What would happen if I regged a name and in the future someone trademarks that name? Who would have the rights to the domain?
CharlieA said:Good news, thanks. I asked because I was reading a post where someone regged a ton of names that contain a term that might possibly be TM'd by a big company soon.
DNQuest.com said:HasROB, there is a huge difference between the 2 cases... you are clearly squatting, the OP is asking about a name that was not in exsistance at the time he registered the domain.
If it is a name you registered before a trademark was proposed and issued, then you will have all rights to the name. That is, if you did not register the name with insider info and intended to squat on the name because you knew there was going to be a trade mark issued by the company in question.CharlieA said:What would happen if I regged a name and in the future someone trademarks that name? Who would have the rights to the domain?
If the Casino can prove you registered the name with the intentions of selling it to them in the future then they can submit a UDRP and will have a good chance of getting the domain name.HasRob said:Correct, but is it a legal squat? Reason I ask, the first two words are non tm words, but with the third word (hotel) added, it's likey they can TM it. So, it's kinda the same.
CharlieA said:That was a good read. I bet Nissan (car company) is steaming, lol. nissan.com has got to be worth millions.
If the business Nissan Computers was sold with the name, then the new owners would have a shot at keeping it. But, I doubt anyone would want the name knowing that Nissan Motors has a history of trying to obtain the domain trhough suits.slipxaway said:It's worth nothing. If he sells it to a 3rd party, they'll lose it right away to Nissan, because they have no rights to it. The current owner may have established his rights, but a new owner would not. Also, he can't advertise anything remotely related to automobiles and whatever else Nissan makes, so he's not going to get rich from ads. I dont think he has any interest in selling and I don't think anyone with a brain (other than Nissan) would have any interest in buying it from him.
-JC- said:One of the most well known cases of a huge corporation trying to obtain a name they had no rights to because the registrant had registered the name prior to a trade mark or global brand recognition is nissan.com
Dave Zan said:Are you sure the Japanese car maker had no rights to the domain name at
all? You might want to read and review the "last" decision:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/CourtofAppealsRulingNissanMotorvNissanComputer.pdf
If none of you still got it, then the thread below might help:
http://www.namepros.com/legal-issue...an-vs-nissan-once-again.html?highlight=nissan
slipxaway said:It's worth nothing. If he sells it to a 3rd party, they'll lose it right away to Nissan, because they have no rights to it. The current owner may have established his rights, but a new owner would not. Also, he can't advertise anything remotely related to automobiles and whatever else Nissan makes, so he's not going to get rich from ads. I dont think he has any interest in selling and I don't think anyone with a brain (other than Nissan) would have any interest in buying it from him.
-JC- said:Maybe you should re-read the entire pdf file again. Yes, they have no rights of claim to the domain name ... still. They may hold TM rights to the name Nissan for auto uses ... but the domain name Nissan.com still resides with Nissan Computers, and Nissan Computers can now use the domain for commercial (non-auto) uses and can post links and information to what ever they wish to ... even information that might defame Nissan Motors (court information and what not).
Since Complainant has provided no evidence to support its allegation that its common law trademark rights in its mark accrued as early as 1998, Respondent’s claim that she registered the disputed domain name before the registration date of Complainant’s mark might support a finding that her registration of a common phrase gave her rights in the disputed domain name. Not only have panelists almost uniformly rejected importation of any notion of constructive notice arising from mark registration into determination rights or lack of bad faith under the Policy, Complainant’s use of common words in its mark makes it more likely that a member of the public, even a competitor, might innocently have registered that phrase as a domain name.
But Respondent has frankly acknowledged that she knew of Complainant’s mark and business before registering the disputed domain name. At pages 3-4 of the Response,7 she describes the circumstances under which she registered the disputed domain name
Lyn said:Let me put up a real life scenario.
I have a xxxxx.com.au domain name that I am trademarking. The xxxxx.com version of my domain name is held be a domain broker. He knows my intention to purchase the .com version and is asking a 5 figure amount amount. I was advised to wait until my TM is finally approved and put him on notice that the domain name can't be used in any way shape or form that closely relates to my TM. As this name is very industry specific, it should make the name worthless to sell. The domain isn't currently used and doesn't have any history of being used.
Is this sound advice that I have been given
Lyn
slipondajimmy said:I think it would all come down to a case by case basis. There are so many variables involved its not even funny.
DropLister said:x.com is owned by paypal haha, dont waster your time trying to buy.