discuss Registering a raw domain name because I can

[HotKey]

It is folly to think that just because we can do something, we should. But in the context of:

1) The domain name is not being used in a way that correlates to a brand, product or service or some other means used by someone else, other than the raw domain name itself. Eg., a for sale page or personalized lander.
2) The domain name was available to register by anyone with the wherewithal and the funds to do so.

How can I be held accountable for someone else's problem of not registering that domain name first, and why is there an entitled or assumed relation between said entity's status and raw domain names that they don't own, in the first place?

I understand there are many nuances, but at their very core, domain names are just that: domain names. If there is some sort of restriction or law that prohibits ownership, should it not come from the source: the registry?

As domain investors, do we have a first rights ownership that can immediately protect us before being handed an official "hand it over".. something like where the onus is on the complainant to show proof of the contrary beforehand?

Some questions that have bugged me for a while now.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

It is folly to think that just because we can do something, we should. But in the context of:

1) The domain name is not being used in a way that correlates to a brand, product or service or some other means used by someone else, other than the raw domain name itself. Eg., a for sale page or personalized lander.
2) The domain name was available to register by anyone with the wherewithal and the funds to do so.

How can I be held accountable for someone else's problem of not registering that domain name first, and why is there an entitled or assumed relation between said entity's status and raw domain names that they don't own, in the first place?

I understand there are many nuances, but at their very core, domain names are just that: domain names. If there is some sort of restriction or law that prohibits ownership, should it not come from the source: the registry?

As domain investors, do we have a first rights ownership that can immediately protect us before being handed an official "hand it over".. something like where the onus is on the complainant to show proof of the contrary beforehand?

Some questions that have bugged me for a while now.

It's almost like it's set up in a way that makes registries the maximum profits possible

 

[HotKey]

It's almost like it's set up in a way that makes registries the maximum profits possible

Yep, sure why not . And the indemnity is all in their TOS. We (the registrants) really do shoulder it all. I'm not sure if having our own disclaimer would actually serve as any sort of real protection, because a registered domain is after the fact whereas a registry just provides a means to an end, via the registrar.

 

[HotKey]

On misuse: usage of the domain with pretense at an affiliation with the mark. Other than that, trademarks don't have a sort exclusivity, sovereignty or claim over domains any more than a registrant does:

expanding on from another thread

What law prevents someone registering a domain name with the word "meta"?

No law prevents someone registering a domain with the word meta. However if you misuse their registered mark they can take aim at you. For instance posting your domain in a Namepros thread about FB switching to meta is not wise.

**

On a quick search from an exterior source, to quote:

The right to use a domain name is determined by the trademark laws in the countries from which that website is accessible. If you begin using a domain name which is confusingly similar to a registered trademark, then the owner of that trademark may successfully challenge your ability to use the domain name.

Makes sense to me. The mere act of registration doesn't come into play here, and I'm not so sure the a context behind the reason for registering a domain should be justifiable cause for infringement; ie. being motivated because of a sudden rise in popularity in a generic term.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

ie. being motivated because of a sudden rise in popularity in a generic term.

Is that the term 'meta'? I would say from a trademark perspective that it isn't a generic term. Not sure if you'd agree with that or not. Meta isn't generic for anything from what I can tell, if so what is it generic for?

 

[HotKey]

Is that the term 'meta'? I would say from a trademark perspective that it isn't a generic term. Not sure if you'd agree with that or not. Meta isn't generic for anything from what I can tell, if so what is it generic for?

It's a good example, re. "Is that the term meta". Well I think from a trademark perspective there are many entities with marks think nothing has generic usage, and everything has to do with their mark.

I think if a word is defined by an accepted language authority, lets use Oxford English Dictionary for example, and it doesn't have the definition preceded by "Trademark", we can assume it a generic term available for usage.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

From a trade perspective something isn't generic because it's an accepted word or phrase in a dictionary, it's generic because it's used by everyone to describe something in an area of the market.

