Domain ownership then someone else trademarked

[meanieme]

When I purchased a domain name "xxxxx"+.com, there were no active trademarks for that name "xxxxx", there was an abandoned /dead trademark on that name at the time.

Fast forward 2 years later now someone else just trademarked "xxxxx". But since I purchased this domain name well before this new trademark filing, am I protected? Or can this person with the new trademark try to force me to turn over my domain name.

TIA!

 

[jberryhill]

Variations on this question have been asked countless times in this forum.

When I purchased a domain name "xxxxx"+.com, there were no active trademarks for that name "xxxxx", there was an abandoned /dead trademark on that name at the time.

From this, I assume that you are looking at the USPTO database and making conclusions based on data records in that database, instead of using Google to figure out whether someone is using something as a trademark.

Long story short - the USPTO does not grant "trademarks". If you have a trademark you might, or might not, decide you want to register that trademark with the USPTO to obtain a registration.

But "having a trademark" and "having a registration at the USPTO" are not the same thing.

now someone else just trademarked "xxxxx".

It would help to explain what you mean by that.

Are you saying that someone just started using the term as a mark?

Or are you saying that someone recently filed an application to register a mark?

If you are saying the second thing, then what kind of application is it? Is it a 1(a) use-based application, or is it a 1(b) intent-to-use application? If it is a 1(a), then did you look at the alleged date of first use of the mark, along with the specimen, to figure out what they are doing and how long they might have been doing it? If it is a 1(b), did you try to do some additional searching and figure out whether they might have started using it and when?

Is it registered or merely recently-filed? If it is pending, but not registered, has an Official Action been issued in the case? If so, was it refused on grounds that are difficult to overcome?

What kind of trademark is it? Is it descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary or fanciful? Is it susceptible to use with other goods or services? If it is descriptive, how long have they been using the mark and how well known are they?

In general, no one is going to be able to obtain your domain name in a UDRP proceeding if they did not have trademark rights at the time you registered the domain name, absent some special cases where there is insider knowledge or where there was significant pre-launch publicity of the goods/services.

Unfortunately, your question does not provide enough useful information to get anywhere near an answer that might be appropriate to the relevant circumstances. The way these questions typically go here at Namepros is that the person asking the question incorrectly believes everything in the USPTO database with "LIVE" next to it is a trademark, or the person is using some secondary system like Trademarkia, which doesn't provide a lot of the relevant information from the underlying USPTO record.

In the next stage of this classic question formula, several randos will check in to say that you are fine.

 

[Peter45]

instead of using Google to figure out whether someone is using something as a trademark.

Since we keep making conclusions based on data records in TM databases, can someone explain to this rando how one can use google in order to figure out whether someone is using something as a TM?
Or can someone point him to where this is explained?
So that this rando can later pass it over to his rando fellows?

 

[E-Promote]

Since we keep making conclusions based on data records in TM databases, can someone explain to this rando how one can use google in order to figure out whether someone is using something as a TM?
Or can someone point him to where this is explained?
So that this rando can later pass it over to his rando fellows?

I happen to be a close friend of "rando" and I can unequivocally state that neither he nor I appreciate you representing him in such a haphazard manner

 

[jberryhill]

how one can use google in order to figure out whether someone is using something as a TM?

Fair enough. I assumed it is self evident how to use Google to figure out if someone is using a term as a trademark, but clearly it’s not.

Would you stick around for a simple exercise?

Let’s say you see the domain Bobor.tld drop and you like the way that sounds. If you do a Google search for “Bobor” you come across a couple of things. One thing you find out is that it is Slovak for “beaver”. Another thing you find out is that it is a surname.

Do you see anyone using “Bobor” as a trademark if you do a Google search? If so, what are the goods on which it is used?

I mean, the entire POINT of a trademark is that it is a symbol used to identify your products in the marketplace for those products. So the question of “Is someone using X as a brand of product or service that they advertise and sell” is going to be fairly simply answered by doing a Google search for X and finding out whether someone is selling something called X.

Now, sure, you have to be able to notice that if the term is “dog food” then there are a lot of people who sell “dog food” because it is the generic term for “dog food”. So, it cannot function as a mark for dog food because it fails to perform the function of being able to distinguish the goods in that market.

But, if you do a Google search for “Purina” what do you see? You see a strong association of that term with animal foods all produced by the same company.

So not only does Google answer the question of “is someone selling something called X?” it also tells you how strong a mark it might be.

But please, humor an old man and tell me, using Google, for what goods is “Bobor” a trademark.

 

[jberryhill]

In fact, you can even use Google as evidence of a trademark.

This case was published today:
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2052293.htm

Complainant is Coderbag LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA. …

The domain names at issue are <quickcpu.net> and <quickcpu.org>, registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and Porkbun LLC.

————-

Now, my client in that case does not have a registered trademark. They have, however, had millions of installs of their software since 2019, a lot of online reviews, YouTube videos etc..

So, one way of demonstrating a trademark is:
—————

Here, Complainant asserts that Google search engine results indicate the distinctiveness of the mark as the first 50 results refer to Complainant’s QUICKCPU mark and company when a search is entered. Complainant also indicates YouTube reviews of its products by hundreds of thousands viewers and subscribers since 2019.
——-

Now the words “quick” and “cpu” would be descriptive as applied to fast central processing units. But it is not descriptive of software (which the respondent was pirating).

But while you won’t find a registered trademark for it (there is an application pending), you will find a strong association between that term and the complainants software just by using Google.

So, whether it makes sense to you or not, and I’m happy to go through with examples if you are willing to pursue this, you can even use Google search results as evidence of an unregistered trademark.

And, one of the reasons I get a little cranky is that I guarantee you the OP is most likely about a recently-filed and pending application, not a registered mark. Maybe we’ll hear more details, maybe not.

But please tell me what you find out about “Bobor” using Google.

 

[meanieme]

From this, I assume that you are looking at the USPTO database and making conclusions based on data records in that database, instead of using Google to figure out whether someone is using something as a trademark.

Long story short - the USPTO does not grant "trademarks". If you have a trademark you might, or might not, decide you want to register that trademark with the USPTO to obtain a registration.

But "having a trademark" and "having a registration at the USPTO" are not the same thing.

