.mobi Another poll: Your dictionary .mobi name!

[namegeeks]

Gentlemen:

Do you have any dictionary .mobi names? Please post them here.

 

[scandiman]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[namegeeks]

No point, just a poll. But PM me, and we can talk.

 

[nrmillions]

do you mean names that actually have dictionary in it such as EnglishDictionary.mobi or do you mean words that are just in the dictionary? for .mobi just because it is a dictionary word doesnt mean it is automatically good. people on the forums think that they can just hand reg any word that is in a dictionary in .mobi and that it is worth 4 or 5 figures right away or that it eventually will be worth tons of money. i have seen so many people reg worthless dictionary words every single day. people should think about who a potential end user would be, how much money those end users might have, if it would be something relevant to mobile content, and how they could develop the name to make money off of it before regging them. even if mobi becomes huge and mainstream a lot of those words will still only be worth regfee. of course there are tons of good dictionary words too but people get too carried away by the term dictionary word.

 

[seanboy]

No point, just a poll. But PM me, and we can talk.

Um....

 

[Jo]

Are you buying? What's your budget? What sorts of names are you looking for in my dictionary? (I have a Collins Pocket Reference English Dictionary.) OH and where's the poll? I don't see a poll anywhere. Or did you mean a pole? Are you Polish? If there was a real pole here...maybe I'd dance! :hehe:

 

[Broker]

Structured.mobi

 

[Jeff]

But PM me, and we can talk.

Is this a .MOBI Domain Name Wanted thread? :blink:

Thanks for the clarification.
-Jeff

 

[garrett200]

GermanDictionary.mobi
LatinDictionary.mobi
WebstersDictionary.mobi
ItalianDictionary.mobi

....If that's what you were talking about!

 

[circa1850]

Seems like there are countless other threads regarding this.

No offense, but not sure what it is a poll of, what criteria, number of letters? Singular, plural, past tense, english, medical, sexual?

Hundreds and hundreds already posted. I've got close to 400 now and I would say 80% or more are dictionary.

 

[namegeeks]

No gents, I am not buying currently

Re: dictionary names that I registered, I have domain MerriamWebster.mobi, and it is not a TM name. More, the famous Chicago Manual of Style says that anyone can publish just any dictionary of this kind, and I think we can trust this source.

Let me know what is your opinion about this domain.

 

[Traveler]

Re: dictionary names that I registered, I have domain MerriamWebster.mobi, and it is not a TM name. More, the famous Chicago Manual of Style says that anyone can publish just any dictionary of this kind, and I think we can trust this source.

Let me know what is your opinion about this domain.

Not to take this thread off track to much but your name has good OVT of 46833. I would say with a bit of dev, you might cover your regs and then some. Good luck with it!

 

[garrett200]

Re: dictionary names that I registered, I have domain MerriamWebster.mobi, and it is not a TM name. More, the famous Chicago Manual of Style says that anyone can publish just any dictionary of this kind, and I think we can trust this source.

Let me know what is your opinion about this domain.

As I stated in an earlier post, I own WebstersDictionary.mobi (240,000 OVT), and there is no TM on that either. Nice to hear that Chicago Manual of Style report, I think that we can be safe that both of our names are good reg's.

 

[circa1850]

Wow, I really don't know what bathroom stall wall the information is coming from regarding TM, but perhaps before popping the cork on the champagne...

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

Chicago Manual of Style says that anyone can publish just any dictionary of this kind, and I think we can trust this source.

Let me know what is your opinion about this domain.

My opinion is you can't trust that source to represent you in a WIPO case or a TM infringement law suit. Doubtful their attorneys would show up for the hearing let along fill in the appeals form right. And I really don't think you would want to quote that source in a court of law as being the law that would over-ride the USTPO rulings and filings.

And when you do check those links, do notice that the TM includes online usage.

15105 OVT trademark lawyer
Google 1,320,000 for trademark lawyer

I wish you well.

 

[namegeeks]

Rofl

Why did you spend so much time writing this post? There ARE many dictionaries that are published under "Merriam Webster" title, and their authors and publishers don't get sued at all.

Wow, I really don't know what bathroom stall wall the information is coming from regarding TM, but perhaps before popping the cork on the champagne...

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query



My opinion is you can't trust that source to represent you in a WIPO case or a TM infringement law suit. Doubtful their attorneys would show up for the hearing let along fill in the appeals form right. And I really don't think you would want to quote that source in a court of law as being the law that would over-ride the USTPO rulings and filings.

And when you do check those links, do notice that the TM includes online usage.

15105 OVT trademark lawyer
Google 1,320,000 for trademark lawyer

I wish you well.

 

[circa1850]

Why did you spend so much time writing this post? There ARE many dictionaties that are published under "Merriam Webster" title, and their authors and publishers don't get sued at all.

Then by all means, have it.