For example, the word telephone is used by all telephone manufacturers... thus nobody can have exclusivity on the word 'telephone'. I can't register a trademark for Telephone for telecommunications because telephone is generic in the field of telecommunications.

However, If I open a sandwich shop called "Telephone Sandwiches". I can register and have exclusivity to the word telephone when it comes to the manufacture and sale of sandwiches in the market place. I can protect it as such if someone tries to use 'telephone' for the same or similar goods or tries to register it (or confusingly similar) as a TM in a territory that I'm already operating in under the name.

...so Telephone isn't generic for the sale of sandwiches.

So given that example, if the big news comes out that Telephone is changing it's parent company to "Headphones" and everyone jumps at the chance on Namepros and in the thread called "Telephone is changing it's name to HEADPHONES!!!" and everyone says which domains they're buying with headphones in it because they changed their company name then we've got a bit of a problem. It's not good enough to say that headphones is generic. However at least in this case you might have a prospective buyer because headphones is generic for another type of goods and services.

I suppose the argument is not whether the names are likely to land us in bother, but what patterns of behaviour will land us in bother.

 

[HotKey]

From a trade perspective something isn't generic because it's an accepted word or phrase in a dictionary, it's generic because it's used by everyone to describe something in an area of the market.

For example, the word telephone is used by all telephone manufacturers... thus nobody can have exclusivity on the word 'telephone'. I can't register a trademark for Telephone for telecommunications because telephone is generic in the field of telecommunications.

However, If I open a sandwich shop called "Telephone Sandwiches". I can register and have exclusivity to the word telephone when it comes to the manufacture and sale of sandwiches in the market place. I can protect it as such if someone tries to use 'telephone' for the same or similar goods or tries to register it (or confusingly similar) as a TM in a territory that I'm already operating in under the name.

...so Telephone isn't generic for the sale of sandwiches.

So given that example, if the big news comes out that Telephone is changing it's parent company to "Headphones" and everyone jumps at the chance on Namepros and in the thread called "Telephone is changing it's name to HEADPHONES!!!" and everyone says which domains they're buying with headphones in it because they changed their company name then we've got a bit of a problem. It's not good enough to say that headphones is generic. However at least in this case you might have a prospective buyer because headphones is generic for another type of goods and services.

I suppose the argument is not whether the names are likely to land us in bother, but what patterns of behaviour will land us in bother.

Well yes exactly. Totally agree. Usage-->infringing on a TM or not-->done. Outside of the mark infringement, what does that have to do with generic words and domain names?

We can not have entities "owning" words outside of their perspective usage mark, now can we?

Regardless of whether or not said entity made that word suddenly blow up in popularity. The world does not operate on "trade perspectives", rather these marks are made in a capacity to protect duplication of a service or a product, like your telephone sandwich example. And that's how a business may operate on legitimate usage and establishment.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm just trying correlate the act of registering/owning domains and mark infringement, where usage is a clear non-issue. There should be none. So in that setting, as registrants we should be protected with a kind of "first-rights" ownership that a potential complainer would have to prove otherwise before we are handed any sort of UDRP.

Rather than being a "perspective of the trademark" it is a bona-fide standard in an official capacity on the domain-end that saves everyone needless trouble.

 

[HotKey]

I will do some research next time, before spewing forth my vomitous ignoramus from atop the domaining battle horse:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm just trying correlate the act of registering/owning domains and mark infringement, where usage is a clear non-issue. There should be none. So in that setting, as registrants we should be protected with a kind of "first-rights" ownership that a potential complainer would have to prove otherwise before we are handed any sort of UDRP.

UDRP's aren't just handed out willy-nilly.

 

[jberryhill]

If there is some sort of restriction or law that prohibits ownership, should it not come from the source: the registry?

No, it shouldn't. The registry has no idea who is registering a domain name and whether that registrant is authorized by the mark owner.