Can you explain the difference? I was told to search TESS at USPTO to determine if there is a trademark registered. Therefore, I thought USPTO grants Trademarks. Then who grants Trademarks and what's the difference if one is registered or not through USPTO? In other words, how does one "have a trademark" that is not registered?

And if it's simply searching Google for prior use of the term, there are others even before this person that have used the term.

The person claims to have a TM but hasn't filed yet through USPTO. How do I find out when the person obtained this TM?

Regarding domain rights, if the person filed the TM before I purchased the domain name aftermarket, but the domain name had been registered long before the person filed the TM, does that make a difference whether UDRP can be used to repossess my domain name?

 

[jberryhill]

Can you explain the difference? I was told to search TESS at USPTO to determine if there is a trademark registered. Therefore, I thought USPTO grants Trademarks. Then who grants Trademarks and what's the difference if one is registered or not through USPTO? In other words, how does one "have a trademark" that is not registered?

Sure. In order to "have a trademark" in the US, what you need to do is to (a) sell goods or services with (b) a mark that distinguishes your goods and services from those of others in the relevant market.

That's it. It is the actual selling of stuff with your mark on it that establishes your trademark rights. If you go out and sell shoes with "Meanime" marked on them such that it is visible to purchasers of your shoes, and is distinct from other shoe brands such that buyers, when they see them, think "Oh, these are Meanieme shoes, instead of Prada shoes" then you have a trademark. That is how you "get trademark rights" in the United States.

If you look at the UDRP decision I linked above, you'll notice there is no trademark registration to be found.

What you *might* then think about doing, in order to strengthen your ability to enforce your mark, give it presumptive national validity and effect, and have automatic proof of ownership of your mark, is to go *register* your mark with the USPTO. But you do not "get" a trademark from them. What you get is a registration of the mark you already have. Now, yes, you can file for registration on an "intent to use" basis before you start using the mark, but your mark will not register until you actually file proof of use of the mark in commerce - because that's how you obtain actual trademark rights.

Not all marks are registered. Not all registrations are marks. The initial term of a trademark registration is six years. If someone registers a trademark, and then goes out of business two years later, that trademark registration is going to be there for another four years. However, because use of the mark was abandoned, that trademark registration is no longer valid. In order to find out if someone is USING a mark, then if you see a registered mark in the TESS database, you can do a couple of things. One thing you can do is click on TSDR, scan down the documents tab, and take a look at their specimen of use. A lot of times, that specimen is going to be a webpage, so it's a good idea to see if that webpage is still working. Another thing you can do is to USE GOOGLE to find out if those people are using that mark, since the registration will give you some narrowing terms to find them in particular.

But, can you answer a simple question?

Since your initial post says "someone else just trademarked "xxxxx" is there a "Registration Date" on the record you are looking at? Not the filing date, or the published for opposition date, but the registration date?

 

[jberryhill]

Regarding domain rights, if the person filed the TM before I purchased the domain name aftermarket, but the domain name had been registered long before the person filed the TM, does that make a difference whether UDRP can be used to repossess my domain name?

For $300, anyone can file anything they want with the USPTO. If you have $300 and you can scribble GOOGLE on a piece of paper, and write your name and address, then you can file a trademark application with the USPTO. You're never going to get a registration for that mark, but you'll have a "LIVE" record in TESS for quite a while.

After you do that, then that application is going to sit there, and be visible in TESS, for the better part of year before anything happens:

https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks/application-timeline.html

So, this is why I'm relatively confident you probably aren't even looking at a registered mark. Why? Because that is the overwhelming pattern of "I found something in TESS" questions. Plus, your question suggests it was a recently filed application. If it wasn't filed way before last October, it's not anywhere near registration yet.

Your application for "GOOGLE" will be "LIVE" in the TESS database for 10 months before it receives any action. It will likely be initially refused. After that, it will stay "LIVE" for another 3 to 6 months (depending on how much you want to pay) while you come up with a response to that refusal. Then, it will sit there for another couple of months before the USPTO gets around to issuing a final refusal, and then it will be another couple of months before the application is deemed abandoned if you don't respond.

So any piece of BS nonsense filed with the USPTO will be a "LIVE" record in TESS for more than a year.

Plus, if you filed on an "intent to use" basis, your application can go all the way through examination (let's say in one year) and THEN you have six month to submit proof of use. You can EXTEND that deadline in six month increments for up to TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

What this means is that you will see "LIVE" records of things in TESS that are not trademarks, and will never BE trademarks.

And, from experience, that covers about 99% of every Namepros "I found something in TESS" questions.

Just because some idiot had $300 and could fill out a form, does not mean he has a trademark.

So, let's break this down:

Regarding domain rights, if the person filed the TM...

People file crap with the USPTO every day. Filing an application means nothing in terms of whether someone has a trademark. Filing an application doesn't even mean that they'll eventually get a registration.

Another date in the record you might find interesting is the "date of first use". If the application is a pending intent-to-use application, of course (as indicated by the Filing Basis 1(b) notation), there won't be a date of first use. But if one is coming from the perspective of "everything LIVE in TESS is a trademark" then whether it is an intent-to-use (1(b)) or use-based (1(a)) application isn't going to make much of a dent in that erroneous perception.

but the domain name had been registered long before the person filed the TM

To someone else? Doesn't matter.

What the UDRP is driving at is a very simple question - "Did this person register this domain name because it is someone else's trademark, or for some other reason?"

What we are going to look at to answer that question is what were the relevant facts when the current registrant obtained the domain name.

Now, sure, it's going to be pretty important whether the trademark existed before the current registration obtained the domain name, but your question is posed in terms of when someone filed an application. Filing an application doesn't mean they had a trademark at that time.

But we are still at the "are you looking at a registered mark or a pending application?" stage of getting anywhere near an answer to the question you are concerned about.

Once we get past that, then we'll be interested in what type of application it is (1(b), 1(a) or Section 44) or, if a registered mark, whether it is a normal Principal registration, a Supplemental registration, a 2(f) registration, or a figurative registration with a disclaimer - all of which can have different implications concerning what dates and facts might be important. There's a lot of data in TESS. It all means something.

