Dynadot

Abject Stupidity

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
12,416
IMG_6677.jpg


IMG_6678.jpg



So, some idiot paid $800 for this domain name, made a custom banner to advertise it in specific association with the movie franchise, and thinks someone is going to pay $100k for it?

If this is something that strikes you as a good idea then, please, get out of domaining immediately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danjaq
 
Last edited:
37
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
The domain has no reference to any TM. No. There is no cybersquatting in this case.

I'm afraid it isn't that simple. Like the case @Acroplex referred to, if I would be using it for something not related, how would I ever have heard about this casino company? I wouldn't be infringing on a TM most probably.

The problem with james.bond is, it's instantly recognised and associated with the James bond movies. you're in trouble from the get go. @jberryhill can probably explain better as I cannot recall the correct term in English right now. It's 100 degrees here. I'm knackered :)
 
Last edited:
3
•••
As a side note, I really like South America. They have some potential endusers for the domain in question:

One James Bond lives in Peru:


jb-peru.jpg

Another resides in Dominican Republic

jb-dominica.jpg



And, the last but not the least. Beautiful country of Ecuador. No detected James Bonds, but still...

ec-hitler.jpeg
 
9
•••
I'm afraid it isn't that simple. Like the case @Acroplex referred to, if I would be using it for something not related, how would I ever have heard about this casino company? I wouldn't be infringing on a TM most probably.


The problem with james.bond is, it's instantly recognised and associated with the James bond movies. you're in trouble from the get go. @jberryhill can probably explain better as I cannot recall the correct term in English right now. It's 100 degrees here. I'm knackered :)

This domain is great for a person named "James" in the bail bond business. I already found some potential end users.
 
4
•••
If the registrant of james.bond and 007.bond is Shortdot and they are the owners of the .bond domain name registry and it's their advert then they're potentially putting the entire project on the line. You can't create an advertisement and say it's nothing to do with "James Bond" the franchise when you include 007 in the advert at the same time.

Surely the registry wouldn't be so stupid?
 
Last edited:
8
•••
Not the same. Respondent was using the domain for an affiliate program offered by complainant.

The Complainant received a domain where the trademark spanned the dot, hence my point.
 
2
•••
Agreed with @Internet.Domains, any one can register James name with whatever extension ... same thing goes for 007 ... if it was jamesbond.com I am skeptic but there will be somewhere in this earth someone with the same name ? @tonyk2000

It is complexe... but I think they know what they are doing... a noob will not spend 800$ to register a domain name with 800$ renewal fees. Especially spending money on ads etc.

That's anything but stupidity! Imo
 
3
•••
The Complainant received a domain where the trademark spanned the dot, hence my point.
Sure TM can span the dot.

With this case there is multiple legitimate use cases possible that would not infringe on existing TM's.

Bond - is a financial instrument
Bond - used by bail bondsmen
Bond - to tie together

The content is key in this case. So far there is no ppc landing page or anything to reference current TM's.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
What are you talking about?

The domains are listed for sale at Sedo - there's no landing page about any imaginary James who works his 4 hour shifts at a bond biz in Miami.
 
3
•••
How do you assume its used for the Trademarks.
Are you suggesting that a person named "James" can't use that domain in good faith?..Lets see the intent, before we prosecute.

It's pretty simple what the seller's intent is based upon. Is "James" middle name "007"?

Look at the ad banner:

IMG_6677.jpg



The ad text is "James.Bond & 007.Bond" in a leaning font which copies the presentation on movie posters, DVD sleeves, etc.. Additionally, the advertisement includes the partial image of a man wearing a formal suit, as is typical of the James Bond character.

One has to be a complete fool not to be able to determine that the sale is premised on the James Bond "007" character and rights in that character.

Don't play dumb.
 
16
•••
What are you talking about?

The domains are listed for sale at Sedo - there's no landing page about any imaginary James who works his 4 hour shifts at a bond biz in Miami.
Under that logic, we as domain investors would lose our domains much more

There is no reference to any existing TM's. None. Zero.

There is many legitimate uses as many has described in the posts here.
 
1
•••
There is no reference to any existing TM's. None. Zero.

That's simply a lie. Look at the banner which the moron is using to sell the domain names. It is an obvious reference to the movie character (and all of which that entails).

Your "James the ball bondsman" specializes in $0.07 bonds? Get real and stop pretending.

Over the last two decades, I have successfully defended more domain names than you will probably ever sell.

It is this sort of horseshit which gives domainers a bad name.
 
Last edited:
19
•••
It's pretty simple what the seller's intent is based upon. Is "James" middle name "007"?

Look at the ad banner:

Show attachment 163566


The ad text is "James.Bond & 007.Bond" in a leaning font which copies the presentation on movie posters, DVD sleeves, etc.. Additionally, the advertisement includes the partial image of a man wearing a formal suit, as is typical of the James Bond character.

One has to be a complete fool not to be able to determine that the sale is premised on the James Bond "007" character and rights in that character.

Don't play dumb.
Is the ad banner the registrant?

We must establish that first. Yes, the registry is using the advertisement as a TM violation, but the registrants intent is unknown.

There is a difference. You should know this.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The link of the banner gives it away 👀
 
1
•••
Is the ad banner the registrant?

Duh.

If the registry wanted to sell them as premium names, there would be no reason to register the names and list them on Sedo.

