domain Acquired some trademark grey areas - Tweet archive dot com

[Joe N]

Just purchased the following expired names:

Apple sale dot com
Tweet archive dot com

Did a lot of reading on potential trademark issues before acquiring, and my conclusion was that these are clean.

So:

1) What are their approximate values?
2) How best to go about finding the best end users without crossing into trademark infringement territory?

 

[deez007]

Personally if I were you mate I would Park the domains still. Especially the Apple one. They have a trademark on Apple used in a particular context. So fo everything IT related the Apple branding issue would come into play. You domain has no content, no site, it is merely a domain name and with any content they can not under any circumstances accuse you of copyright infringement. You could for argument sake have a passion of Apples (the fruit) so you bought the domain. As far as the adverts that are show when you park your domain.. well you have no control of that. They can not hold you responsible for the adverts that are being displayed on your parked domain.

 

[nomen]

Personally if I were you mate I would Park the domains still. Especially the Apple one. They have a trademark on Apple used in a particular context. So fo everything IT related the Apple branding issue would come into play. You domain has no content, no site, it is merely a domain name and with any content they can not under any circumstances accuse you of copyright infringement. You could for argument sake have a passion of Apples (the fruit) so you bought the domain. As far as the adverts that are show when you park your domain.. well you have no control of that. They can not hold you responsible for the adverts that are being displayed on your parked domain.

So wrong in so many ways.

 

[deez007]

@ Nomen - like I said mate "Personally if I were you...." so if it was me in his situation, that's what I would do. My view on these sort of issues does generally lean towards anarchy...lol

 

[nomen]

My view on these sort of issues does generally does lean toward anarchy

 

[Joe N]

Lots of helpful views here. Thanks to everyone for participating.

Want to make it clear that I'm not defending these domains, but I'm absolutely looking to have a quality discussion about them without being shut down. If that means playing devil's advocate and challenging some opinions that aren't being backed up with facts then I'll do it. Not saying I don't value the experienced-based advice, but I like to know that I'm going on more than personal opinion.

@johname - Good point about being labeled as a TM dealer. Certainly want to avoid that, but I'm fairly new in this industry and did a lot of research on these ones, so thought I would give them a try.

As for the Tweet trademark, everything I've read has indicated that Twitter does not own it. The term is too generic, and was developed by the users, not the company itself. Articles from last year discuss Twitter attempting to trademark "subtweet" and referencing the fact that they missed out on getting "tweet".

Also checked the US patent office. No trademarks for TweetArchive.

 

[deez007]

But then off course I would argue that, I do not believe anarchy is necessarily wrong

Although that would be starting a whole new topic of discussion and it would deviate drastically from the point of this thread. It will not be of any benefit to the OP.

 

[Nodws]

Setup a fruit related page and if devices appear in the ads so be it

 

[Kate]

My advice would be to go wipo.int, and search (UDRP) domain decisions. You can do a fulltext search or a search based on complainant name. See for yourself all the names that have been challenged successfully. Tweeter, Apple are regular participants (complainant) in UDRP rulings. Maybe you'll find out the other lost cases are very similar to yours.

 

[Maxwell]

my view: why walk the line for no reason? there's little to no money to be made off these...

 

[maya-zir]

 

[dondurmaa]

So funny coments.. Looks like everyone had before registered apple domains and tweet domains.. and had dealing with legal issues... so much rubish talk.. its appraisal whats needed not memoars.. let the man run domains and then he will tell us if apple or twitter did something.. :D go on man show people oposite..

 

[Kate]

Also, one more thing.
It is one thing to own ONE questionable/borderline domain name.
But when the UDRP panelists start looking at your case, if there is evidence your whole portfolio is made up of similar domains, a 'pattern of bad faith' (in their parlance) starts to take shape and they'll slap with you with the cybersquatter label. Because it's not a coincidence but a deliberate choice to go after some types of domains.

 

[Grilled]

Keep in mind on both domains.
Apple....not a darn thing about apple the company and their products and their people and their history, etal.

In any case be ready for either or both companies, who do protect their trademarks to a fault, to come after your domain.

I see a lot of people posting about how relentless Apple is with their trademarks.

Yet, a lot of major cities have a Phone Repair company ranked on the first page of search engines with iPhone in their name. A lot of these companies are even advertising on search engines. Is this a case of Apple looking the other way? Or, do yall predict these companies will be hearing from Apple?