Not much time spent at all, perhaps 5 minutes, not much research needed when you know where to look. One minute for the USTPO site, 1 minute for the OVT and google results, and may be 2 minutes to copy and paste the information here along with the assessment.

I think I'll just start at site called USTPO.mobi but OVT is low.

It does appear a dictionary is a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[garrett200]

"POP"

(sound of cork popping)

 

[nrmillions]

Anyone is allowed to use the name Websters for a dictionary. Tons of companies use it. It is not illegal. Merriam-Websters though is an actual company that is TM and cannot be used.

From Wikipedia:

[edit] The name "Webster" used by others
Since the late 19th century, dictionaries bearing the name "Webster's" have been published by companies other than Merriam-Webster. Some of these were pirated reprints of Noah Webster's work, some were revisions by others. One such revision was Webster's Imperial Dictionary, based on John Ogilvie's Imperial Dictionary, itself an expansion of Noah Webster's American Dictionary.

As a result of lawsuits filed by Merriam, American courts ruled that "Webster's" entered the public domain when the Unabridged did, in 1889 (G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. 638 (1908)) and another court ruled in 1917 that it entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster's 1806 dictionary's copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster's became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.

Since then, use of the name "Webster" has been rampant. Merriam-Webster goes to great pains to remind dictionary buyers that it alone is the heir to Noah Webster[1]. The issue is more complicated than that, however. Throughout the 20th century, some non-Merriam editions, such as Webster's New Universal, were closer to Webster's work than modern Merriam-Webster editions. Indeed, Merriam's progressive revisions came to have little in common with their original source, while the Universal, for example, was minimally revised and remained largely out of date. However, Merriam-Webster revisionists find solid ground in Noah Webster's concept of the English language as an ever-changing tapestry.

So many dictionaries of varied size and quality have been called Webster's that the name no longer has any specific brand meaning. Despite this, many people still recognize and trust the name. Thus, Webster's continues as a powerful and lucrative marketing tool. In recent years, even established dictionaries with no direct link to Noah Webster whatsoever have adopted his name, adding to the confusion. Random House dictionaries are now called Random House Webster's, and Microsoft's Encarta World English Dictionary is now Encarta Webster's Dictionary. The dictionary now called Webster's New Universal no longer uses the text referred to in the previous paragraph but is a commissioned version of the Random House Dictionary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Dictionary

 

[garrett200]

Anyone is allowed to use the name Websters for a dictionary. Tons of companies use it. It is not illegal. Merriam-Websters though is an actual company that is TM and cannot be used.

Well then mine is OK, and the guy who has "MerriamWebster.mobi" is not?

Anyone is allowed to use the name Websters for a dictionary. Tons of companies use it. It is not illegal. Merriam-Websters though is an actual company that is TM and cannot be used.

From Wikipedia:

[edit] The name "Webster" used by others
Since the late 19th century, dictionaries bearing the name "Webster's" have been published by companies other than Merriam-Webster. Some of these were pirated reprints of Noah Webster's work, some were revisions by others. One such revision was Webster's Imperial Dictionary, based on John Ogilvie's Imperial Dictionary, itself an expansion of Noah Webster's American Dictionary.

As a result of lawsuits filed by Merriam, American courts ruled that "Webster's" entered the public domain when the Unabridged did, in 1889 (G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. 638 (1908)) and another court ruled in 1917 that it entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster's 1806 dictionary's copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster's became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.

Since then, use of the name "Webster" has been rampant. Merriam-Webster goes to great pains to remind dictionary buyers that it alone is the heir to Noah Webster[1]. The issue is more complicated than that, however. Throughout the 20th century, some non-Merriam editions, such as Webster's New Universal, were closer to Webster's work than modern Merriam-Webster editions. Indeed, Merriam's progressive revisions came to have little in common with their original source, while the Universal, for example, was minimally revised and remained largely out of date. However, Merriam-Webster revisionists find solid ground in Noah Webster's concept of the English language as an ever-changing tapestry.

So many dictionaries of varied size and quality have been called Webster's that the name no longer has any specific brand meaning. Despite this, many people still recognize and trust the name. Thus, Webster's continues as a powerful and lucrative marketing tool. In recent years, even established dictionaries with no direct link to Noah Webster whatsoever have adopted his name, adding to the confusion. Random House dictionaries are now called Random House Webster's, and Microsoft's Encarta World English Dictionary is now Encarta Webster's Dictionary. The dictionary now called Webster's New Universal no longer uses the text referred to in the previous paragraph but is a commissioned version of the Random House Dictionary.

WOW. I am now very very glad that I have "WebstersDictionary.mobi" Thanks for that research, rep added.

 

[nrmillions]

Well then mine is OK, and the guy who has "MerriamWebster.mobi" is not?

Correct

WOW. I am now very very glad that I have "WebstersDictionary.mobi" Thanks for that research, rep added.

Very good name! Thanks.