trademark Further adventures in AI-generated domain sales descriptions....

[jberryhill]

Ummmm... say what?

Gee... what could possibly have led AI to believe that the word "frozen" has something to do with storytelling?

 

[Ostrados]

It is interesting to see how AI will be dealt with legally in the future, are there any laws that regulate AI generated content?

In case of a UDRP related to AI, a possible defense could be that it was auto generated content by AI with no intent of cybersquatting from domain owner.

 

[jberryhill]

In case of a UDRP related to AI, a possible defense could be that it was auto generated content by AI with no intent of cybersquatting from domain owner.

No. This is such a common issue with automated PPC ads that it’s in the WIPO FAQ:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item35

3.5 Can third-party generated material “automatically” appearing on the website associated with a domain name form a basis for finding bad faith?​

Particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests).

Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar or auction platform (or their affiliate), nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Continuing to use a platform that facilitates automated advertising (or confusion) with trademarked terms, especially after profiting (E.g. PPC, New Subscribers, PPS, PPL, etc.) could potentially strengthen a claim of infringement.

The person might have better defense if they stopped using said platform after realizing they were indirectly/unintentionally profiting off of or being confused for a known trademark.

In my opinion. Or, it at least sounds logical when I listen to it rattle in my head. lol

 

[lambo.com]

Show attachment 279213

Ummmm... say what?

Show attachment 279214

Gee... what could possibly have led AI to believe that the word "frozen" has something to do with storytelling?


Show attachment 279215

muh big deal.

fear porn peddling. let it go.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

fear porn peddling

Is it?

The excitement of AI shouldn't be prioritized over the risks. Safeguards can be put in place to have the best of both worlds.

---

On a more harmless and comical note:

Where'd AI get the idea for a tail?

(Rhetorical question.)

 

[lambo.com]

Is it?

The excitement of AI shouldn't be prioritized over the risks. Safeguards can be put in place to have the best of both worlds.

---

On a more harmless and comical note:

Show attachment 279843

Where'd AI get the idea for a tail?

(Rhetorical question.)

yes

 

[MilkyWay]

Where'd AI get the idea for a tail?

You don't know what kinks I like.

 

[biggie]

Hi

if AI can generate content without knowing such language may be infringing, then is it really that intelligent?

imo…

 

[jberryhill]

So, this UDRP was filed a little while ago:

The Complainant's trademark:

The AI-generated logo on the Atom page:

The UDRP decision:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2025/d2025-2428.pdf

The disputed domain name has resolved to a webpage at Atom.com, offering the disputed domain name fors ale. The promotional image on the webpage includes the name DOITRIP in a stylized text, including an elongated and tapered letter “O” similar to that utilized by the Complainant.

...

Furthermore, despite the Complainant having exhibited the Atom.com webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale, which includes a stylized version of the name DOITRIP with an elongated and tapered letter “O” similar to that utilized in the Complainant’s figurative trademark, the Respondent offers no explanation for this presentation.

----------

 

[biggie]

Hi

and atom bears no responsibility?

still, wondering how complainant happened upon the webpage and why they weren’t following expiration date of the domain…
if it was in their interest to possess?

imo….

 

[jberryhill]

and atom bears no responsibility?

They certainly didn’t register the name, post it to their site and ask for a logo. And if you sign up for their services, you agree that they are not responsible.

 

[MilkyWay]

They certainly didn’t register the name, post it to their site and ask for a logo. And if you sign up for their services, you agree that they are not responsible.

A platform still bears responsibility for making sure copyright content is not displayed. Youtube and Twitch, both user generated content with terms of service that does not allow copyrighted content, have faced hundreds of lawsuits over the years (and have settled) for copyright claims. This is why all major social media platforms usually have algorithms that detect things like copyrighted music and have auto-take downs. They aren't doing it just to protect the users. They do it to protect themselves too.

Atom should do more imo, especially since I'm fairly certain Premium domains logos are auto-generated as soon as they are approved for Premium. So a domain could have a copyrighted image without the user necessarily selecting the logo.

 

[alop]

You must of had a good domain ...I waited a month for my logo and it was weak apparently

 

[jberryhill]

A platform still bears responsibility for making sure copyright content is not displayed

Copyrights and trademarks are not the same thing.

 

[MilkyWay]

Copyrights and trademarks are not the same thing.

You'd know way more than me so I'll definitely defer to you. So you think they are in the clear and don't have to do anything even if a trademarked logo is auto-generated by their system when a domain is approved for premium? Say we aren't near the computer when that happens and the trademark holder is able to take a screenshot of the mark before we've seen what Atom's AI made? Wouldn't it make sense for Atom to not publish that generated logo until we've approved it? Atom doesn't let us use custom logos for Premium domains btw. They force us to use whatever their system generates.

 

[jberryhill]

So you think they are in the clear and don't have to do anything even if a trademarked logo is auto-generated by their system when a domain is approved for premium?