 

[Joe N]

@Kate - If I understand the cybersquatting label correctly, it only applies to domain names that are clearly trademarked, and that the purchaser attempts to re-sell to the trademark owner for profit. So I'm really hoping someone here can clarify this point for me based on personal experience and not just educational guesswork. Neither of these names are trademark violations unless I use them in a specific and improper way. If that's true then it seems very unlikely that either company would have legal cause to pursue me for wanting to re-sell them on the aftermarket. So again... not "defending" the names, but very much wanting to clarify my understanding.

@dondurmaa - Yes, that's true. The appraisal talk has been side-tracked a bit. Definitely would like some quality feedback on that as well. I've only been reading up on this industry for a short while, but already I've noticed a lack of supporting facts when domainers are providing their valuations of a name. These "apple" names carry a wide range of values. Apple Motors sold for 169 a few months ago. Apple Orchard sold for 2,221. Apple TV Junkie for 346; Apple Face for 2600 (these were in 2013). So where is the rhyme or reason? I can't see it. But I believe AppleSale is specific, and also generic enough, it's a relatively short two-word .com. Gets pretty good search traffic. Everything I've read about valuation so far tells me this is better than a "meh" name. So for those who are valuing it as such, I'd love to hear why my reasoning is faulty. I'm here to learn and discuss.

 

[dondurmaa]

@Kate - If I understand the cybersquatting label correctly, it only applies to domain names that are clearly trademarked, and that the purchaser attempts to re-sell to the trademark owner for profit. So I'm really hoping someone here can clarify this point for me based on personal experience and not just educational guesswork. Neither of these names are trademark violations unless I use them in a specific and improper way. If that's true then it seems very unlikely that either company would have legal cause to pursue me for wanting to re-sell them on the aftermarket. So again... not "defending" the names, but very much wanting to clarify my understanding.

@dondurmaa - Yes, that's true. The appraisal talk has been side-tracked a bit. Definitely would like some quality feedback on that as well. I've only been reading up on this industry for a short while, but already I've noticed a lack of supporting facts when domainers are providing their valuations of a name. These "apple" names carry a wide range of values. Apple Motors sold for 169 a few months ago. Apple Orchard sold for 2,221. Apple TV Junkie for 346; Apple Face for 2600 (these were in 2013). So where is the rhyme or reason? I can't see it. But I believe AppleSale is specific, and also generic enough, it's a relatively short two-word .com. Gets pretty good search traffic. Everything I've read about valuation so far tells me this is better than a "meh" name. So for those who are valuing it as such, I'd love to hear why my reasoning is faulty. I'm here to learn and discuss.

I sugest you dont listen to anybody.. build site up and you well see what will happen.. if apple will decide you do something doggy they will conatct you and deal with it as a gentelman.. apple is big company and they deal with things like gentelman.. if apple dont contact you well then you will potentionaly earn some cash..AND in any case you will gain EXPERIENCE wich is most important thing.. about appraisal no idea how much it would be worth..but if you say it gets some traffic then build it up..

 

[Kate]

@Kate - If I understand the cybersquatting label correctly, it only applies to domain names that are clearly trademarked, and that the purchaser attempts to re-sell to the trademark owner for profit.
...
Neither of these names are trademark violations unless I use them in a specific and improper way. If that's true then it seems very unlikely that either company would have legal cause to pursue me for wanting to re-sell them on the aftermarket.
.

Don't have to try to sell them to establish bad faith. Merely holding the names can suffice.
These names may not be obvious TM violations. But we need to consider how they can be realistically used in the real world.
For example Apple sale dot com. Are you going to sell apples online ? No. So what would be the 'obvious' purpose according to you ? Is this a name YOU could develop ? Who could be the buyer, if there is one ?
For sure, you shouldn't use this name to sell anything that is remotely connected to computers or software. You could sell clothing perhaps. But the TM holders are trigger-happy sometimes.
A UDRP usually always begins like this (complainant assertion): "Domain owner is not commonly known by <domain>".

As to the above suggestion (develop a site): should you waste your time (and money) on building a website when the domain could be taken away from you in no time. On the other hand, development is the only way to gain rights through usage - if you do it right.

The question is, how can these names be used in a legitimate manner without possibly offending powerful TM holders. Remember, they have lawyers on a retainer and deal with cases like these almost every week.

New registrations are normally monitored, so your names are probably being watched now.