The registry runs its own premium name program:

https://shortdot.bond/premium-domains/

So, duh, they could price these names as premiums and leave them unregistered (and thus not subject to a cybersquatting claim) if they wanted to avoid liability that comes with registering them and advertising them this way.

The registry has its own premium name pricing and sales channel. They don't register names and list them on Sedo. THEY. RUN. THE. REGISTRY.

Stop playing stupid. There are people who don't know any better, and being misled by folks like you is not helpful.
 
Last edited:
8
•••
Duh.

If the registry wanted to sell them as premium names, there would be no reason to register the names and list them on Sedo.

The registry runs its own premium name program:

https://shortdot.bond/premium-domains/

So, duh, they could price these names as premiums and leave them unregistered (and thus not subject to a cybersquatting claim) if they wanted to avoid liability that comes with registering them and advertising them this way.

The registry has its own premium name pricing and sales channel. They don't register names and list them on Sedo. THEY. RUN. THE. REGISTRY.

Stop playing stupid. There are people who don't know any better, and being misled by folks like you is not helpful.
Curious that the banner link url contains "shortdot"...
 
Last edited:
1
•••
It's pretty simple what the seller's intent is based upon. Is "James" middle name "007"?

Look at the ad banner:

Show attachment 163566


The ad text is "James.Bond & 007.Bond" in a leaning font which copies the presentation on movie posters, DVD sleeves, etc.. Additionally, the advertisement includes the partial image of a man wearing a formal suit, as is typical of the James Bond character.

One has to be a complete fool not to be able to determine that the sale is premised on the James Bond "007" character and rights in that character.

Don't play dumb.

Anyone can wear a formal suit, but now if he was holding a gun then that would have been a different matter :xf.wink:

Although whoever put these domains for sale and made the banner ad for them is walking on a fine line, but they have not crossed the line yet into infringing on the TM which is basically for materials related to the big screen.

IMO
 
3
•••
Duh.

If the registry wanted to sell them as premium names, there would be no reason to register the names and list them on Sedo.

The registry runs its own premium name program:

https://shortdot.bond/premium-domains/

So, duh, they could price these names as premiums and leave them unregistered (and thus not subject to a cybersquatting claim) if they wanted to avoid liability that comes with registering them and advertising them this way.

The registry has its own premium name pricing and sales channel. They don't register names and list them on Sedo. THEY. RUN. THE. REGISTRY.

Stop playing stupid. There are people who don't know any better, and being misled by folks like you is not helpful.

Can you ever debate without condescending and unprofessional attacks?

You continually antagonize and disrespect those that disagree with you.

I see posts in this forum removed daily for much less. Its too bad the mods let you rant instead of debate.
 
2
•••
Can you ever debate without condescending and unprofessional attacks?

You continually antagonize and disrespect those that disagree with you.

I see posts in this forum removed daily for much less. Its too bad the mods let you rant instead of debate.

You don't really debate. You post truly ridiculous stuff, people point it out and you respond like what you posted isn't truly crazy. This is yet another example, clear TM issues. It's amazing to see some of the posts in this thread. You even posted a James Bond movie video clip in an earlier thread, so you know it as well.

The ad isn't James.Bond and Sarah.Bond and Richard.Bond. It's James Bond, 007 and in a suit he normally wears - https://www.google.com/search?q=jam...WLc98KHVWFDvoQ_AUoAnoECCUQBA&biw=1536&bih=694
 
Last edited:
6
•••
This is yet another example, clear TM issues.

As such there should have already been a lawsuit started or some kind of injunction to remove the domains and stop the banner ads,

Isn't it the responsibility of every TM holder to protect their brand.

IMO
 
3
•••
You don't really debate. You post truly ridiculous stuff, people point it out and you respond like what you posted isn't truly crazy. This is yet another example, clear TM issues. It's amazing to see some of the posts in this thread. You even posted a James Bond movie video clip in an earlier thread, so you know it as well.
Good evening JB. I have been expecting you.
 
4
•••
I am curious how could the following happen:
- Sedo accepted obvious TMs for sale
- Reputable forum accepted an ad of obvious TM domains
?
Imho, those domains may be OK only if owned by any of a few South American guys I mentioned earlier in this thread. They are real people, no doubts. Sort of Uzi Nissan case, may his soul rest in peace...
 
Last edited:
2
•••
3
•••
I am curious how could the following happen:
- Sedo accepted obvious TMs for sale
- Reputable forum accepted an ad of obvious TM domains
?
Imho, those domains may be OK only if owned by any of a few South American guys I mentioned earlier in this thread. They are real people, no doubts. Sort of Uzi Nissan case, may his soul rest in peace...
Actually Tony, the guys you mentioned, have as their first name, James Bond. family name Couinche. Blame the parents.
"Couinche, James Bond Couinche". Ian Fleming would have never sold a copy.
 
2
•••
James.Bond is a great name for only $800. By far the best in that extension, imo.

We have really lost our creativity and adventure when industry respected representatives call out domain purchases as "abject stupidity" and "idiot"....The industry reps are turning this place into a cesspool of negativity.


What about:

Bail.bond ?
insurance.bond ?
Junk.bond ?
 
1
•••
The ad is plain and square trademark infringement. The domains are confusingly similar to TM, there are naturally no rights in the names, and it's in obvious bad faith, so it's also cybersquatting. Way to go. No court of law or UDRP panel would buy any of the arguments laid forward. Why? Because the devil don't need to be in the details here. The whole thing is possessed.
 
4
•••
Back