information ShortDot's James.bond and 007.bond Domain Names Are for Sale at Dan.com

[NickB]

"ShortDot SA, the domain registry that owns and operates the .bond domain extension, has contracted with Dan.com to facilitate the sale of James.bond and 007.bond domain names."

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...ond-Domain-Names-Are-for-Sale-at-Dan-com.html

OK - this just made me shake my head, they do a press release to say they are selling these domains which blatantly only have 1 end user in mind - asking for trouble?

Coincidently the new James Bond film is being released today in the UK

 

[jberryhill]

Who owns the .bond registry

DANJAQ LLC will end up owning the registry if they hear about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danjaq

Danjaq, LLC (formerly Danjaq S.A. and Danjaq, Inc.) is the holding company responsible for the copyright and trademarks to the characters, elements, and other material related to James Bond on screen. It is currently owned and managed by the family of Albert R. Broccoli, the co-initiator of the popular film franchise.
---------------

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I want to make it clear to anyone new here:

If what the registry is doing here is not immediately obvious to you as a really dumb idea, you would do yourself a favor and get out of domaining, because you might end up getting hurt.

The press release is a study in self-delusion. Saying "James" is a common name, or "007" is a three-digit string is pretty irrelevant to the context here.

1. This press release is one week ahead of the premiere of a new James Bond movie. They've had these names for a while (and advertised them as a pair before), but they are expecting a potential finder of fact to somehow believe that the timing of this advertisement is just some kind of coincidence.

2. The press release clearly puts "James.Bond" together with "007.Bond" for no reason other than the association with the movie franchise associated with those terms.

3. The press release attempts to justify "James.Bond" by saying "'James' is one of the most popular first names in the world". That's true. What other "popular first names" are they selling? Jim? No. Paul? No. Muhammad? No. Mary? No. Most "popular first names" in .bond aren't even registered, much less being touted for sale the week before a Bond movie release.

4. The press release notes that "007" is a three digit number. Same questions apply. Why just that one, when they aren't selling or touting any other three digit numbers (or at least not any I checked). 001, 002, 003, etc., all look to be registered by ordinary registrants and parked. They held back "007". Why? What is special about that one?

These are the kinds of contextual facts which, for some reason, a certain kind of mindset seeks to ignore when attempting to justify blatant cybersquatting. I don't know if it is a psychological syndrome of some kind, but the "don't look at the entire factual context, just focus on some narrow fact" mentality is pretty common.

There is nothing other than the association with the James Bond film franchise, that explains why, after having these names for a while, they decided to issue a new press release the week before a Bond movie.

There is nothing other than the association with the James Bond film franchise, that explains why they are advertising these as a pair - and have held them back for themselves while leaving other three-digit numbers and popular names either unregistered or registered in the ordinary course to others.

And, finally, saying "But there might be some guy named 'James Bond'" does nothing to change the fact that neither of these names is registered to a guy named "James Bond". These names are registered to a deeply misguided organization that is not only harming its own reputation, but dragging Dan.com down with it. Coming up with some hypothetical facts from some alternative universe does not change the reality in THIS universe, and it is blatantly and abundantly clear what they are doing here.

 

[CraigD]

John Berryhill made some interesting comments concerning these domains a while ago.

There's an entire thread devoted to this subject.
https://www.namepros.com/threads/abject-stupidity.1203417/

 

[Acroplex]

007 - No Time To Park

Check out the "abject stupidity" thread.

 

[HotKey]

That thread reminds me, we should always always remember and go to the Nissan saga: A generic domain name does not equate automatic ownership to a corp just because they have a big brand on it.

**edit there is naivety in that logic, I get it. Most of us don't have the resources for that kind of pending war, no matter the intention for the DN. Todays reality, unfortunately.

 

[HotKey]

I don't know if TMs can span the dot especially on generic terms.. (eg SLD+TLD)

The BIN on these are mouth-watering.. dang. Peitho herself would be tempted.

Regular renewals.

 

[HotKey]

reminds me of the booking.com dispute where they won the battle to TM the domain

That one, they already owned the DN and their brand name literally includes the extension. I think the difference is, with the Bond film franchise, their brand isn't based on an internet extension.

It would be a smart buy for them.

 

[Future Sensors]

What I find most remarkable is that these names are presented together. It is very clear that this is about Mr. James Bond (007). As long as these domains are not sold, it seems to be a risk for the current owner. A potential new owner could perhaps do something legitimate with one of the names that doesn't get in the way of the trademark holder. As long as they stay under the radar of MI6, that is.

 

[CraigD]

What I find most remarkable is that these names are presented together. It is very clear that this is about Mr. James Bond (007). As long as these domains are not sold, it seems to be a risk for the current owner. A potential new owner could perhaps do something legitimate with one of the names that doesn't get in the way of the trademark holder. As long as they stay under the radar of MI6, that is.