But, short of taking a crash course in "all the data fields in TESS and what they mean", the underlying question you are trying to answer is "Is someone selling stuff under this mark and, if so, when did they start doing that?" It's a LOT easier to use Google to answer that question than to learn all the wild and woolly things you might find in TESS.

 

[Mize]

Store selling beavers. Goods or service....your choice.

 

[Peter45]

using Google to figure out whether someone is using something as a trademark.

you can even use Google as evidence of a trademark.

Thank you JB

How one can use Google in order to figure out whether someone is using X as a TM.
How one can use Google as evidence of a TM.

I knew the answer to the second question.


About the first one:

the entire POINT of a trademark is that it is a symbol used to identify your products in the marketplace for those products. So the question of “Is someone using X as a brand of product or service that they advertise and sell” is going to be fairly simply answered by doing a Google search for X and finding out whether someone is selling something called X.

Now, sure, you have to be able to notice that if the term is “dog food” then there are a lot of people who sell “dog food” because it is the generic term for “dog food”. So, it cannot function as a mark for dog food because it fails to perform the function of being able to distinguish the goods in that market.

So if Peter sells apples from his garden calling them x, x is being used as a TM, provided that x can distinguish Peter's apples from those of other gardeners.
Ok.

I had misunderstood you, thinking of How one can use Google in order to figure out whether someone is using X as a TM, as opposed to: How one can use Google in order to figure out whether someone is using X not as a TM.

 

[jberryhill]

Store selling beavers. Goods or service....your choice.

An interesting thing about using Google to find the primary relevance(s) of a term is that the text results tend to follow your language preferences, but image results don't. So, for "Bobor" which I just came up with as a CVCVC pattern of letters, the image results are consistently the small semi-aquatic mammal and, secondarily, a stew of some kind:

But, since I'm not getting any takers, the text results (which will vary depending on where you are) look like:

So, you have an example of someone named "Bobor", a reference to Slovak beavers, and two search results, right off the bat of the "Bobor Trampoline Sprinkler".

Actually, the first result I get is:

And if you click on that, you will find a collection of recreational products branded "Bobor". So, maybe each time I've gone through this rant, I may have been assuming too much, so I'm glad that @Peter45 asked the question.

Obviously "Bobor" comes up a bunch of times in (US-based) Google search results as a reference to trampoline sprinklers and other recreational products. The word "Bobor" is not descriptive or generic to trampoline sprinklers so, right there, you have evidence that someone is using Bobor as a mark for trampolines.

This also provides you with important information about targeting the sales pitch or advertising subjects for the domain name. Obviously, you want to pitch the name as a surname of interest to anyone named "Bobor", anyone interested in Eastern European mammals (parks, rivers, nature subjects), and it might be a good idea to find out what is up with the stew that turns up in the image search results. You will want to avoid association with trampoline sprinklers.

At that point it might THEN be interesting to take a look at trademark databases such as the TMDN.org TMCH database or the USPTO if you want to limit your focus to the US. I would strongly suggest you avoid secondary databases like Trademarkia, Justia, or some others that are horrific for several reasons not worth going into.

And... waddya know...

Unsurprisingly, this is one of those Chinese "Amazon brands" which are trademark registrations obtained primarily to qualify for the Amazon Brand Registry. To make a long story short, Amazon incentivizes sellers to obtain registered marks for preferred search placement and other benefits. To make it easy, sellers come up with the most ridiculous sequences of letters (a) so that they won't conflict with other marks and (b) because of a phenomenon known as "trademark exhaustion" - basically "all the good ones are taken".

But this also tells us that he claims, at least, to have begun use of the mark in August 30, 2019 for the roster of goods listed in the description.

Drilling down further, I would encourage people looking at TESS results to become familiar with this button:

It's not there for decoration. It enables you to access a LOT more information about the registrant, whether any problems came up during prosecution of the application, and where they might be using the mark. Now, in this example, we started with Google and then went to the USPTO, but you can also run the process the other way (but you will miss a lot of unregistered marks). Clicking on that, go to this tab:

The entire process of negotiation required to obtain the registration is detailed in the docket for that registration. Of particular interest are the specimens:

....because they show you (a) how the mark is used and (b) when was the most recent time the registrant produced a specimen. Having a look at that, then as you would have expected by using Google first, the specimen is:

...a screenshot of one of the products offered on Amazon.

Significantly, as is the case for most of these sorts of "Amazon Brand Registry" motivated trademark registrations, the specimen is not a screenshot of their own website at their own domain name, as you will frequently find in other trademark registration files.

Why?

Because this trademark registrant doesn't really give a shit about domain names. What they cared about, and why they got the registration, was to get into the Amazon Brand Registry. They will certainly use the automated enforcement tools within the Amazon (or AliBaba, etc.) ecosystem to stop people from impersonating them with independently-sourced identical merchandise that comes out of the same factory in Shenzhen, but the likelihood of them caring about a domain name focused on surnames, Asia-Pacific recipes (the stew is Indonesian) or Eastern European wildlife is approximately nil.

So there are at least three general "sales pitch" items or PPC targeting areas of interest: Geneological subjects (for the surname); Nature and Animals (for the beavers); and Recipes (for the Indonesian stew).

Even if you do not have targeted PPC or a custom sales pitch on the page, then that is something that you would want to emphasize in your responses to sales inquiries for the domain name.

Instead of "I think this name is worth $10k", you should point out why you believe it is worth that much:

"I think this name is worth $10k, because it can be used by someone named "Bobor", which is a surname. It can also be used for subjects relating to nature and animals, since it is an Eastern European word for "beaver". Finally, it could also be of interests to foodies, because it is the name of an Asia-Pacific recipe."

Now, remember what I said about the UDRP... it is about "Why did this person register the name and think it is valuable?"

Let's say you got an inquiry and sent that email in response to the toy guy who was using a broker to inquire to purchase the name. Typically, the UDRP complaint will say, "This is our mark, and the domain registrant is trying to sell us the domain name for $10k because it is our valuable mark."

How credible is that argument going to look, when their evidence is the email you sent (above in bold) when the broker asked you about the domain name?

 

[jberryhill]

In any event @meanieme , how are we coming with whether there is a "Registration Date" noted in whatever you are looking at?

