You have GOT to be kidding ?!? Apologies for getting here late, but we are new to NP.
The true victim here is yandig. Wow, I had an extremely strong gut feeling, like bad chilli-concarne volcano bowel disruption cramps kinda feeling, that something was wrong on first glance. Qwest's claim is NOT legitmate, that is if it is coming from Qwest directly.
1) go to
www.uspto.gov and do a trademark search for "mabell" and this is what you get: "Sorry, No results were found for your query." Trademark search for all "ma bell" are dead, "ma bell's" belongs to a potatoe chip company. Also, look at the history of the dead "ma bell" trademarks and find direct and indirect uses for the telecommunications industry not owned by Qwest.
2) go to mabell.net and other extensions to realize non-Qwest entities are using "mabell" domain names. Zurax comments are valid.
3) Qwest is considered a 'baby-bell'. AT&T may have some claim to the nickname of 'ma bell' if there are obvious similarities that infringe on their current product/services due to the long ago demise of Bell Telephone. Again, no trademark.
If yandig signed any papers, do those papers include any admission of wrong doing? Sneaky stuff intimidating somebody to unknowningly become false witness against themselves. However, an ambitious trial attorney would thrive on kicking Qwest in the teeth.
I ran this thread by our legal department and got nothing but smurks. Unusual for Qwest to deal with this directly and not a law firm representing Qwest. So unusual, it draws out warning flags. Law firms love to bill clients for any kind of work even remotely related to the client's interest. If this is Qwest, all information may be forwarded to the law firm that handles their intellectual property if they choose to pursue. Then again, the matter may be dropped. Upon close scrutiny, somebody at Qwest take the position that Qwest had to address a potential problem rather than acquiesce.
We would have immediately fired a 'cease and desist' letter with legitmate claim to file damages for 'interrupting business practices'. Yandig's content is a non-issue due to Qwest also being a competitor with no legitmate claim to 'mabell'.
We had a client that was approached by letter and by phone to relinquish their domain name. It was blatent fraud, and once confronted it stopped. Think of the cost the plaintiff has to go through and the threat of being counter-sued.
However, yandig's cooperation has lead to bigger problems. Unfortunate the ball is now in his court. In situations like this, cooperation does not exist. Qwest's position will always be the target (yandig) is either working with them or working against them. Changing web site content or even doing nothing would have been better than signing papers.
A little due diligence goes a long way.
