A Compulsive Buy, Now What?

[TheMomentIsOver]

I'm in the process of trying to get my money back from a company that made a lot of promises with their pre-launch hype and general BS (I don't want to post Their Name, until I get my money back).

Over 20,000 people got involved in the prelaunch and, so far, the company is loaded with programming problems. They really ticked me off with their lousy product and stinking support, so I compulsiveIy purchased and parked the domain: (TheirName)sucks.com

My opinion is that this company is going to continue to have a lot of problems and many people will be ticked. I'm just curious, what could the repercussions be if I developed (TheirName)sucks.com ?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Just one part of the puzzle, but WIPO (UDRP Arbitration Forum) has a good selection of views on it:

1.3 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark? (“sucks cases”)

Majority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Confusing similarity has been found because the domain name contains a trademark and a dictionary word; or because the disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark; or because the domain name may not be recognized as negative; or because the domain name may be viewed by non-fluent English language speakers, who may not recognize the negative connotations of the word that is attached to the trademark.

Relevant decisions:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale D2000-0662 , Transfer
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen D2001-0900 , Transfer
Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu D2003-0465 , Transfer
Wachovia Corporation v. Alton Flanders D2003-0596 among others, Transfer

Minority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar because Internet users are not likely to associate the trademark holder with a domain name consisting of the trademark and a negative term.

Relevant decisions:
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi D2000-1015 , Denied
McLane Company, Inc. v. Fred Craig D2000-1455 , Denied
America Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Investments, Inc., and Aollnews.com D2001-0918 , Transfer, Denied in Part

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html#13

-Allan :gl:

 

[TheMomentIsOver]

Thanks for the great resource!

 

[Kate]

Sites like paypalsucks.com have been around for years. They have been challenged but they fall within the realm of free speech.
I would suggest pulling your name out of Sedo though. The fact that you are parking the name suggests you are attempting to monetize whatever traffic you may get, which could constitute evidence of 'bad faith' vs bona fide use if it were a developed site (parody site for example)...