 

[Peter45]

I happen to be a close friend of "rando" and I can unequivocally state that neither he nor I appreciate you representing him in such a haphazard manner

I understood JB using randos as slang for random users, hence my formulation, as I consider myself one of them.

Please, please don't tell me I misunderstood the old man on this one too

 

[meanieme]

Sure. In order to "have a trademark" in the US, what you need to do is to (a) sell goods or services with (b) a mark that distinguishes your goods and services from those of others in the relevant market.

That's it. It is the actual selling of stuff with your mark on it that establishes your trademark rights. If you go out and sell shoes with "Meanime" marked on them such that it is visible to purchasers of your shoes, and is distinct from other shoe brands such that buyers, when they see them, think "Oh, these are Meanieme shoes, instead of Prada shoes" then you have a trademark. That is how you "get trademark rights" in the United States.

Since your initial post says "someone else just trademarked "xxxxx" is there a "Registration Date" on the record you are looking at? Not the filing date, or the published for opposition date, but the registration date?

Ok using your terminology and lets say the word is "xyz", here's what is going on:

1) Person A registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now listed as DEAD in TESS.
2) Person B also registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now also listed as DEAD in TESS.
3) Person C has NOT registered the word "xyz" with USPTO and has indicated they may file a registration but has not yet, however Person C has a "TM" next to the word "xyz" on their website.
4) I own the domain "xyz".com

Based on what you said, anyone that sells goods/services using the word "xyz" can self proclaim a TM and by defacto own the trademark for "xyz"? But who is the enforcing body if it's not registered (or required to be registered) with USPTO? What prevents someone else coming along and selling different type of goods/services using the same word "xyz" and proclaiming they have trademark rights and put a TM as well?

The part I'm hung on is how can anyone self proclaim a TM on a word if it's not registered somewhere or enforced by some authority?

 

[Peter45]

Based on what you said, anyone that sells goods/services using the word "xyz" can self proclaim a TM and by defacto own the trademark for "xyz"? But who is the enforcing body if it's not registered (or required to be registered) with USPTO? What prevents someone else coming along and selling different type of goods/services using the same word "xyz" and proclaiming they have trademark rights and put a TM as well?

Hi meanieme,
what role the registration of a TM plays in legal proceedings, this question I'm not going to touch.

Just pointing to an aspect of this issue, which could partly clear up your confusion.
It’s 2 questions:

How one can use Google in order to figure out whether someone is using X as a TM.
How one can use Google as evidence of a TM.

The fact that one is using X as a TM doesn’t imply that X is an enforceable TM.

Peter sells apples from his garden to his relatives calling them - the apples, not the relatives - X.
That means that X is being used as a TM - provided that X can distinguish Peter's apples from those of other gardeners -.
This doesn’t mean that Peter can enforce the X TM through URDP or court.

Peter being able to enforce X as a TM is not just a question of Peter’s intention.
In order to be able to do that, Peter needs to establish X as a TM within the apples market.

Now, my client in that case does not have a registered trademark. They have, however, had millions of installs of their software since 2019, a lot of online reviews, YouTube videos etc..

If you go out and sell shoes with "Meanime" marked on them such that it is visible to purchasers of your shoes, and is distinct from other shoe brands such that buyers, when they see them, think "Oh, these are Meanieme shoes, instead of Prada shoes" then you have a trademark.

Panelists and judges deciding about enforcing X don’t look just at whether Peter is using X as a TM, they look also at whether X has reached enough recognition within that market as a symbol for Peter’s apples.


rando's opinion

 

[Peter45]

Now you say, Ok, understood, but what if X is Peter's established but unregistered TM and then come up Paul with his registered X TM on his (Paul's) apples?

I don't know

 

[jberryhill]

1) Person A registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now listed as DEAD in TESS.
2) Person B also registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now also listed as DEAD in TESS.
3) Person C has NOT registered the word "xyz" with USPTO and has indicated they may file a registration but has not yet, however Person C has a "TM" next to the word "xyz" on their website.
4) I own the domain "xyz".com

And?

Trademarks can be registered for all kinds of different things. One thing you might do is to - and I'm going to sound like a broken record - use GOOGLE to figure out whether persons A or B are still in business and using their marks. They may have simply not renewed their registration. Again, using TSDR is a good way to look at their previous specimens of use, to help track them down using GOOGLE. If they were corporations, you might check the state corporate register (as the state will be helpfully identified by the USPTO in all capital letters) to see if the corporation also went belly up.

You seem to be fixated on TESS as a magic oracle that answers all your questions. It doesn't.

In the original post in this thread, you referred to someone having "just trademarked 'xxxxx'" which you later clarified to be what you found in TESS. Now, we don't seem to have anyone with a LIVE record in TESS. Is this some other situation, or have the facts of this one changed?

But we may be making progress here anyway. WHEN did person C start using "xyz" with a TM indication? Was it before you registered your domain name or afterwards? Archive.org might help you out there. Additionally, it is rare for any product or service of significant note not to make a ripple in online reviews or other third party references to it. So, another clue as to the launch of this product or service might be found in those third party references.

And - to be clear - we are interested in figuring out whether you had the domain name before they started using the mark simply as a baseline measure for the simplest sort of UDRP to defeat - i.e. one in which the domain name pre-dates the trademark.

Based on what you said, anyone that sells goods/services using the word "xyz" can self proclaim a TM and by defacto own the trademark for "xyz"? But who is the enforcing body if it's not registered (or required to be registered) with USPTO?

I just gave you an example of a domain dispute opinion in which the panel did just that.

If someone is asserting a common law mark - which is what we are talking about here - then they have to prove that the mark is distinctive of those goods and services, that they've been using it in commerce, etc.. One of the reasons for wanting to register trademarks is that those procedural burdens go away, since a registered mark is presumed distinctive etc., whereas a common law mark has to be proven on the evidence.

What prevents someone else coming along and selling different type of goods/services using the same word "xyz" and proclaiming they have trademark rights and put a TM as well?

Nothing. That happens all the time. Once more for the choir:

Here is a DELTA faucet:

Here is a DELTA airline plane:

Here is a DELTA power tool:

Yes, different people use the same words as trademarks for different goods and services all of the time.

That's why, if you ever get around to answering my repeated question about whether the mark in your OP is actually registered or merely a pending application, we can move on to "what kind of mark are we talking about?"

