Is it ok to have typo TM domains?

[yeppers]

Hey ya'll

I'm just wandering is it illegal to get a typo domain of say imageshack.us and use it as a redirection to your own image hosting site?

Thanks in advance,
kindest regards, Billy.

 

[SpongyBob]

You can certainly have them taken off you, some companies are more pro-active about it than others, though.

 

[yeppers]

dang lol, how about imageshack, you think that i could get in trouble, or just hav to giv the domain back if they find out...

 

[Premium]

Look at this example.

Googel.ca goes to Searching.ca (You'd think google would take legal action not?)

 

[wasistdas]

Check the case Google VS Gridasov

 

[Keynes]

It can be risky above and beyond the loss of the domain. Tread carefully in that space, if at all.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Or just look at:
http://www.icann.org/cgi-bin/udrp/udrp.cgi

Then search "Google"

And see 12,000 results (Not all their decisions, but you get the picture ).

-Allan :gl:

 

[yeppers]

thanks

 

[movingconcierge]

I just gave up some nice typos of Google - killer traffic - but too scared of that gavel and they have an "obligation" to defend their trademark or it actually weakens it in the eyes of the law (<--read that in an trademark industry rag)

That name had better be worth it in terms of bringing in the $$ to justify what "might" happpen down the road.

 

[mole]

Running the future risk of a legal crackdown is one thing, having your good name and portfolio dragged through the mud by cackling lawyers from hell is another. Once you've been WIPOed, that's like a criminal record in the domain community.

 

[Ray]

Some big companies, Google as an example, will take offense to domains with typos. I remember reading many stories about people who got in trouble with Google for Google 'typo' domains.

i never heard of some getting introuble for google typs. Except for th eguy that owned froogle.net

 

[cache]

there are many many cases.

i never heard of some getting introuble for google typs. Except for th eguy that owned froogle.net

 

[Immersion]

but havent they just trademarket the original name? how can they take the other names off you if they are not the exact trademark?

 

[cache]

I think, so far anything xxxoogle are TM violations.

but havent they just trademarket the original name? how can they take the other names off you if they are not the exact trademark?

 

[ryan2829]

but havent they just trademarket the original name? how can they take the other names off you if they are not the exact trademark?

Thats true. I would love to know the answer.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Thats true. I would love to know the answer.

Likelihood of confusion, etc. http://www.dnlaw.info , or any good trademark law website/source.

Don't forget, just because http://www.uspto.gov doesn't have a TM as "filed", doesn't mean a TM doesn't exist.

-Allan

 

[Keynes]

Don't forget, just because http://www.uspto.gov doesn't have a TM as "filed", doesn't mean a TM doesn't exist.

-Allan

A very good and important point -- I second that resoundingly.