There is nothing that prohibits registration and use of domain names corresponding to trademarks. Quite obviously, a lot of trademark owners and licensees register and use domain names corresponding to trademarks every day. How is the domain registry supposed to know whether a domain registrant is a trademark owner or licensee?

 

[HotKey]

No, it shouldn't. The registry has no idea who is registering a domain name and whether that registrant is authorized by the mark owner.

There is nothing that prohibits registration and use of domain names corresponding to trademarks.

Clarified, and thanks.

**

Our esteemed Berryhill could probably recite this kind of process while cycling a steep mountainside, balancing backwards on one hand on the handlebars, and feeding a flying eagle with fresh venison right from the mouth, but for those still on training wheels at the bottom of the driveway (or maybe it's just me):

UDRP Process, a la Canadian (Pictograph)

and the same site talks about the three elements that must be proven BEFORE a UDRP becomes acceptable to move forward with:

In a UDRP proceeding, the Complainant must prove that the following three (3) elements are present:

1. Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. The opposing party has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute; and
3. The domain name in dispute has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

So this would address my initial concern of a "first rights ownership", where indeed we do as being registrants and for a mark holder to dispute it the process isn't just dumped onto us as like a being "guilty before innocent" scenario.

 

[oldtimer]

We all agree that Trademark laws and UDRP rules must be respected.

But there might be certain situations that could become an exception such as when a trademarked word becomes so popular that it reenters the public domain again and becomes unenforceable as a mark.

It's kind of like you have every right to your own home as your home is your castle, but if your home somehow gains significant historical importance and value then your full rights to your home might diminish and it could be declared as public propery.

The problem that I see with the word Meta is that if it is referenced to Metaverse which in the minds of the general public is becoming the case then it might be unenforceable as a trademark when it comes to Metaverse related fields and categories.

This is just my personal view about this situation and might not be supported by others.

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

The problem that I see with the word Meta is that if it is referenced to Metaverse which in the minds of the general public is becoming the case then it might be unenforceable as a trademark when it comes to Metaverse related fields and categories.

This could happen over time, yes. But at the moment it's just dreamt up in people's heads imho.

Pretty sure these things don't lose all protection, I believe that they lose protection for a specific good or service category. For example Google for search if it become ubiquitous.

 

[oldtimer]

This could happen over time, yes. But at the moment it's just dreamt up in people's heads imho.

Pretty sure these things don't lose all protection, I believe that they lose protection for a specific good or service category. For example Google for search if it become ubiquitous.

Google is associated with Search and even though we use the phrase " Google it" same as " Search" but it still has a specific meaning and use,

But Metaverse when referred to as Meta by its nature is far encompassing and is going to cover every category and field imaginable and as such is most probably going to fall under the public domain.

Although as I have already said this is just my personal view about this situation and might not be supported by others.

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

But Metaverse when referred to as Meta by its nature is far encompassing and is going to cover every category and field imaginable and as such is most probably going to fall under the public domain.

I believe that to be totally untrue. It's protection is specific... for instance it's not going to be generic for bread making or paint mixing. Nobody is going to be saying "I'm going to put some metaverse on my cereal".

Although Meta's trademark might look like it covers everything under the sun, it's specific to certain goods and services.

If Google lost their TM for search, they'd still be able to use it for robotics.

 

[oldtimer]

I believe that to be totally untrue. It's protection is specific... for instance it's not going to be generic for bread making or paint mixing. Nobody is going to be saying "I'm going to put some metaverse on my cereal".

Although Meta's trademark might look like it covers everything under the sun, it's specific to certain goods and services.

If Google lost their TM for search, they'd still be able to use it for robotics.

Some of this we just have to wait and see how it's going to unfold in the future.

A lot of it is going to do with how the general public is going to deal with this new phenomenon and how they are going to adopt the words Meta and Metaverse.