A mark like "DELTA" is what's called an "arbitrary" mark. It is a common word that is arbitrarily used as a mark for things that has nothing to do with its dictionary meaning (as a body of land formed by silt deposits at the mouth of a river). It is also a letter of the Greek alphabet, commonly used to designate differences between specific values of a variable in mathematics. Because it has several generic uses and connotations apart from being a mark for faucets, airlines, and power tools, then as a domain name on the secondary market, it is defensible provided that it is clearly being sold on the basis of its generic uses and meanings. Trying to sell it to the airline is not a good idea.

So, "what kind of a mark are we dealing with" or "does the alleged mark actually function as a trademark" are more interesting questions, after we get the chronology sorted. But given that we have been stalled out on the same question several days into this thread, I don't hold a lot of optimism that we'll get there.

The part I'm hung on is how can anyone self proclaim a TM on a word if it's not registered somewhere or enforced by some authority?

I don't know what you mean. If you are hung up on how the law has operated for hundreds of years, ever since Bass Ale started putting red triangles on their products in the 1700's, I don't know if I can help you. This all got started because the guys who used to offload river barges were largely illiterate, so in order to tell them which goods were supposed to go to which warehouses, the manufacturers upstream would put distinctive "marks" - symbols of some kind - on the crates. That's how this started.

Who enforces common law marks? Courts and UDRP panels. The USPTO doesn't run around chasing after infringers either.

But, again, while registered marks are presumed valid (which can be shown otherwise by clear and convincing evidence), there is no presumption of validity for common law marks, so the burden is on the claimant of a common law mark to prove that his mark is distinctive and acts as an indicator of source or origin to relevant consumers.

It's the first thing the Wikipedia entry on US trademark law says under "Acquiring trademark rights"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law#Acquiring_trademark_rights

So, this is not something I'm making up here.

 

[meanieme]

In the original post in this thread, you referred to someone having "just trademarked 'xxxxx'" which you later clarified to be what you found in TESS. Now, we don't seem to have anyone with a LIVE record in TESS. Is this some other situation, or have the facts of this one changed?

But we may be making progress here anyway. WHEN did person C start using "xyz" with a TM indication? Was it before you registered your domain name or afterwards? Archive.org might help you out there. Additionally, it is rare for any product or service of significant note not to make a ripple in online reviews or other third party references to it. So, another clue as to the launch of this product or service might be found in those third party references.

And - to be clear - we are interested in figuring out whether you had the domain name before they started using the mark simply as a baseline measure for the simplest sort of UDRP to defeat - i.e. one in which the domain name pre-dates the trademark.

Thanks for your expertise as I really appreciate it. I'm never doubting you and I'm not trying to avoid answering your questions, I'm just trying to figure out how best to respond:

Going back to my scenario to answer your questions:
1) Person A registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now listed as DEAD in TESS.
2) Person B also registered the word "xyz" with USPTO, it's now also listed as DEAD in TESS.
3) Person C has NOT registered the word "xyz" with USPTO and has indicated they may file a registration but has not yet, however Person C has a "TM" next to the word "xyz" on their website.
4) I own the domain "xyz".com

When I initially said someone just trademarked 'xxxxxxx', I was referring to Person C thinking that them having TM next to the word on their website meant they had trademarked and registered it via USPTO. Then I checked USPTO and realized they had not registered via USPTO, and that it was two different people Person A and B that previously registered it instead. That's when you educated me that anyone can use TM without registering through USPTO.

Fast forward to now, Person C is using the TM on a word, that will be a product/service they sell, but has not launched it yet. It seems they have been using the TM word on their website since 2020. I purchased the domain name aftermarket in 2021. However, the domain name was initially created and registered back in 2011.

 

[jberryhill]

3) Person C has NOT registered the word "xyz" with USPTO and has indicated they may file a registration but has not yet, however Person C has a "TM" next to the word "xyz" on their website.

Ah, so I gather you've been in communication with this person.
In the context of "what kinds of evidence are going to be important in a dispute proceeding" the communications between the parties are going to be pretty important.

This brings up another thing worth mentioning. I get contacted by lots of folks who present a set of selected facts and want an opinion. It can be a little frustrating on both sides when someone contacts me, or any lawyer, and is not prepared to answer a lot of questions designed to flesh out the entire factual landscape, or the really relevant facts. It's weird because every time I go to the doctor, she asks me to stick my tongue out and look in my mouth. So, I stick my tongue out and she looks in my mouth. I don't say, "Do you really need to look there?" or "Why do you want to do that?"

I understand the impulse to want to reduce domain disputes to some sort of set of algebraic formulas of "if y=2020 and z=2021, then what result?" but if there's been communication between the parties, then I'd want to know a whole lot more about that communication than a list of chronological events, because those communications are likely to provide a better understanding of the basic question that every domain dispute proceeding hinges on - "Why did this person register this domain name?"

How you came into contact with this person is pretty important. Did you approach them? Did they approach you? Did they start off by saying they had a TM claim? What did you say about that? And so on...

The content of those communications is tough to evaluate without the actual communications in question, and without knowing what sort of word/phrase/whatever we are dealing with, how it works (or not) as a TM for the proposed goods/services and so on. So many times, I have someone contact me to say "They approached me with a purchase offer of $500" when the reality is that they demanded transfer and made a settlement offer of $500.

The bottom line is that if you've been communicating with each other, then the specific content of those communications, along with what sort of name are we talking about here, are probably much more important in evaluating your position than the dates are.

The really simple answer to your initial question about dates is this:

Most of the time, if the current registrant obtained the domain name prior to the acquisition of trademark rights, then the trademark claimant will lose a UDRP.

The problem with that simple answer is that the overwhelming majority of domainers do not understand that "the acquisition of trademark rights" may not be apparent from "dates listed in a trademark database record". The USPTO gives you a bunch of dates to look at, like the filing date, registration date, date of alleged first use, date of foreign priority application (if any), and I've seen people believe all kinds of things about those dates. They can provide important clues for further research, but when and whether someone has a trademark depends on a broader reality than a bunch of data points in a trademark filing record.

