Beware of purchasing TM domain names!

[freedom30]

Verizon Sues Parked.com & DirectNic For Cybersquatting on Over 600 Domain Names

http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/3...-for-cybersquatting-on-over-600-domain-names/

 

[mis_chiff]

Does this mean that management/owners owned the domains in question
or their employees? [considering the suit is against the companies]

If they names were parked there by individuals for parking purposes
will they take action on those domain owners or still the cpmpany owners?

Didn't Parked.com close it's doors recently?

 

[enlytend]

It mentioned some "John Doe defendents" - probably the domain name owhers.

 

[silentg]

Nobody should be buying TM domains. Hopefully this will teach parking companies a lesson. Time to clean out the parked domains and ban members who park obvious tm domains.

 

[alien51]

It's interesting that Verizon actually wanted to transfer these trashy names to them.

Seriously, if these trash names are parked, who in his right mind would type "goodfridayatverizonamphitheatre.com" on their browser URL so that the domain owner would get 0.002 cents for the page impression? Then they'll sue you for 100 grand per TM domain you own ???

 

[enlytend]

There were a couple of names on that list where I couldn't figure out how they would be considered a squat on Verizon, for example, "amberzon." (??? Am I missing something there? Looks more like "Amazon" to me.) I think their strategy was to cast a wide net rather than risk missing anything.

Apart from the sleaze factor, tm typos are risky at best. Investing in typos of companies that aggressively pursue infringers, like Verizon and Microsoft, is kind of suicidal.

 

[alien51]

I guess if you "park" a domain, it's a valid evidence of an "attempt to profit" from the name.

Unlike if you buy a TM domain and just leave it unused, there wouldn't have been any financial damages involved. The only thing they could compel you to do is hand over the domains and nothing more.

 

[enlytend]

I guess if you "park" a domain, it's a valid evidence of an "attempt to profit" from the name.

Those names probably all had ads for Verizon and/or its competitors on the parked page(s).
And/or a "for sale" link.

I haven't read any of the actual documents in this case. Would be interesting to know if any of those domains, especially the less obvious ones, were NOT running Verizon (or competing) ads.

Generally, as long as you're not using a name for the same class(es) of goods/services for which the mark owner has been granted the trademark, you're OK. BUT Verizon is a well-known mark and that gives them a much wider "reach."

 

[johname]

It's interesting that Verizon actually wanted to transfer these trashy names to them.

They would want these names transfered to further there court case against parked.

********************

I haven't read any of the actual documents in this case. Would be interesting to know if any of those domains, especially the less obvious ones, were NOT running Verizon (or competing) ads.

I would be shocked beyond belief if any domain with Verizon in it didn't spit out Verizon adds

Plus you can repeatedly come back to the parked name and get screen shots.

 

[DN BROKER]

Verizon Sues Parked.com & DirectNic For Cybersquatting on Over 600 Domain Names

http://www.thedomains.com/2012/01/3...-for-cybersquatting-on-over-600-domain-names/

It's about time.

 

[enlytend]

I would be shocked beyond belief if any domain with Verizon in it didn't spit out Verizon adds

I was talking about the "iffy" names on the list, like "amberzon."

 

[silentg]

Only if companies will go after Sedo, GoDaddy, Flippa, Pool, Namejet, and Snapnames for providing a marketplace to sell TM domains.

 

[phowell23]

Wonder why companies don't sue Registrars more often? When a domain with a trademark in it or a typo TM squat domain expires then the registrar automatically parks it and puts ads on it until it drops. During that time they are making money off the trademark term/traffic.

 

[janismo]

..

 

[enlytend]

if there is a registered trademark of "5a" (random example) and there is established "5a.com" webpage, does it mean that I cannot develop "5a.net", "5a.org" etc.?

As I said earlier in this thread:

Generally, as long as you're not using a name for the same class(es) of goods/services for which the mark owner has been granted the trademark, you're OK.

Though that may not be the case if "5a" is a well-known trademark - like Verizon, Disney, Pepsi, Microsoft ...

Every situation is different, the details are important.

 

[janismo]

..

 

[srisri24]

One should always avoid TM and celebrity domains

 

[freedom30]

...like pushers on a street corner selling illegal drugs, the registrars are also culpable and should be held liable for selling blatant TM issue domain names...

They shouldn't be allowed profit from this and it is high time that they are held accountable...

The iffy ones can be settled case by case.

 

[enlytend]

...like pushers on a street corner selling illegal drugs, the registrars are also culpable and should be held liable for selling blatant TM issue domain names...

I agree in principle ...

Problem is: Define "blatant."

At the time of registration,
- How do the registrars know you're not an authorized representative of the mark holder?
- How can the registrars know how you're going to use the name? (Since tm's are assigned to classes of goods and services, usage is important. Also, consider nonprofit "sucks" sites and fan sites, authorized resellers like car dealerships ...)

So their terms and conditions put the burden on the registrant.

Acknowledging there "might" be a problem with a certain registration could ironically put them at greater legal risk, even if it's done in an attempt to deter infringement.

That said, do any of the registrars even have any educational material (about the legal aspects of registering/using a domain) on their sites?

 

[freedom30]

I agree in principle ...

Problem is: Define "blatant."

At the time of registration,
- How do the registrars know you're not an authorized representative of the mark holder?
- How can the registrars know how you're going to use the name? (Since tm's are assigned to classes of goods and services, usage is important. Also, consider nonprofit "sucks" sites and fan sites, authorized resellers like car dealerships ...)

So their terms and conditions put the burden on the registrant.

Acknowledging there "might" be a problem with a certain registration could ironically put them at greater legal risk, even if it's done in an attempt to deter infringement.

That said, do any of the registrars even have any educational material (about the legal aspects of registering/using a domain) on their sites?

...as President Clinton once said "it depends what the definition of the word "is" is...

Yes, there probably need to be rule changes but I stand on the basic principle that registrars cannot haphazardly just sell a domain name that is illegal for someone else to use.

This era of turning a blind eye to the "innocent" pushers while punishing those that, wittingly or unwittingly, purchase a tm-issue name that is useless to them has to go and I am surprised that the 21st century still allows this to happen.

I will be happy when this discrepancy is over and registrars are held accountable for their actions. Sooner than later, I hope...