Legal issues with LLL domains

[fonzie_007]

Just curious if anyone has run into any problems with LLL domains that are trademarked like UPS.

Does anyone have any advice how you can legitimately hold onto a trademarked LLL domain without having it taken away from you? I know not to put up anti-trademarked company stuff on the site. However, if you park the domain with a search box (and no advertisements) is it still considered bad faith?

If I remember correctly, I thought there was a similar thread already on this subject. Can anyone be of help?

Thanks.

 

[.X.]

Just curious if anyone has run into any problems with LLL domains that are trademarked like UPS.

Does anyone have any advice how you can legitimately hold onto a trademarked LLL domain without having it taken away from you? I know not to put up anti-trademarked company stuff on the site. However, if you park the domain with a search box (and no advertisements) is it still considered bad faith?

If I remember correctly, I thought there was a similar thread already on this subject. Can anyone be of help?

Thanks.

Acronyms can be used for alot of different things... To my knowledge...The only way an TM infringment occurs is if...You use "UPS".? to advertise...promote ...United pacel service...Used in a different niche...It does not violate TM...That is my knowledge of acronym TM issues.

This may be a good thread for John Berryhill to speak on.

Where are ya JB!!! LOL

 

[Dave_Z]

Here's a rather "disturbing" decision:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0450.html

 

[.X.]

Here's a rather "disturbing" decision:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0450.html

Indeed disturbing ...Thanks for the excellent post

 

[JYM]

Because the 3 letter domains can be used as acronyms, it really depends which category you develop the site with. A company called Always Be Confident that does tooth whitening would have no chance if your website, abc.com, dealt with movies or something.

 

[labrocca]

Usage Usage Usage....it has to be pounded into your guys.

USAGE

 

[Lasher]

From the ruling:

"Respondent has not offered an explanation as to his reasons or the basis for choosing “MBF”. If there were some legitimate or rational basis for his registration of <mbf.com>, it defies common sense for the Respondent to not offer comments or an explanation."

This is indeed disturbing. If MBF has no trademark how could the respondent have known about them. I wonder how much those other, more clearly trademark issues, counted against him.

Also would be interesting to see how many other LLL.com domains the owner of this one had, I'm surprised that "I invest in 3 letter domains because they appreciate in value" isn't a good argument. From reading the rule it also seems that the ICANN panel were fine with the domain owner selling the domain, but did not like their price. This part was the most disturbing to me, they're either ok with domain resales or they're not, making judgements on price is out of line.

 

[slipondajimmy]

WOW. That is nuts. There is no way that name should have been transfered to Mercedes-Benz.

 

[wisconsin]

MBF.com is still owned by it's original owner though! Probably, the respondent took the argument to court.

 

[FanCube]

AOL is currently trying to get KOL.com, seems like a clear case of reverse hijacking. It will be very interesting to see how this ends...

[armstrong mod edit: link to domain-related forum deleted; please review forum rules]

 

[namethreads.com]

Take note of the following from the WIPO decision document:

Finally, the Complainant contends that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. More specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is a well-known cybersquatter citing prior domain name disputes involving the Respondent and/or affiliated entities. Also, an offer for sale is displayed in the content for the disputed domain name. In fact, several exchanges of emails took place in an attempt to negotiate the purchase of the subject domain name, in which Respondent made reference to a price of US$ 275,000. Complainant also notes that Respondent holds other domain names that incorporate others’ trademarks: <unicef.net>, <visacash.com>, <vodafoneairtouch.com>, <herrypotter.com>, <herrypoter.com>, and <herypotter.com>.

If you attempt to sell a domain to a trademark holder, you are setting yuorself up for trouble.

If they contact you, tell them you do NOT want to sell the name and be reluctant to sell it. Otherwise people may say you were cybersquatting with the intent to sell the name to them. Even if MBF didn;t hold a trademark, maybe they could claim to be well known.

In addition, the registrant of MBF.com had other domains that clearly infringed on other trademarks -- WIPO will also take "a pattern of infringing behaviour" into account.

 

[fonzie_007]

This thread sheds some light on my question:

http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?p=1396040#post1396040

 

[Dave_Z]

Just remember there are no hard fast absolute rules. All we got are guidelines,
hints to give you ideas what to do and what not to do.

But Labrocca already gave the one best answer: USAGE USAGE USAGE. :D

 

[bluesman]

Take note of the following from the WIPO decision document:

"...the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. More specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is a well-known cybersquatter citing prior domain name disputes involving the Respondent and/or affiliated entities..."

Gee, it's always good to know that internet arb courts are ceratinly NOT trying to mirror all the pesky rules of real courts. Namely, that it is practically unheard of for any case in a normal court to be decided on the basis of whether or not the defendant might be a "previous" lawbreaker. Indeeed, many (unconvicted) "career criminals" are treated just like anyone else in the eyes of the law, and each case is decided on, and only on, its own individual merit.

Yet the WIPO boys instead seem quite content to smear someone with the term "cybersquatter" with no hesitation at all. Not THAT'S really fair and unbiased of them, huh?

 

[fonzie_007]

Gee, it's always good to know that internet arb courts are ceratinly NOT trying to mirror all the pesky rules of real courts. Namely, that it is practically unheard of for any case in a normal court to be decided on the basis of whether or not the defendant might be a "previous" lawbreaker. Indeeed, many (unconvicted) "career criminals" are treated just like anyone else in the eyes of the law, and each case is decided on, and only on, its own individual merit.

Yet the WIPO boys instead seem quite content to smear someone with the term "cybersquatter" with no hesitation at all. Not THAT'S really fair and unbiased of them, huh?

You bring up a very good point. Propensity evidence is usually barred in all criminal and civil cases except if it is sexual misconduct. Propensity evidence is used like this:
Defendent is on trial for purportedly assualting someone
Prosecution makes an argument: Defendant assualted another individual 3 years ago, which makes Defendant a bad person, which is why he should be convicted for the current alleged offense.

 

[DNQuest.com]

It goes to intent, since cybersquatters tend to lied about thier interest and intentions of a domain, if it can be shown the the squatter has a track record, it will be used against him to show credibility. Just like real courts, if a judge is trying to determine credibility, a past record will be brought up.

 

[fonzie_007]

It goes to intent, since cybersquatters tend to lied about thier interest and intentions of a domain, if it can be shown the the squatter has a track record, it will be used against him to show credibility. Just like real courts, if a judge is trying to determine credibility, a past record will be brought up.

The rules of evidence are extremely strict when using propensity evidence; however, DNQ is arguing the use to "track-record" evidence. The two are very similar, but the rules of evidence treat them fundamentally different.

Propensity evidence is barred, track-record evidence isn't so long as you are not trying to use it to prove a propensity. For instance, you can say:
Defendant lied on the stand before, so there is a good chance he could be lying now. Contrast this with propensity evidence:
Defendant lied on the stand before, because he is a bad person, and because he's a bad person means he is guilty/lying now.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Please remember, these are panelists who have guidelines to follow, but can use their own opinions. So perception can be stronger than the truth. Whether it is right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. Some decisions are mind numbing and devoid of logic at times (even by some of the respect attorneys here), that is what we have to deal with.

So you could have all the positive evidence in the world in defending yourself, but if a complainant can put negative perception on you which the panelists believe (IE- pattern of squatting), then you are screwed. This is not a court of law.