But, okay, we've clarified the question, and raised a few more. If you were paying for advice, I'd be curious about the "been using the TM word on their website since 2020". For example, "were you likely to know about that when you registered the domain name?" would be an important question. That's in contrast to "did you know about it" because it's more important to establish the plausibility of whether you would, could, or should have known about it, than to simply take your word for it.

The "simple answer" in bold above suggests that if he was merely expressing some aspirational plan to someday sell goods/services under the mark, but has not done so for three years yet, then he has not established trade or service mark rights and will not win a dispute. But, if this is a Kickstarter sort of thing where the product has been in development or a situation where regulatory approval is needed, that may change the dynamics.

Again, this is where domainers believe a lot of nonsense, such as whenever a company announces a planned launch like "Meta" or their occasional cryptocurrency musings such as "Libra", people on this site rush out, register a bunch of nonsense domain names, and post threads about how smart they are because "I don't see any trademark filings."

That's where the words "Most of the time" in the bolded part above become important. The WIPO Overview of frequent UDRP issues - the FAQ of the UDRP - puts it this way:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item38

3.8 Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?

3.8.1 Domain names registered before a complainant accrues trademark rights

Subject to scenarios described in 3.8.2 below, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.

Okay, brilliant right? We could have saved a lot of time with that. But, you first have to understand how one "accrues trademark rights", and notice the carve-out for "normally," indicating exceptions:

3.8.2 Domain names registered in anticipation of trademark rights

As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.

Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent’s insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant’s filing of a trademark application.

The use of the word "include" suggest that the listed items are examples of situations where a UDRP panel will find bad faith on a general principle of "the domain registrant knew the complainant intended to proceed with a mark". So, since you seem to know what the prospective claimant's plans are, and have had some communications with him, then if this was an actual consultation in which I wasn't just burning my own time to maybe provide some helpful general information, the nature of your contact and communications with this person sound a lot more interesting than the dates.

Here's an example of that principle playing out in an actual dispute in which I represented the complainant, and in which the respondent is himself a lawyer, so he put up some really good arguments about how, yep, he registered the domain name prior to any registered trade or service mark rights:

https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1927311.htm

Complainant is Photomath Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is c/o Administrator (“Respondent”), represented by Farage Yusupov, New York, USA.

...

The domain name at issue is <photomath.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

...

With respect to registration in bad faith, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was initially registered on April 18, 2006. However, the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on October 30, 2014, which becomes the relevant date for this analysis. [...]

Accepting October 30, 2014 as the proper disputed domain name registration date, Respondent argues that it could not be found to have registered the name in bad faith because: Complainant obtained its USPTO PHOTOMATH mark registration after that date, namely on October 13, 2015; and Complainant had not used the mark long enough before said former date to have acquired common law trademark rights in the mark. The Panel agrees with Respondent that in similar circumstances a prohibition against a bad faith registration finding is generally applied by Policy panels. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1.
------

Boom! Look at that. He had the domain name prior to any registered trademark rights, and at a very early point in actual use of the mark. He wins, right? Well...

----
However, the Panel notes that there are exceptions to that general rule.

[the WIPO Overview Section 3.8.1]

Applying subparagraph (iii) above, the Panel notes the significant media attention that Complainant’s product connected with its service mark generated immediately prior to Respondent’s October 30, 2014 acquisition of the disputed domain name, including: at the TechCrunch Disrupt Europe, 2014 competition in London (i.e., Oct. 20, 2014); on CNN (i.e., Oct. 22, 2014); and on the Ellen DeGeneres television program (i.e., Oct. 28, 2014). Moreover, per subparagraph (iv) above, Complainant filed its application for its USPTO trademark on October 27, 2014, a few days before the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name.

[...]

Given these circumstances, the Panel is inclined to believe that Respondent, who boasts of being quite internet savvy, was undoubtedly aware of the growing notoriety of Complainant's application and likely registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, just as Complainant geared up to exploit its publicized launch of a new product.
--------------

So, sure, the dates are important, but they aren't always everything.

But if anyone is still reading this thread, think about that every time one of those "BigCorp just announced they will be calling their new service 'HooHah', so what HooHah domains did you register right after that?" Because, every time like clockwork, someone will say, "That will be a TM problem" and someone else will say, "But I looked in TESS and they haven't filed anything."

Backing up, since I really don't have any more time for this... please tattoo this on a sensitive part of your body for future reference:

1. If you register a domain name because you believe it has some sort of objective potential for value, such as in my "BOBOR" example above, then your belief in that objective potential for value should be evident in the way that you use the domain name (such as by appropriately targeted advertising) or the way you market the domain name (what sorts of value propositions do you emphasize in your sales pitch). Your objective behavior and communications should be consistent with the reasons why the domain name has an objective potential for value.

For example, if you do outbound marketing for that Bobor.tld name, you should be able to show that you contacted lots of people named "Bobor", lots of people in Eastern Europe with interests in wildlife, and lots of people with interests in Asian food. Your "outbound marketing" should not consist of a dozen emails a year to the trademark registrant.

2. If some barefoot pilgrim shows up looking to buy your domain name, then your reply should be more than a price quote. You should have a sales pitch for that name which emphasizes the various reasons why you believe the name has value. That way, there is no question about what your motivations are, and it is difficult for someone with an undisclosed trademark claim to attempt to use those communications as evidence that you were trying to rip them off based on their trademark claim.

3. There will be situations in which a trademark claim comes as a surprise to you and, even if your intentions were as pure as the fresh snow, you will lose a dispute. Swallow your pride and be prepared to deal with some losses in your herd, spoilage of your crops, etc.. Losses and risk are a normal part of any business.

