Is having a name "for sale" bad faith in itself?

[markfromslo]

I'm really confused on something. Is the mere fact that a domain is for sale bad faith? I've heard both yes and no as answers.

Some say that if you have a landing page, even with no ads whatsoever, that has a price on it, or says "this domain may be for sale," without a price, that it's bad faith. But if that's the case, even not having such a page and answering an email, "is this name for sale?" in the affirmative would be bad faith too, no? It's still for sale.

I'm unparking my names at Sedo shortly since they insist on showing ads even on the one sales page template they have, and I'm getting ticked off at all the trademarks popping up after I register names in good faith. I was going to make my own page that says "this name may be for sale" and have a contact form. But now I'm wondering if I can even do that.

Does anyone have the answer to this question?

 

[4pm]

+1

..would love to hear your educated opinions & discussion on the above too

in the light of recent UDRP decisions (Canary.com etc):

- is buying/regging a domain for resale bad faith?
- is having a for sale page saying "it is/may be for sale" (including sedo/tdnam/etc no-ads landing pages) bad faith?
- is owning "too many" (whatever it means) domains and therefore being a "domainer" bad faith?


*

 

[Dave_Z]

This is probably simplifying it, but the answer is - as usual - it depends.

Is the mere fact that a domain is for sale bad faith?

in the light of recent UDRP decisions (Canary.com etc):

- is buying/regging a domain for resale bad faith?
- is having a for sale page saying "it is/may be for sale" (including sedo/tdnam/etc no-ads landing pages) bad faith?
- is owning "too many" (whatever it means) domains and therefore being a "domainer" bad faith?

Not necessarily, albeit some complainants (try to) use any or all of them as proof of bad faith. One thing you can (try to) do is show you're not targeting the complainant/trademark holder only.

One of those bugger situations where anything you say or do can be used against you. Can, though, rather than has to be.

 

[sephirotica]

Having the domain for sale/no ad landing page is not much "bad faith" as much as its "no apparent use".

(if you are looking for a way to park it without ads try the godaddy single page builder. you get a free one with every domain purchase)

 

[markfromslo]

This is probably simplifying it, but the answer is - as usual - it depends.

Yeah, I knew that was the answer going in.

I wonder if there is a difference in a TM dispute if I were to have a sales page at a domain broker (like Sedo, Cax, etc) site or if I have my own simple page that doesn't look so "professional." Maybe it could be a larger header of "This domain name may be for sale" and then a smaller bit of wording that said "I'm considering a project with this domain name, but I have not started yet. I may consider an offer on the domain name in the meantime."

And I might keep my successful Buy Now selling of names at Sedo for sub-$1,000 names. At that level, it's much more likely that someone would just buy the name from me than spend money on a TM process.

 

[dna]

Bad Faith is an "offer to sell the domain name without having used, or having an intent to use, it in the bona fide offering of goods or services, or a prior pattern of such conduct."

"Language in the legislative history specifically indicates that this section is not supposed to apply to a party who registers a name with the bona fide intent to launch a new product or company but then abandons that plan and sells the name to a trademark holder."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/legislation.html

 

[cartoonz]

Bad Faith is an "offer to sell the domain name without having used, or having an intent to use, it in the bona fide offering of goods or services, or a prior pattern of such conduct."

"Language in the legislative history specifically indicates that this section is not supposed to apply to a party who registers a name with the bona fide intent to launch a new product or company but then abandons that plan and sells the name to a trademark holder."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/legislation.html

That should probably be put into context... parking, offering for sale, etc. domains like "books.com" is perfectly acceptable. But doing the same thing with a blatant TM name is not.

 

[Magicpig2]

I've had my names parked with BODIS (and am about to again), and you can avoid adverts etc by having a Buy It Now page which allows the buyer to use PayPal or wire transfer. It's the most straightforward option for me.

 

[alien51]

parking, offering for sale, etc. domains like "books.com" is perfectly acceptable. But doing the same thing with a blatant TM name is not.

That was the old days.

Nowadays, you are sitting on what you think is a safe generic domain name. What the other guy does is TRADEMARK the name that exactly matches your domain name. He is granted a TM by the TM office. Then he goes to UDRP and file a complaint of "non-usage" or "not offering goods or services". And the panel agrees. Then you lose your domain.

Books.com is very basic generic. The trouble is mostly on the 2-word generic combos that have vague usages, like "ClearWater" or "IronMountain". These names can be used for just about anything, and therefore much easier for a business to get a TM because they don't naturally describe any specific public usage, unlike say "books" or "beer" which are impossible to TM.