Selling TM domains

[panospheric]

When selling TM domains, one could post the following message under the description:

Domains with trademarks can only be used to promote the company. Any unapproved use that dilutes the quality of the mark, or attempts to get website traffic that is unaffiliated with the company will be subject to legal recourse by the trademark holder.

What do you think? It just seems to be the most ethical thing to do so nobody who buys the TM domain is under any dilusion that it is risky to get into cybersquatting.

 

[tricolorro]

When selling TM domains, one could post the following message under the description:

Domains with trademarks can only be used to promote the company. Any unapproved use that dilutes the quality of the mark, or attempts to get website traffic that is unaffiliated with the company will be subject to legal recourse by the trademark holder.

Hi panospheric,

:? I'm just curious.

Do you know for certain that there is a provision for Fair Use of a Trademarked Name that could be used in a domain name IF such Domain Name with trademarks is only used to promote the company?

If so, can you point out any references?

Thanks.
Patrick

 

[labrocca]

You can place whatever you wish on your sales but I wouldn't post something that inaccurate in mine. Your statement just isn't legally true.

 

[Ronald Regging]

I think by placing that disclaimer in your sales you only give ammunition for the companies to take your domain from you. Admitting that you are aware of the TM, is admitting that you had no legal right to register it in the first place and therefore that act alone, let alone the act of trying to sell it for a profit, proves bad-faith on your part.

 

[MyPGP]

try "Any similarity is purely coincidental" in the disclaimer.

 

[DNQuest.com]

this isn't a Hollywod movie where that line will actually help.

 

[MyPGP]

this isn't a Hollywod movie where that line will actually help.

okay, if you say so.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

corrected:

Domains with trademarks can only be used with permission of the owner to promote the company. Any unapproved use that dilutes the quality of the mark, or attempts to get website traffic that is unaffiliated with the company will be subject to legal recourse by the trademark holder.

Even if you are a franchisee of a TM owner, you still have to have permission to use the mark. Many TM owners will not even allow their franchisees to register a domain with the TM name in it, in case they someday changed franchises.

It just seems to be the most ethical thing to do so nobody who buys the TM domain is under any dilusion that it is risky to get into cybersquatting.

The most ethical thing to do is NOT REGISTER TRADEMARKS that don't have a good generic use. If the domain also has a generic use, you don't want to even mention the trademark, as that just calls attention to the fact that it "could" have been registered in bad faith. If you own apple.info, you had better put some content about fruit on the site, not a disclaimer about apple computers or apple music. If you own mcdonalds.tld you had better have the last name of mcdonald or make darn sure you don't have anything related to fast food.

Also, even if you sell a TM domain, you could still be gone after by the company in court for damages as the original registrant or a past owner. Particularly if you made money in any way (as in selling it or PPC).

 

[panospheric]

confusion on TM

I see that some of the biggest domain brokerages have TMs for sale, so this made me think that merely owning a TM isn't a trademark infringement, nor is offering it for sale, but USING it in a website to syphon off some traffic, is an
infringement. Are all those domain sellers just pretending they don't know their domains have a TM? Are they hoping nobody will notice? Esp. the mark holder? If one ignorantly registers a TM name, and later finds out that it is a TM, it seemed like a good idea to point out the potential problems, rather than pretend you aren't aware. Or I guess you could just drop it, live and learn. Some people seem to even focus on TM names to make a living.

 

[labrocca]

A trademark is for USAGE of a MARK, PHRASE or WORD. USAGE is key here.

Trademark infringement is when you use a similarly confusing name or the mark itself for commercial gain. Only the TM holder has that right since it's their intellectual property. Even selling the domain can constitute trademark infringement.

The numbers are good for the domain brokers...they make millions per year on TM domains. Legally I am sure they have their battles but overall make a ton of money and will continue to do so unless more companies go after them. Microsoft is already creating an initiative to go after domain brokers and squatters.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

The numbers are good for the domain brokers...they make millions per year on TM domains. Legally I am sure they have their battles but overall make a ton of money and will continue to do so unless more companies go after them.

To many of these companies it's like swatting flies in the cattle barn at the county fair. They pop up so quickly that it would take a miracle to stop those trying to get ebay, yahoo, or some other big name in their domain. I would imagine they have to pick the fights that are the worst threats, and hope the undeveloped ones just go away on their own or by seeing the big ones made as an example.

 

[bluesman]

...Microsoft is already creating an initiative to go after domain brokers and squatters.

Well, if they're as successful with that as they have been in releasing their Windows Vista, then I wouldn't be too worried about it.

(Plus even if they did do anything eventually, it could never be retroactive, ie affecting any such previously regged domains, which is over 80% of the current market.)

 

[almarti2]

Bluesman,

You need to do a lot more research.

First of all, the Constitution only prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Additionally, when the ACPA was passed, it's constitutionality was examined...but wait...there was no need to go there. Why? Because domain name registration of a trademark is a CONTINUING harm.

 

[labrocca]

Well, if they're as successful with that as they have been in releasing their Windows Vista, then I wouldn't be too worried about it.

(Plus even if they did do anything eventually, it could never be retroactive, ie affecting any such previously regged domains, which is over 80% of the current market.)

An initiative is not a law..the laws are already on the books. Microsoft simply wants to begin enforcing the laws. A couple class action suits against the parking companies, the domain registrars, as well as the major 100 infringers would greatly publicize the issue and prevent a great deal of the TM problems. I also think DROP companies need to be kicked in the ass big time. I can't stand them.