.mobi NYSE symbol for Techdata, a $20bn company

[namegeeks]

NYSE symbol for Techdata is TECD, so here it goes...

TECD.mobi - where people can find info on Techdata stocks and shares

Guys, I believe there are no TM issues with this one, since NYSE symbols are not TMable. Appraisals welcome.

Thanks,
namegeeks

 

[GeoOwners]

it's just so so...imo...peeps will use a stock site and look up the symbol there prolly...it's too specific...a tech site may be better.


.

 

[quasar1138]

NYSE symbol for Techdata is TECD, so here it goes...

TECD.mobi - where people can find info on Techdata stocks and shares

Guys, I believe there are no TM issues with this one, since NYSE symbols are not TMable. Appraisals welcome.

Thanks,
namegeeks

TECD is own by NASDAQ.

http://www.nasdaq.com/sitespecific/IndexPromptDisclaimer.stm#disclaimer

Quote from NASDAQ Disclaimer page:
------------------------------------
Trademarks

Notice of Service/Trademark Rights

The trademarks, service marks and logos (collectively, the "Marks") set forth below are registered and unregistered trademarks and/or service marks owned by NASDAQ in the United States and certain other countries throughout the world. Nothing contained on this website should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, any license or right to use any of the Marks without the written permission of NASDAQ. Any misuse of the Marks or any Content, except as provided in this Statement, is strictly prohibited and may violate trademark laws.

Other brands or product names used on the website are trademarks and/or service marks of their respective owners, should be treated as such, and may be registered in various jurisdictions.

NASDAQ stock symbols are proprietary to NASDAQ.
------------------------------------

This is a no brainer people.

 

[namegeeks]

Sorry dude, the link that you provided right above (http://www.nasdaq.com/sitespecific/IndexPromptDisclaimer.stm#disclaimer) says nothing about TECD sticker symbol. Also TECD is a NYSE sticker, and I just wonder how can NASDAQ "own" a NYSE sticker.

TECD can be qualified as an abbreviation and as such doesn't imply TM issues. Hope others agree with me.

 

[-REECE-]

Sorry dude, the link that you provided right above (http://www.nasdaq.com/sitespecific/IndexPromptDisclaimer.stm#disclaimer) says nothing about TECD sticker symbol. Also TECD is a NYSE sticker, and I just wonder how can NASDAQ "own" a NYSE sticker.

TECD can be qualified as an abbreviation and as such doesn't imply TM issues. Hope others agree with me.

Actually, that's incorrect.

"Inc" could be considered an abbreviation of incorporated or incorporation, read up on what happened to inc.mobi here: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1479.html

It's true that acronyms or abbreviations may offer increased protection, however increased protection isn't enough to prevent a "bad faith" ruling by a panelist, as you can see in the link above.
In the case above, the registrant showed bad faith by not only putting the name up for sale on ebay for a price which would be considered exhorbitant ($500,000), but he also let the panelists know that he was aware of the company in question (the complainant). Those are 2 things you should avoid if you do choose to go forward and keep this name. Personally, I think the name isn't worth the hassle. Inc.mobi and tecd.mobi are a world of a difference apart in valuation. For the headache that may result, I'd let it drop.

 

[DomainCEO1]

Whew! That's a tough one there... I had a feeling that NASDAQ has TM rights on symbols... I think the guy who posted the dislcaimer from NASDAQ is correct. Might want to run that by an attorney for safety's sake... and you pocketbook!

I'm looking more along broader lines such as brandable terms companies may need for marketing, such as TV commercials, etc. I think there's where the first level of demand is going to come from and then more niche markets/names such as your idea. Either way, keep thinking like that... and hopefully you can secure a few more good names for the financial industry/markets!

 

[Keith]

So suppose they want their name in the .mobi ext, are you going to hand it over? Purposly taking names away from a potential user as big as this does mobi no good, TM or not. Why bother?

keithmt

 

[-REECE-]

So suppose they want their name in the .mobi ext, are you going to hand it over? Purposly taking names away from a potential user as big as this does mobi no good, TM or not. Why bother?

keithmt

Exactly. And worse, several of these larger corporations are opting to take people to court, rather than file UDRPs.