A simple and consistent truth about domain disputes is that the trademark claimant is after the domain name. So, as a basic efficiency consideration, going after third party service providers on theories of contributory liability is mostly a waste of time. The UDRP allows cheap recovery of a domain name from the registrant, and whether to aplow auto-generated content at the corresponding web page is the responsibility of the registrant.

This sort of problem with auto generated content is not new to AI. Historically, registrars have provided parked pages with auto-generated PPC ads on them. At least two times, GoDaddy was sued for providing allegedly infringing content on parking pages. For example, the folks who run the “Oscar” awards for movies went after GoDaddy for a long roster of domain names with the word “Oscar” in them, and which GoDaddy had parked with advertising alleged to be relevant to the subject of movies.

The 128 page decision in that case is linked here:

https://domainnamewire.com/2015/09/11/godaddy-oscars-lawsuit/

The bottom line is that if you have a trademark and you want a domain name, then you go after the person with the domain name, and not some other party who provides services to that person.

 

[jberryhill]

They force us to use whatever their system generates.

No, they don’t force you to do anything. Nobody forces you to use their service in the first place. But if you use their service, you agree to their terms in which you accept responsibility for any liability resulting from your use of the service.

 

[MilkyWay]

A simple and consistent truth about domain disputes is that the trademark claimant is after the domain name. So, as a basic efficiency consideration, going after third party service providers on theories of contributory liability is mostly a waste of time. The UDRP allows cheap recovery of a domain name from the registrant, and whether to aplow auto-generated content at the corresponding web page is the responsibility of the registrant.

This sort of problem with auto generated content is not new to AI. Historically, registrars have provided parked pages with auto-generated PPC ads on them. At least two times, GoDaddy was sued for providing allegedly infringing content on parking pages. For example, the folks who run the “Oscar” awards for movies went after GoDaddy for a long roster of domain names with the word “Oscar” in them, and which GoDaddy had parked with advertising alleged to be relevant to the subject of movies.

The 128 page decision in that case is linked here:

https://domainnamewire.com/2015/09/11/godaddy-oscars-lawsuit/

The bottom line is that if you have a trademark and you want a domain name, then you go after the person with the domain name, and not some other party who provides services to that person.

I was thinking more in terms of a domain owner going after Atom after they've lost a domain. Obviously your average cheap domain wouldn't warrant that. But what if someone lost a million dollar domain? Would be interesting if they tried to recoup some of that loss by bringing in Atom to a suit, particularly if the trademarked logo was generated before they had a chance to approve or pay to regenerate that logo.

I understand the terms waive liability. But you also sign waivers when you rent a boat. That hasn't stopped someone from suing/settling a claim with rental companies when someone dives off the side of the boat and severely injures themselves. Now I get negligence is probably not common in trademark law, but it also isn't completely crazy when it comes to contributory infringement. Louis Vuitton is notorious for this winning cases against major ISPs, Google and Ebay. In LVMH vs. Ebay in which Ebay had to pay quite a hefty sum: "(LVMH) alleged negligence on the part of eBay for not having taken steps to stop the sale of illegal copies of their trademarked goods on its website."

I'm bouncing around a bit here cause obviously LVMH is a trademark holder going after a platform, while a domain holder would be trying to go after Atom for damages, but I'm just curious where this all heads since AI generation is still relatively new.

 

[jberryhill]

But what if someone lost a million dollar domain?

It’s an interesting question. Typically, domains of that caliber won’t correspond to inherently distinctive terms, but the problem lurks among what are called “arbitrary” marks. Those are marks which are a dictionary word, like Apple, Monster, Tide, Bud, etc. which ARE dictionary words, but are arbitrarily used as marks in connection with goods or services which are unrelated to the dictionary meaning.

So the question could come up with, say, “monster.tld” and a logo that looks like:

The problem is that while AI can figure that a logo of that type is associated with the word “monster”, I don’t know if it could realize why.

So, here’s some bedtime reading:

https://www.atom.com/Terms&Conditions

THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS AND OTHER PROVISIONS THAT LIMIT OUR LIABILITY TO YOU. PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS ACCESSING, REGISTERING TO USE OR USING THE SERVICE CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

——

It also has a mandatory arbitration provision.

I do get your point about “people sue anyway”, and it still costs the service provider to have to show up and argue those provisions. The ongoing litigation with GoDaddy over the calor .com and butane .com domain names has been interesting so far. It’s also sometimes worthwhile for a business to settle claims simply to shut the aggrieved customer up.

With general waivers there can be situations where the event is such that it was not among the risks assumed by the customer. If that rented boat had been subject to a recall for exploding gas tanks, the operator knew about the problem, and decided to rent the boat without the recall repair, maybe that’s beyond what we’d think the customer had agreed to. But you’ll still burn through a pile of cash in litigation before getting to a “yes this suit can go forward” point. Because the first set of dismissal motions are going to be over the terms of use, so you are starting at a disadvantage.