.tv Hypothetical: UDRP against Demand Media for a premium .tv

[Alan Glennon]

If I held a registered trademark for a name like "business", I certainly would file a UDRP complaint for the domain rather than pay an annual premium fee to Demand Media. I was wondering what others think.

 

[freedom30]

If I held a registered trademark for a name like "business", I certainly would file a UDRP complaint for the domain rather than pay an annual premium fee to Demand Media. I was wondering what others think.

Interesting premise, but they actually, and unfortunately, seem to be able to charge whatever price they deem fit. I doubt they can force the registrar to be reasonable in what they charge, UDRP or otherwise.

However, I have seen a lot of trademarked names at reg fee on the .tv extension( pepsi,timex, disney et al) that are taken and normal reg fee, so who knows what goes on there.

 

[GoneWalkabout]

One of the almost impossible to believe non-premiums is VW.tv

That's right, a two-letter .TV that has no premium whatsoever. Anyone who wants to check can do so at Ahead.tv

And the owner of this name...?

Vw.tv - VW - Volkswagen Deutschland


Perhaps you're not the only person to have thought about this problem before!

 

[gr8trfoo]

nonsense. registrars and registries are immune to udrp's and tm actions under the acpa. read the law and the rules.

 

[GoneWalkabout]

nonsense. registrars and registries are immune to udrp's and tm actions under the acpa. read the law and the rules.

Agree - and with your background and experience in domain history who wouldn't agree with someone as highly respected in this business as you? ...

...but that still leaves no feasible reason why VW own VW.tv at a normal renewal rate, while nearly every other two-letter name has a fixed premium of between $10 and $500,000 a year


Can you offer a more plausible reason why this situation has occurred?

 

[Alan Glennon]

With .tv, Verisign is the registrar and Demand Media simply has a marketing alliance with them. In that position, however, Demand Media stands as the registrant for many "premium" domains. I could imagine a UDRP arguing that Demand Media holds no rights or legitimate interests in respect to a trademarked term-related domain.

Interesting premise, but they actually, and unfortunately, seem to be able to charge whatever price they deem fit. I doubt they can force the registrar to be reasonable in what they charge, UDRP or otherwise.

 

[equity78]

There is no registrant for a name that's not registered.
One can look up Business.tv on WHOIS.sc, or the official registry VeriSign WHOIS - Domain Name Lookup from VeriSign, Inc. WHERE DOES IT SHOW A REGISTRANT and use that WHOIS on ANY premium .tv not registered to see where it shows a registrant.

Fin is 100% correct registrars and registries are immune to UDRP and for a tm.

I would say VW.tv slipped through the cracks. Like Pro.tv,Biz.tv,Joy.tv,Lcd.tv and FX.tv.
I would think if VW demanded the name for non premium it would have at least been regged at Verisign. When you look at the WHOIS its not even regged at Verisign or then moving to ENOM with the changeover in 2007.

ICANN Registrar: TLDS, LLC DBA SRSPLUS
Created: 2002-08-13
Expires: 2010-08-13
Updated: 2009-06-15

Verisign to my knowledge has never backed down and gave a premium to a company certainly not NFL.tv, WWE.tv, BBC.tv. All of which had registered TM's long before .TV corp established.

A company like GOL TV with a registered TM regged GOLtv.tv instead of paying $5000 for GOL.tv

 

[GoneWalkabout]

Ray

Thank you for bringing your accumulated knowledge back to the forum. Much appreciated.

 

[Dave_Z]

It can go either way. But...you ain't dealing with an amateur, especially for legal issues.

Not to mention UDRP's no guarantee you'll get what you want. If Demand Media wins and sees you've
got assets worth going after, they just might sue you if they win a UDRP.

Lots of ifs.

 

[*AllThings.tv*]

If I held a registered trademark for a name like "business", I certainly would file a UDRP complaint for the domain rather than pay an annual premium fee to Demand Media. I was wondering what others think.

For those who would like to educate themselves on the topic, this is a good start:
Strength of Trademarks (BitLaw)

The term 'business' would not qualify as a trademark. On the other hand, 'Business2.0', refering to the magazine, would for the reasons explained in the trademark overview I linked to above.

nonsense. registrars and registries are immune to udrp's and tm actions under the acpa. read the law and the rules.

I don't necessarily think the registrar would be immune from a lawsuit brought by a company, seeking to secure/acquire its trademark in an extension managed by that registry. It would be hard for me to believe that a court would permit a registry to charge a premium price or any price over a reasonable price for the domain. For example, a reasonable price would be what the average domain would go for in that extension. In the dot com world, that price might be $10. In the dot tv world, that price might land in the following range $25-40.

It would likely never get to that because the lawyers would likely avoid costly litigation since nobody profits from it and the law would likely be on the side of the company. Of course, anything can happen with our legal system and I could also see the remote possibility of such a lawsuit creating new case law in the area of domains and trademarks, which would be extremely fascinating, giving appellate courts an opportunity to overturn the lower courts. I have read cases where crazier things have happened.

 

[Carlton]

I agree that the UDRP idea would never work. And moreoever, literally impossible to claim any rights to "Business" as a trademark.

On the VW.tv example, I'm guessing that might be a cooperative arrangement with the registry to promote .tv in Germany.