Screamingpcs TM has got me screaming

[opalxx]

Have just got a legal letter from the US (i'm in Oz) that a domain i have (screamingpc) is trademarked. Apparently screamingpcs (note the s) is trademarked. Never would have thought this name would have been trademarked. Bought it only because of the quirky name.

Apparently Mr Smith (the owner of screamingpcs.com, screamingpcs.net and screamingpc.com) has advised his legal eagles that i am using the name in connection with a website that has previously offered a search and is being used as a search engine for internet service. Huh??? This name is parked at parked. Then says my continued registration (i've only registered it once) and continued use is an infringement of the trademark.

I have been instructed to take down (whatever that means) and transfer the name to Mr Clyde Smith.

Cease use of all marks that contain screamingpc.

Cease any internet links, websites.

Provide an accounting of revenue (which is easy, it's 0).

Provide a reply from the date of the letter (just got it yesterday so its past the 15 day reply mark).

So, what do you think? Do i delete the name or transfer it to Mr Smith????
I know what i would like to do with it!!!

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[waterbottle]

honestly, i would ignore it, ask for money, or proof of trademarking, and still won't give it up.

 

[flamewalker]

honestly, i would ignore it, ask for money, or proof of trademarking, and still won't give it up.

erm... asking for money is like asking for a butt whooping... don't ask for anything unless you are ready to give it up.

 

[namenut]

I have no opinion on that question, nor have I stated one.

It's a long throw to third ..... the runner sliiiiiides and...... safe!


Q:
Would the fact, that the name was available to register, render the argument disingenuous?
Is there an onus for the TM holder to peruse and maintain the TM integrity?

nn

 

[jberryhill]

Would the fact, that the name was available to register, render the argument disingenuous?

Wouldn't that logic render most TM arguments disingenuous?

 

[flamewalker]

Is there an onus for the TM holder to peruse and maintain the TM integrity?

Yep, up to the tm owner to watch over their own tm...

 

[namenut]

Wouldn't that logic render most TM arguments disingenuous?

My thinking was .....

With TM coming after the []com name reg and no back order on the []com
it would seem there was not reasonable effort to secure the property in effort to maintain TM.
If the TM language excluded or omitted the use of the "[]com" then the exclusion would remove the []com from TM.

Just a brain freeze. I'll blame the oversight on the grand marnier.
nn

 

[blackcatapult]

Wait.....

1. Ultimately the cost burden is on the plaintiff in your case.

2. The time of registration (domain) vs. filing of the TM becomes (as previously mentioned in the prior responses) is a detail.
- TM's are published for opposition. Even if you didn't know about it (sadly that's TM's for you), there was a chance to oppose his TM filing. You didn't so he got the TM.
- Going UDRP is costly. It takes time. It's frustating for the plantiff. The details will matter.

3. You are going to have to make a choice. People/companies who get TM's tend to treat them very seriously and will just keep putting money into 'protecting and enforcing' what-ever-brand they wish to create. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, it just is.
- You can keep changing the site and he will most likely keep coming.
- You can piss him off and 'sell it to yourself' and then private reg it. That would keep him going for years.
- You can ignore it. It may cause you stress and be like spam...you just know it is going to keep coming.

4. Want hope or just a laugh? http://www.nissan.com/
Read up.

 

[aladinonl]

Hi, how does it go now? I'm new to domaining and am very careful in legal stuffs.

 

[flamewalker]

I see you continue to use the site as-is... any more word from the TM owner?