Legal question

[domianinvestor]

I own a website ie greyhoundpicks dot com (not it but similar) used this website dating back to around 2001 quit using it after 2005 kept domains email list etc but moved to a state that didnt offer this sport so didnt have enough access to materials needed to provide the service. Moved to a state that does now and went to set the site back up. had parked the domains singular and plural a few months ago one expired due to an expired credit card and of course someone snapped it up. Prmeium name I have had close to 2000 to date. Can prove usage etc so does my Usage TM still have legs? Goin to email owner and offer 100 bucks for his time in snapping it but thats it. if needed can I file UDRP and get it back due to usage TM. I can prove tshirts printed with web name coffe mugs ink pins etc to promote it as well as advertising in trade publications etc. Thanks for any responses and yes I know it is not my fault for chaning the CC out of site out of mind

 

[evertonian7uk]

you cant really as its a descriptive TM, for example if he used the same domain to run a greyhound site, he can do, since you dont own the TM on greyhound racing,

the best bet is to offer a good price and keep your comms with him open and good, dont try any BS with i owned the TM etc... it wont work in this case,

this is my opinion only, but you dont hold the TM on greyhounds, and you let the domain expire, its unlucky, best thing is to be nice to the guy and hope for some good comms.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I also don't think you have a chance unless you have a REGISTERED trademark for the term. I don't think you would win a UDRP based on a past use TM of something that generic. If it were a distinctive alternate spelling like GreyhoundPiks you might have a chance based on the evidence you have, but I think this use would get the generic win.

 

[domianinvestor]

this si what I figured but if he dosent want to sell after reading a few of these rulings recently like the kareem deal etc I thought maybe I would have a shot

 

[flamewalker]

The kareem deal was an out of the ordinarily bad ruling, based on false facts (at least in part).

If the "TM" is descriptive of the service you are offering, chances are not good for you. Possible, yes... likely, no.

 

[DNQuest.com]

this si what I figured but if he dosent want to sell after reading a few of these rulings recently like the kareem deal etc I thought maybe I would have a shot

The Kareem decision (though I am emotionally attached) was flawed and pointed out and I am sure many members (at least hopefully) are aware of the cercumstances involved with that decision. I raised a big stink about it and I still am going after them about it.

Anyway, I don't think it will be used in any reference in future decisions. If it is, then a smart attorney hopefully will see why it isn't applicable. But in light of the Snowe bill, WIPO could be proactive in being TM friendly, because the Snowe bill could take cases away from WIPO. Cases=money.