As John pointed out in his original thread, they were clearly marketed with a banner depicting JB.

Would be quite amusing if MI6 purchased these

 

[NickB]

I think
(therefore, I am)
that @jberryhill
a prominent lawyer
attorney,
or simply-
-a sharper mind
can hop in, once again
to this conversation
and show us all
lesser minds
(domainers)
what "abject stupidity" means

EOM.

Very clever......

An ode to intelligence and us dullards - hopefully he does

 

[NickB]

I'm particularly intererested in the "contract" with @DAN.COM that ShortDot SA mentions in their PR:

"ShortDot SA, the domain registry that owns and operates the .bond domain extension, has contracted with Dan.com to facilitate the sale of James.bond and 007.bond domain names."​

What kind of contract is this exactly?

Nice pick up - I noticed this and was going to put in the original post - if the domain/s sold their "contract" (loosely used) is with DAN to make sure the domain gets transferred and they get paid..... same for all who use them.....

The wording implies something else but I think this is what they meant, no need for it to be mentioned at all really, they are just trying to add a layer of authenticity to the press release - which is another fail.....

 

[jberryhill]

 

[NickB]

right.....you 2 have creeped me out and made somehow think of Chitty Chitty Bang bang......

 

[DAN.COM]

Good question!, @DAN.COM . Also, are they still listed @Sedo as they were last time or were they booted for TM infringement.

For the record, we have not contracted with them for these sales. They signed up at Dan.com and didn't also request approval from us before sending out that release.

 

[jhm]

Terms And Conditions Of Use | James Bond 007

EON or its affiliates or licensees own all rights in the trademarks on the website, such as 007 and JAMES BOND. You have no rights in such trademarks. Use of any of EON’s or its affiliate’s or licensee’s trademarks without the prior written permission of EON is strictly prohibited.

 

[NickB]

reminds me of the booking.com dispute where they won the battle to TM the domain name

I'm not a legal expert but does one of the takeaways from the case below apply in this case? Even though it is .bond

• The Court rejected the United State Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) proposed per se rule that a generic term, when combined with the .com top level domain, must automatically be deemed generic and therefore ineligible for trademark protection; whether a term is generic or is a protectible trademark must be determined by reference to consumers’ perception.

"it underscores the importance of consumer perception evidence for those seeking to register arguably generic or descriptive terms as trademarks."

https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2020/06/supreme-court-holds-booking

 

[jhm]

Owning "james dot bond" without doing any business / relating to the James Bond franchise, that's a possibility. Just make sure its a website consisting of a cat playing with a ball of yarn

 

[CraigD]

Not worth playing in here...

 

[HotKey]

I think it's more to do with the public's perception of the name spanning (and including) the dot - They could quite easily argue that it is confusingly similar and that the public's perception would be these domains are to do with the Franchise?

Gotcha- true. As per the case reference you gave as a possible precedent. I think it's unlikely though, because the Bond brand isn't based on an internet extension, it was here long before, whereas booking.com, take away the .com and there goes their brand..

 

[DomainRecap]

I don't know if TMs can span the dot especially on generic terms.. (eg SLD+TLD)

Of course they can - anything is possible in a UDRP if you have the money to throw around - there are several cases of these in recent complaints. I seem to remember MR.green losing to the Mr Green TM.

https://circleid.com/posts/20171221_another_registrant_loses_udrp_where_trademark_spans_the_dot/

Some panelists also believe in time machines, as domains registered and owned decades before the complainant's TM was a spot on their Daddy's shorts have also freely been given away. Again, $$$$.

My question is the opposite - can a domain owner also use that angle to PROTECT it in a UDRP - a domain hack for example that may coincidentally have the complainant's TM in the SLD, but combined with the TLD, is a totally different word?

 

[HotKey]

As John pointed out in his original thread, they were clearly marketed with a banner depicting JB.

Would be quite amusing if MI6 purchased these

It's amazing a registry went that route, with the clear target in the banner. You would think they would know better, rather than being just an uninformed/loose cannon investor.

 

[Acroplex]

I think
(therefore, I am)
that @jberryhill
a prominent lawyer
attorney,
or simply-
-a sharper mind
can hop in, once again
to this conversation
and show us all
lesser minds
(domainers)
what "abject stupidity" means

EOM.

 

[Future Sensors]

I'm particularly intererested in the "contract" with @DAN.COM that ShortDot SA mentions in their PR:

"ShortDot SA, the domain registry that owns and operates the .bond domain extension, has contracted with Dan.com to facilitate the sale of James.bond and 007.bond domain names."​

What kind of contract is this exactly?

 

[Future Sensors]

Show attachment 200934

 

[CraigD]