This point can't be emphasized enough. Just so you don't get an inaccurate impression from the disputes cited above, I defend a lot of UDRP disputes and I win most of the time. That doesn't mean I'm good at winning UDRP's. It means I am pretty accurate in advising clients when to fight or not. As some here know, I defended somewhere around 50 UDRP's for Frank Schilling's Name Administration alone, with only two losses that went to further litigation:

Domain	Case	Date	Decision
carehealthinsurance.com	WIPO D2019-2073	2019-11-29	Complaint denied with concurring opinion
oceanbreeze.com	NAF 1787481	2018-07-09	Claim Denied
cassandra.com	WIPO D2018-0518	2018-06-06	Complaint denied
coolfit.com	NAF 1770024	2018-03-26	Transferred
gabs.com	CAC 101331	2017-02-26	Rejected
bernette.com	WIPO D2016-1811	2016-11-07	Complaint denied
billybobs.com	WIPO D2016-1221	2016-08-09	Complaint denied
dky.com	WIPO D2015-1757	2015-12-15	Complaint denied
torneo.com	WIPO D2015-1234	2015-10-23	Complaint denied
dbat.com	NAF 1598023	2015-02-19	Claim Denied
tablefortwo.com	WIPO D2014-1586	2014-11-27	Complaint denied
parisjewellers.com	NAF 1573085	2014-09-12	Claim Denied
puket.com	WIPO D2014-1057	2014-09-05	Complaint denied
clearcare.com	NAF 1548210	2014-04-24	Claim Denied
vuescan.com	NAF 1526981	2013-12-23	Claim Denied
jetgo.com	WIPO D2013-1339	2013-09-17	Complaint denied
klipz.com	NAF 1503000	2013-07-17	Claim Denied
spielwarenmesse.com	WIPO D2013-0744	2013-07-11	Complaint denied
walkthewalk.com	WIPO D2013-0731	2013-06-21	Complaint denied
digilove.com	WIPO D2013-0583	2013-06-04	Complaint denied
coldfront.com	NAF 1474325	2013-01-17	Claim Denied
lsda.com	NAF 1461862	2012-10-23	Claim Denied
metatrader.com	WIPO D2012-1475	2012-10-05	Complaint denied
dataserv.com	WIPO D2012-1538	2012-09-27	Complaint denied
ecase.com	NAF 1413667	2011-12-01	Claim Denied
premiercard.net	WIPO D2010-1531	2010-12-14	Complaint denied
dealbook.com	NAF 1349045	2010-11-17	Claim Denied
sleepsack.com	NAF 1344653	2010-11-03	Claim Denied
bioshock.com	WIPO D2010-0845	2010-08-06	Complaint denied
homeawayfromhome.com	NAF 1283498	2009-10-28	Claim Denied
joystick.com	WIPO D2008-1422	2008-12-08	Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
chillibeans.com	WIPO D2008-1216	2008-11-10	Transfer
jumppro.com	NAF 1220825	2008-10-07	Claim Denied
foodemporium.com	NAF 1204907	2008-08-26	Claim Denied
xoft.com	NAF 1154179	2008-04-25	Claim Denied
timpano.com	NAF 1126047	2008-02-28	Claim Denied
satam.com	WIPO D2007-1530	2008-01-18	Complaint denied
nushu.com	WIPO D2007-1293	2007-11-14	Complaint denied
procpr.com	WIPO D2007-0823	2007-08-13	Complaint denied
geopack.com	WIPO D2006-1590	2007-03-15	Complaint denied
superfuzz.com	WIPO D2006-1546	2007-03-09	Complaint denied
imotions.com	NAF 824170	2006-12-19	Claim Denied
promatic.com	WIPO D2006-0673	2006-07-19	Complaint denied
cheaphotels.net	NAF 699525	2006-07-10	Claim Denied
mangafilms.com	WIPO D2005-0730	2005-09-29	Complaint denied
oilchanger.com	WIPO D2005-0530	2005-07-28	Complaint denied
meterman.com	NAF 430650	2005-04-26	Claim Denied
sjpl.com	NAF 425410	2005-04-18	Claim Denied
nogreaterjoy.com	NAF 326235	2004-11-08	Claim Denied
smartgauge.com	NAF 281591	2004-07-21	Claim Denied
snowboardsforsale.com	WIPO D2002-1167	2003-02-19	Complaint denied

What you don't see in that chart is the far greater number of names which, over the course of 20 years, we decided weren't worth defending or would not have a high probability of a successful defense. In a portfolio of some 200k+ names, that probably came to several names per month that were given up as just not worth it.

But, dang, 2003... can you believe there's anyone that doesn't have the domain name they want by now?

I recently had someone contact me about an offer they got on a name from a TM claimant. Looking at their situation, I told them that they weren't in a strong position, they would lose a UDRP, and I'd suggest they take what was offered. Instead, they tried to shoot for a higher value and the other side filed a UDRP. This person came back to me with the news and then started practically demanding that I represent him in the UDRP - which would only mean that in addition to losing the name, he'd have to pay me too. So...

4. Sometimes the best advice is something that you don't want to hear.
One thing that puzzles me about questions and answers on Namepros is the sequence of someone asks a question with incomplete facts, or a question that misses what they should really be concerned about. Several answers will be provided by users, and the person asking the question picks, I guess, the one they like as the answer on which they will rely. Usually it's the one that is most favorable to them. There have been threads here where I'll point out that someone is not in a good position, and people will criticize me as "not being helpful". Well, the universe is not a "helpful" place. It's a lot of empty space punctuated by hostile environments. Like us, it eventually will die.

However, the domain name was initially created and registered back in 2011.

In a UDRP dispute, that doesn't matter. What matters is when YOU acquired the name.

I hope this thread has provided any die-hards who stuck it out with a couple of things to think about in your domaining journey and that, if you have a legal question or problem of some kind that might hinge on the specific facts, you might want to get in touch with any of the several really good attorneys that regularly do these things. I believe there is a sticky thread with some old and new information on that topic.

Quite a few attorneys will take a look at these kinds of things for free, cheap or "what you think its worth". But, if you do contact an attorney, please do a few things:

A. Identify yourself. I hate getting emails from people starting with "Hi John!", outlining some facts, and not even providing a name, location, phone number or anything. If you're going to call me "John" then I want to know who you are, along with the fact that I need to know who is involved in the situation to first assess potential conflicts.

B. Don't say "I appreciate your time." Yeah, I appreciate my time too. If your situation is complex, for reasons you might not initially appreciate, I'll let you know that. If your situation is simple, and capable of a relatively quick answer, I would appreciate you showing your appreciation in some tangible form. The idea is generally that you are trying to make money. I like to do that too.

C. Answer the questions. As one might gather from this thread, the facts that you think are important might not be as interesting as the facts I think are important. If you contact a lawyer and that lawyer has questions - answer them. If your doctor says "take off your shirt" you take off your shirt. Same thing.

