Can parking create a trademark issues, that would normally have not been a problem?

[niceguy]

Say you have a one word .com that is a generic word - but is also a word that in the first word of at least 4 major companies with an internet presence. The one word .com has historically and always been used as a domain for a real business that is completely different and non-competitative from any of the 4 major companies reffered to above.

If the domain (which is not needed for its original personal end user use) is parked and the parking pay per click ads are in the business of the 4 major cmpanies referred to above. By parking the one-word generic domain name are we taking a major risk in any potential dispute with the 4 major companies?

example. say the domain name is (its not) western.com and historically the domain has been used for "western"beer brewing. Also lets say that there are 4 major well known internet companies (say westerntravel or westernhotels or westernairlines.... By using the name "western" on a parked pages and by using key words that relate to the 4 major companies, are we risking losing the name in a dispute with any of the four companies?

 

[jberryhill]

By parking the one-word generic domain name are we taking a major risk in any potential dispute with the 4 major companies?

Yes.

This is becoming a frequent and ugly issue. You can buy a perfectly fine domain having potential non-TM issues, but if the parking results include entries within the class of goods and services covered by someone's TM, even a TM of which you've never heard, you can end up in a difficult position.

The actual problem can originate with PPC advertisers buying their competitor's trademarks as keywords, but when the results end up on your parking page, it can be hard to explain. For example, UDRP panelists in general do not understand how this stuff works, and there are few cases in which they have understood that the domain registrant is not directly responsible for the PPC results.

An early case along this line is flamingo.com, and a more recent one is beam.com.

Cases where the panelists "got it" are eaa.com and elephant.com.

 

[niceguy]

An early case along this line is flamingo.com, and a more recent one is beam.com.

Cases where the panelists "got it" are eaa.com and elephant.com.

John, I guess you are fairly familiar with the elephant.com case...lol. Thank you for the insight and good job!

Peace,
Tarry

 

[timmaay]

what about registrars that "park" your domain and they reap any profits from clicks (godaddy default) as an example?

 

[Robert Allen]

My brother had a law suit with a french firm over the domain 'jules.com' He won in the end, but i was personally shocked about it.

 

[labrocca]

what about registrars that "park" your domain and they reap any profits from clicks (godaddy default) as an example?

I am not so sure but I assume that Godaddy would be more in trouble profiting from that you the registered owner. Has there been any cases like this?

 

[jberryhill]

I am not so sure but I assume that Godaddy would be more in trouble profiting from that you the registered owner.

As usual, read them registration agreements, folks.

 

[Dave_Z]

what about registrars that "park" your domain and they reap any profits from clicks (godaddy default) as an example?

What about them? Unless that domain name's registered under the registrar's
name, then what can the complaining party get from them even if they sue
them in Court?

As Dr. Berryhill said, read the fine prints. It's amazing how such a simple thing
to do is ignored a lot of the time.