faith.

NYT with VR tho - http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/nytvr/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nyt-vr/id1028562337?mt=8

NYT - most people see this as New York Times - https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

page after page, New York Times. First 3 pages, all 30 results were New York Times related

Most domainers know what this is. It works for some, for others it doesn't. It's a risk you decide to take.

Want2learn said:

It is at times like this I feel kind of slow!

Click to expand...

lol

the names you keep regging, along with the bizarre rationale for acquiring them

has led me to concur




imo....

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

Internet.Domains said:

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

OP: you might want to change your user name.
Notwithstanding possible TM issues, these names aren't great and not investment-worthy

Internet.Domains said:

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

Click to expand...

disagree. there is a difference between a generic trademarked word with non well known TM holders that is used in a non-infringing manner - most words have TMs - and a made up term that has a very well known TM holder and a term that has no real use other than selling it to the holder.

you can't compare shoes.com with that one.

What matters is what others think what your intent is. There are many good and perfectly legal reasons for owning and selling shoes.com but for an obscure term with a famous TM in it, not so much.

dordomai said:

disagree. there is a difference between a generic trademarked word with non well known TM holders that is used in a non-infringing manner - most words have TMs - and a made up term that has a very well known TM holder and a term that has no real use other than selling it to the holder.

you can't compare shoes.com with that one.

What matters is what others think what your intent is. There are many good and perfectly legal reasons for owning and selling shoes.com but for an obscure term with a famous TM in it, not so much.

Click to expand...

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

Internet.Domains said:

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

Click to expand...

if you have a credible business around that term maybe.. if you have no good reason for owning it you might lose that is the reality. seriously why would a domainer register that one?

do you think the website along with this thread indexed in Google would convince a panelist?

answer is no of course.

dordomai said:

if you have a credible business around that term maybe.. if you have no good reason for owning it you might lose that is the reality.

Click to expand...

Of course with legal matters anything can happen. However, you are using "maybe" and "might" in your statement, constituting a long shot. If I went through your domain portfolio I am sure I can find some TM's within your domains, that is reality....

Internet.Domains said:

Of course with legal matters anything can happen. However, you are using "maybe" and "might" in your statement, constituting a long shot. If I went through your domain portfolio I am sure I can find some TM's within your domains, that is reality....

Click to expand...

i think you don't understand. this is not just about having a TMed term in a domain, it ist also the circumstances and the term itself. Basically it looks like BS and people aren't stupid and might conclude someone is trying to cybersquat.

dordomai said:

i think you don't understand. this is not just about having a TMed term in a domain, it ist also the circumstances and the term itself. Basically it looks like BS and people aren't stupid and might conclude someone is trying to cybersquat.

Click to expand...

In that case, maybe you can explain how you think VRNYT.com is cybersquatting on the New York Times?

Internet.Domains said:

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

Click to expand...

Vacation Rentals Now Yours Too!

I hope a travel/vacation business sees the value in the domain! Im ready for a nice rental, been to out of reach for too long.