Makes sense -- if we all give in and filed UDRPs, there's no risk for the squatter, whereas by taking them to court, you make an example out of them, letting all others know that you are serious about protecting your brand and others better think twice about undertaking such a risky endeavour or they may end up sharing the same fate.

 

[namegeeks]

I see some "dudes" are against names, which contain in themselves even a slight hint of TM problems. But, OutlookExpress.com was sold for 20 thousand USD last fall. You would classify it as a TM domain. Using your own words, "why bother" about TECD.mobi TM problems?

 

[garrett200]

namegeeks,

TM issues are weird. When I regged "WebstersDictionary.mobi", I had no clue whether it was a TM or not. Now it is confirmed that it is not, even though at first glance it seems that it would be.

 

[Keith]

namegeeks,

TM issues are weird. When I regged "WebstersDictionary.mobi", I had no clue whether it was a TM or not. Now it is confirmed that it is not, even though at first glance it seems that it would be.

Names dont have to be a TM for a company to take it away from you. In certain cases, companies spend time and money to develope a brand and have rights to their name whether it is TMed or not.

keithmt

 

[garrett200]

Names dont have to be a TM for a company to take it away from you. In certain cases, companies spend time and money to develope a brand and have rights to their name whether it is TMed or not.

keithmt

I understand that, but when you find out that the term has been deemed "public domain" by The Supreme Court, I think you're in the clear.

 

[Keith]

I understand that, but when you find out that the term has been deemed "public domain" by The Supreme Court, I think you're in the clear.

Absolutely!

keithmt

 

[namegeeks]

Thanks for your support, guys.

So, those of you who don't see TM issues with this domain, how much would you appraise it at?

 

[sags]

Link to a simple explanation of trademark infringement.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html

Regards,

Sags

 

[-REECE-]

Thanks for your support, guys.

So, those of you who don't see TM issues with this domain, how much would you appraise it at?

Namegeeks, just so you know, a name need not even infringe on ones TM to be taken away from you. Take my name antioxidants.mobi for example...

If I go around offering it to companies that make antioxidant supplements, one of them could file a UDRP on me, claim that my registration of the name was in bad faith and potentially take (rightfully take) the name away from me.

When you go around registering names with no intention other than to sell it to a particular potential enduser, you leave open the possibility of a bad faith decision regardless of TM infrigement or not.

The best way to avoid TM issues or bad faith rulings is to develop your sites, provide unique and relevant content to your names in question, not list them for sale, not ask for valuations in places which get cached by Google and hence may be used against you in a UDRP, and definitely do not put anything on your site that could strengthen a bad faith case against you.

 

[erwin.groen]

I love it! everytime someone post a TM question everyone jumps in and answers, pretty well I must add! Who needs trademark attorneys?, they're all here

 

[-REECE-]

I love it! everytime someone post a TM question everyone jumps in and answers, pretty well I must add! Who needs trademark attorneys?, they're all here

Most of us who've been involved in domains for awhile have either been or known someone who's been negatively affected by a UDRP. The low fee associated with UDRP's encourages any individual owning relevant trademarks to attempt to steal valuable domains from legitimate owners through the use of tactics WIPO adopted to protect corporate interests.

With the way things are going, everyone should certainly read up on TM law, or at least WIPO's website.

 

[erwin.groen]

Agreed! especially with all the info there at your fingertips and the internet at your disposal, I think everyone needs to know a little. My advice don't respond hastily to emails from people claiming they have more of a right to use your domain than you! Read up on these forums (perhaps seek pro advice) before responding to anything!

 

[-REECE-]

Agreed! especially with all the info there at your fingertips and the internet at your disposal, I think everyone needs to know a little. My advice don't respond hastily to emails from people claiming they have more of a right to use your domain than you! Read up on these forums (perhaps seek pro advice) before responding to anything!

Very good advice indeed! One slip of the mouth and the company in question just might use it against you...