It's my understanding that Mark wanted this to be all encompassing and be used by everyone for everything.

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Some of this we just have to wait and see how it going to unfold in the future.

A lot of it is going to do with how the general public is going to deal with this new phenomenon and how they are going to adopt the words Meta and Metaverse.

It's my understanding that Mark wanted this to be all encompassing and be used by everyone for everything.

IMO

You're right there. He says his vision is to build something that everyone can use, he's dubbed it the metaverse. But that doesn't mean that I can't go and register Metaverse as a trademark for bottle caps right here right now. Nobody better be using the name for bottle caps or I'll get real mad (and lawyer up) !!

Just like Internet is a trademark for training services... https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000074648841

 

[oldtimer]

You're right there. He says his vision is to build something that everyone can use, he's dubbed it the metaverse. But that doesn't mean that I can't go and register Metaverse as a trademark for bottle caps right here right now. Nobody better be using the name for bottle caps or I'll get real mad (and lawyer up) !!

Just like Internet is a trademark for training services... https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000074648841

Although you are free to apply for any trademark but I am sure that the people in charge of reviewing your case are going to put the public perception and the potential use of a word as a major consideration as to whether to approve your request or not.

I myself go by the moto below that I have coined recently:

Live And Let Live in the Metaverse!

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Although you are free to apply for any trademark but I am sure that the people in charge of reviewing your case are going to put the public perception and the potential use of a word as a major consideration as to whether to approve your request or not.

I myself go by the moto below that I have coined recently:

Live And Let Live in the Metaverse!

IMO

I think you're missing my point. They won't consider potential use in the future, they will consider it's use now, but for bottle caps I think I'll be OK.

God hope us if people think that living in the metaverse is a good thing.

 

[oldtimer]

I think you're missing my point. They won't consider potential use in the future, they will consider it's use now, but for bottle caps I think I'll be OK.

Well we really can't compare bottle caps with Metaverse as one is very specific and the other is supposed to be far encompassing,

but the situation with Metaverse is unprecedented and I believe that even the people at the trademark office might be having a difficult time trying to figure out how to deal with this.

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Well we really can't compare bottle caps with Metaverse as one is very specific and the other is supposed to be far encompassing,

but the situation with Metaverse is unprecedented and I believe that even the people at the trademark office might be having a difficult time trying to figure out how to deal with this.

IMO

I leave it there. I'm not sure how metaverse is unprecedented... it's got a long way to go...

 

[oldtimer]

I leave it there. I'm not sure how metaverse is unprecedented... it's got a long way to go...

Show attachment 204319

I believe it's a mistake to compare Metaverse that has just recently become the center of attention to other already established keywords.

Nevertheless the general public is going to have the last word on this so as I have already said we just have to wait and see how this all is going to unfold going into the future.

End of story.

IMO

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I believe it's a mistake to compare Metaverse that has just recently become the center of attention to other already established keywords.

Nevertheless the general public is going to have the last word on this so as I have already said we just have to wait and see how this all is going to unfold going into the future.

End of story.

IMO

We do indeed. I think that it'll be a big flop . We want LESS tech interfering with normal life, not more.

 

[HotKey]

But there might be certain situations that could become an exception such as when a trademarked word becomes so popular that it reenters the public domain again and becomes unenforceable as a mark.

The problem that I see with the word Meta is that if it is referenced to Metaverse which in the minds of the general public is becoming the case then it might be unenforceable as a trademark when it comes to Metaverse related fields and categories.

There is a genericized trademark, made-up words becoming so popular that it is the mark, not the actual real word, that is associated with the product or thing. This thread I did from 2016 has some examples:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/genericized-trademarks-flying-disc-is-ok-frisbee-is-not.945533/

and these are 100% DN's we stay away from even though first thought could be that they are real, dictionary words. This isn't the case with generic terms like "internet" or "meta", where it can be an all-encompassing domain name, but not as a trademark just in and of themselves.