I Bought a TDmarked Domain

[sleepysentry]

Without realizing it was trademarked, I registered fortunecity.info yesterday.

Though it has many possible uses, there is a web hosting company called fortunecity.com that owns the trademark for the name.

I was thinking about selling the name in the forums here, but then realized fortunecity.com might want it and pay me more.

Do you think fortunecity.com would be interested in my name? How would I go about contacting them so I don't get sued for cybersquatting?

In addition, do you think fortunecity.info even falls under the trademark since the trademark is for fortunecity.com? Here is a link to the trademark.

 

[hihikkt]

If TM holder drops the name, Is it still get into trouble ?

 

[DNQuest.com]

Yes

 

[codemerc]

If TM holder drops the name, Is it still get into trouble ?

Yes

I respect and value DNQuest's advice, he is obviously extermely knowledgeable, and I have learned much from his posts.

However, as a newby I find there's a lot to understand, the law is often counter to common logic, not necessarily obvious. People do register domains without realising there may be TM issues. It seems to me that almost any sensible name may have TM issues if used wrongly. Looking through the URDP list many are obviously intentionally infinging, but there are a lot of names that I would have registered without even considering TM issues.

Anyway, in this sort of case if you reg a domain that contains a trademark you surely aren't necessarily in any trouble. It must depend on usage. A TM owner can ask for it, they may or may not get it, but if you haven't used the domain they can hardly claim damages. If you use the domain but in a different sphere than the TM owner, then again they can ask for the domain, and again may or may not get it, but if you haven't been doing anthing to harm the TM holder they surely can't claim damages.

Of course if you offer the domain for sale, particularly if you offer it to the TM holder, then you are opening yourself to problems.

In a previous analogy, if you drop a domain after using it for something you shouldn't, or making an offer to do so, then, like stealing a car, you still have a problem, but if you haven't done anything with it, of offered it for sale then it more like taking a test drive

 

[vslevin]

Anyway, in this sort of case if you reg a domain that contains a trademark you surely aren't necessarily in any trouble. It must depend on usage.

Usage is not the only determining factor. If you register any domain with "Google" or with "Microsoft" in it, those are both distinctive brand names, and under no circumstances would your usage not be infringing, even if you don't use the domain. Both are distinctive brand names.

but if you haven't been doing anthing to harm the TM holder they surely can't claim damages.

They don't need to claim damages. All that they need to show is that you are in violation of their trademark.

 

[madsaki23]

hyperscholastic.com

I got a C&D from Scholastic Inc. for this. There is such a thing as reverse domain hijacking. And they are one of the biggest perps of this crime.....check out chillingeffects. They do this to everyone who chooses a word they think they own. So, since I couldn't fight them, I got: scholasticfreedom.com&org, freescholastic.org and several others and by the way, there are many more scholastics. It is a word I found in the dictionary. Is it possible to own TM rights to that word? I don't think so. Help me fight this and waste a reg fee! Lets flood them. Fight back against this crap. Don't let them own generic words.

Google is a "fanciful" TM with ultimate protection. There are differences. Like Yahoo. Xerox is different and is in danger of falling into the category of Kleenex and Bandaids. Still, on shaky ground. Words like scholastic, fantastic, bombastic, elastic, phantasmorastic.....give me a break. They have all the money in the world and are betting on us realizing that. How to fight them? Like a swarm of bees.

you guys shouldn't be so ready to accept the mantle of "cybersquatters"

Just because you cant afford thier lawyers doesn't mean they're right.

 

[enlytend]

They do this to everyone who chooses a word they think they own. So, since I couldn't fight them, I got: scholasticfreedom.com&org, freescholastic.org and several others and by the way, there are many more scholastics. It is a word I found in the dictionary. Is it possible to own TM rights to that word? I don't think so. Help me fight this and waste a reg fee! Lets flood them. Fight back against this crap. Don't let them own generic words.

They can and they do own the tm on "Scholastic" in about 100 categories of use. Take a look on uspto.gov . If you buy a similar name and use it in bad faith, you'll face the consequences.

They're touchy about their tm since they struck gold by publishing the Harry Potter books ... Buying names just to annoy their lawyers is pretty foolish and could end up costing you far more than a reg. fee.

(to the original poster - sorry to respond to the hijack of your thread..)

 

[DNQuest.com]

Codemerc,

Sometimes UDRPs can defy logic. That is why I say a domaineer needs to protect themselves. In UDRPs, it is the job of the complainant to prove 3 criterea against a respondant. But, sometimes it seems the respondant is viewed "guilty" and needs to defend themselves. Yes, domaining does have a bad rep, but do your best to protect yourself and that will only help you in the long run.

They do this to everyone who chooses a word they think they own. So, since I couldn't fight them, I got: scholasticfreedom.com&org, freescholastic.org and several others and by the way, there are many more scholastics. It is a word I found in the dictionary. Is it possible to own TM rights to that word? I don't think so. Help me fight this and waste a reg fee! Lets flood them. Fight back against this crap. Don't let them own generic words.

and it reasoning like this that causes us to have a bad rep...


As far as Scholastic, are you suggesting you registered the domain over 85 years ago??? reverse hi-jacking is when someone (or a company) tries to get a domain which was in exsistance before a TM was established.

 

[thaiboy]

Kindly email to them that you want to transfer it to them for free. Give them a good excuse, it is cheap that you're losing just 7$. If you're unlucky, they can even start sue you, I know a case that the company start the dispute in court without any warning or C&D (not UDRP if they really upset). You may lost time and a big chuck of money.

Change your mind when you still have time.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

reverse hi-jacking is when someone (or a company) tries to get a domain which was in exsistance before a TM was established.

Nope.
That could be one example of Reverse Hijacking, but straight from the UDRP rules (See: Definitions):

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.

Not limited to issues of TM timing.

-Allan

 

[DNQuest.com]

Ah, live and learn. Thanx Allan. I guess I got caught up in how it is used (as what I was refering to) to remember what it actually means. My apologies.