Is this a trademark issue?

[wallstreeterww]

Hey guys I just registered paid1.com, and I checked that paid.com has a US trademark. Does my domain name violate their trademark?
Much appreciated

 

[Name Trader]

A domain name, per se, doesn't violate somebodies trademark. It's the content you put on the domain which may violate paid.com's trademark. So if you avoid paid.com's trademark you should be ok with paid1,com. Just avoid parking the domain, because more often than not, a parking provider is likely to throw up ads which may infringe upon paid.com's trademark.

 

[wallstreeterww]

A domain name, per se, doesn't violate somebodies trademark. It's the content you put on the domain which may violate paid.com's trademark. So if you avoid paid.com's trademark you should be ok with paid1,com. Just avoid parking the domain, because more often than not, a parking provider is likely to throw up ads which may infringe upon paid.com's trademark.

Ok I won't park it, but can I sell the pure domain or flip it!
Tha is again for the advice

 

[Name Trader]

Selling it could also be a problem if the buyer infringes on paid.com's trademark. Paid.com could come after you also. So you'd best be upfront that there is a trademark on paid.com, and whoever buys the domain isn't intending to infringe on paid.com's trademark.

 

[hollywood]

Not to doubt you stub but I always thought it's caveat emptor "let the buyer beware" as to the existence of trademark. Ah where's that berryhill when we need him :D

 

[DomainAgents]

You'd be more likely to be in trouble if you offered a site or service that could be confused with what paid.com has. In this case they are a marketing company. If you were offering a payment service, for example, you'd likely be OK. At least in my non-legal opinion.

 

[johname]

Whats paid.com trademark? Not on just the word paid And not paid 1 or paid one

 

[DU]

Not to doubt you stub but I always thought it's caveat emptor "let the buyer beware" as to the existence of trademark. Ah where's that berryhill when we need him :D

That would depend but I would be careful with that attitude... Things tend to work out ok only until they don't...

There are 1000s of lawyers you can call...Im sure JB is at the end of his business line..

 

[hollywood]

That would depend but I would be careful with that attitude... Things tend to work out ok only until they don't...

What attitude?

Based on what the original poster stated, it seems to me that look-through liability would be so deeply onerous that he need not disclose everything he knows about the name.

Can you enlighten us with examples of those sued similarly? An example where a judgement was collected?

Cheers,

 

[Name Trader]

Sure the owner of paid.com's trademark, has every right to go after the seller of paid1.com, if the new owner of paid1.com infringes on paid.com's trademark because the seller has demonstrated he bought the domain in bad faith and is making a profit on it by selling it to somebody who is infringing on paid.com's trademark. A bad faith sale. Now whether the owner of paid.com, would go after the seller of paid1.com is entirely speculative, but they have a legitimate right to do so. Which is why it is best to keep away from trademark domains if your intent is to resell, because you have no influence in how the new owner is going to use the domain, and you could still be held liable.

 

[hollywood]

Sure the owner of paid.com's trademark, has every right to go after the seller of paid1.com, if the new owner of paid1.com infringes on paid.com's trademark because the seller has demonstrated he bought the domain in bad faith and is making a profit on it by selling it to somebody who is infringing on paid.com's trademark. A bad faith sale. Now whether the owner of paid.com, would go after the seller of paid1.com is entirely speculative, but they have a legitimate right to do so. Which is why it is best to keep away from trademark domains if your intent is to resell, because you have no influence in how the new owner is going to use the domain, and you could still be held liable.

Stube I agree with you in general ... but with respect, in this specific case my opinion is still to go for it. Coke or Pepsi would be a different case. The recent example of Cronut is to me more similar to this OP situation, but hey we all have our opinions.