D. If Steve Lieberman says something different from me, then hire him. That's from actually two or three of my all-time favorite consultations. Someone comes to me for advice. I give them an opinion, and a week later they come back with "But Steve Lieberman says..." Look, folks, I know he charges more, but sometimes lawyers don't all agree and I'm not the Discount Steve Lieberman Legal Outlet. Lol.

That's it. I'm out. Have fun.

 

[meanieme]

Ah, so I gather you've been in communication with this person.
In the context of "what kinds of evidence are going to be important in a dispute proceeding" the communications between the parties are going to be pretty important.

To answer your questions:

1) I have never communicated with this person and do not have plans to reach out to him. I only know of the TM because I landed on his website and see he put the TM mark next to the word. I know that he has not registered with USPTO but that he is thinking about it because he discussed this openly with others in a discussion forum.

2) The only indication I have that he's "been using the TM word on their website since 2020" is through archive.org. Anytime before 2020, he did not have a website.

3) When I purchased the domain name in 2021, I was not aware of his website, and hence I was not aware of the TM mark he put next to the word.

4) I purchased the domain name in 2021. It had been initially created and registered back in 2011. Looking at archive.org, the domain name had always just been a parked page. I don't know what the previous owners intended to do with the domain name/word I purchased.

You're saying it doesn't matters in a UDRP dispute that the domain name I purchased has existied since 2011 well before he TM the word. Fact is, I had no idea about his TM, his website, or his intent to eventually sell goods/services using the word.

 

[jberryhill]

because he discussed this openly with others in a discussion forum.

Ah, that's interesting. Then his public statements likely contain a lot of relevant information to evaluating his claim. He's probably made a lot of other statements in that forum which would be important information to consider in working up a legal opinion.

You're saying it doesn't matters in a UDRP dispute that the domain name I purchased has existied since 2011 well before he TM the word. Fact is, I had no idea about his TM, his website, or his intent to eventually sell goods/services using the word.

The first part is correct. What matters in a UDRP dispute is your state of mind, as might be inferred by objective evidence, when you acquired the domain name. What someone else was doing since 2011 is generally not relevant.

While I certainly don't doubt that you acquired the name for reasons unrelated to whatever this guy is up to, you are the only one who knows what goes on in your head. The way the rest of the world determines intent is by looking at what you might have been aware of based on external evidence.

That, again, brings us to "what sort of a term are we dealing with," which would also be an important consideration in the event someone were seeking an actual legal opinion on a particular circumstance.

In other words, a UDRP panel is going to look at:

a. All the possible reasons why the respondent might have registered the name because it is the complainant's trademark, and

b. All the possible reasons why the respondent might have registered the domain name because of some other rationale,

...and decide which of those is more likely and supported by evidence. So if the domain name is a word, combination of words, surname, catchphrase, three- or four- letter string (and not something like IBM), there are reasons to believe that someone who registers names or is in the habit of registering names like that ("here's a list of similar other names I own") registered the name for reasons consistent with that rationale. If this guy simply had the word on a website somewhere and some kind of aspirational plan of getting around to using it as the name of some kind of goods or services at the time you registered the domain name then it is unlikely he would prevail.

However, if it is a relatively inherently distinctive term, then his junior (to your domain name) trademark registration some day in the future may diminish the resale value of your domain name to anyone else who might not want to buy a distinctive term that is already a registered mark.

That was the dynamic of the more than decade long standoff which ultimately worked out well for this domain registrant:

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/547889.htm

 

[Monster360]

When I purchased a domain name "xxxxx"+.com, there were no active trademarks for that name "xxxxx", there was an abandoned /dead trademark on that name at the time.

Fast forward 2 years later now someone else just trademarked "xxxxx". But since I purchased this domain name well before this new trademark filing, am I protected? Or can this person with the new trademark try to force me to turn over my domain name.

TIA!

Man, you have nothing to worry about actually that's the position we all try to be in, if I were you I would reach out and it would be ignorant of them not to purchase their trademark xxxxx.com just don't let them low ball you

 

[Monster360]

I'm just surprised they haven't tried to reach out to you yet regarding your domain. You are sure it's been trademarked, what's the name? Are you trying to sell it? or do you actively have a site with it?

 

[DomainNature]

Variations on this question have been asked countless times in this forum.



From this, I assume that you are looking at the USPTO database and making conclusions based on data records in that database, instead of using Google to figure out whether someone is using something as a trademark.

Long story short - the USPTO does not grant "trademarks". If you have a trademark you might, or might not, decide you want to register that trademark with the USPTO to obtain a registration.

But "having a trademark" and "having a registration at the USPTO" are not the same thing.



It would help to explain what you mean by that.

Are you saying that someone just started using the term as a mark?

Or are you saying that someone recently filed an application to register a mark?

If you are saying the second thing, then what kind of application is it? Is it a 1(a) use-based application, or is it a 1(b) intent-to-use application? If it is a 1(a), then did you look at the alleged date of first use of the mark, along with the specimen, to figure out what they are doing and how long they might have been doing it? If it is a 1(b), did you try to do some additional searching and figure out whether they might have started using it and when?

Is it registered or merely recently-filed? If it is pending, but not registered, has an Official Action been issued in the case? If so, was it refused on grounds that are difficult to overcome?

What kind of trademark is it? Is it descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary or fanciful? Is it susceptible to use with other goods or services? If it is descriptive, how long have they been using the mark and how well known are they?

In general, no one is going to be able to obtain your domain name in a UDRP proceeding if they did not have trademark rights at the time you registered the domain name, absent some special cases where there is insider knowledge or where there was significant pre-launch publicity of the goods/services.

Unfortunately, your question does not provide enough useful information to get anywhere near an answer that might be appropriate to the relevant circumstances. The way these questions typically go here at Namepros is that the person asking the question incorrectly believes everything in the USPTO database with "LIVE" next to it is a trademark, or the person is using some secondary system like Trademarkia, which doesn't provide a lot of the relevant information from the underlying USPTO record.

In the next stage of this classic question formula, several randos will check in to say that you are fine.

How many rules from the ICANN policy should be proven, until the domain gets ruled to be transferred to complainant, is it 1,2 or all 3 must be proven?
Imean this 3 rules, thank you!
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.