Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ? ™ © ® ™

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Should we start a Revolution @ Trademarks ?

Yes , i think we should

™ © ® ™

Here is my Story

I bought the domain : dsds.tv @ Sedo.de for around 300.-$

A few weeks later RTL germany took the domain away from me
RTL germany has a TV show called : dsds ( Deutschland Sucht den Superstar )

WTF

A trademark, trade mark', or trade-mark is a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although trademarks used to identify services are usually called service marks.
The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity, trademarks are often displayed on company buildings.

What is a trademark and what does it protect?

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents protect different types of intellectual property. A trademark typically protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work. A patent protects an invention.



What does it mean to have a TM ?
Why does a TM include any domain ?

let,s start on the TM : Apple

there are more than 400 TM for the term : Apple ( and these are not only Apple computer )
Should every supermarket now be sued for selling Apples ?

How is it even possible to TM the term Apple ?

what about NOKIA ?

there is a Car named : KIA
there is a company named NOKIA

this is insane

i was so happy when i heard that Rick Schwartz lost his case on DomainKing.biz

first : nobody has the right to be a King
second : that he even got the TM on DomainKing was wrong
third : nobody need,s a King

Did you know that you can delete a TM ?
Did you know that there are so many categries to get a TM ?

for Example : you even can get a TM Facebook for perfume or soap

to the point

What do you think about TM ?

i don,t like any kind of TM and i will fight them !

So , let,s start a Revolution

First come first serve

 

[Kenny]

Thank you, Dr. Berryhill for finally clearing that up.

Peace,
Cyberian

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

A strange thing is happening to domain names suspended in URS


…they’re being renewed.


Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) was introduced as an alternative to Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (URDP) when new top level domain names were introduced.

URS is a faster, cheaper version of UDRP. A big difference is what happens when a Complainant wins. In the case of a URS, the domain name is merely suspended instead of being transferred to the complainant like it is in a UDRP.

This has always seemed a bit silly to me. A company pays money to suspend a domain name, only to have it expire and drop at a later date so anyone else can register it? (Perhaps I’m looking at it the wrong way since so many domain names won in UDRPs end up being let go at a later date.)

I analyzed the first 50 domain names that were suspended under URS at National Arbitration Forum to see what happened to them after they expired.

All 50 domain names were suspended between March and June of 2014, which is very soon after new top level domain names were released in general availability. Where are these domain names now? Here’s what I found:

50-urs

Let’s get the easy ones out of the way first.

14 of the domain names expired and now have Donuts’ DPML service which blocks them from registration. This makes sense; these first domain names were a wake-up call to brand owners that they need to have a new TLD strategy. Examples include IBM.guru, Accenture.ventures and Lufthansa.company.
10 domain names have expired and become available. Examples include Lipitor.guru, RipOffReport.link and VirginAustralia.holdings.
9 domain names were registered by the complainant after the registrations lapsed. Examples include Spanx.clothing, Telepizza.menu and Netflix.buzz.
2 domain names were registered by another party after the domain expired. This doesn’t necessarily mean a cybersquatter later registered the domain. For example, Watson.company was registered by someone whose last name is Watson.
Here’s where things get interesting. The most common thing that happened to these first 50 domains is that they were renewed. Twice. And they still show the original owner who lost the URS in Whois.

My reading of the URS is that suspended domain names remain suspended until the end of the current registration period. According to the URS rules, the complainant can then renew the domain name for one additional year by contacting the registry. (Yes, registry, not registrar. Who designed this policy?)

This means that domain names suspended over two years ago shouldn’t still be registered to the original registrant.

I reached out to several of the people who lost URS cases. One of them responded, and he told me that he hasn’t renewed the domain name. So I turned to registries and registrars to figure out what’s happening.

It seems that the way URS works doesn’t fit into any existing automated procedures. It’s manual and requires a lot of human intervention, including when it comes time for renewal/expiration. That human intervention can be a problem, especially when you’re talking about the uncommon case of URS suspensions.

In some cases, the domain name registrar might have overlooked a manual process, and in others the registry did.

Of course, the complainants in these cases still win if the domain gets renewed while it’s suspended. Their goal was merely to suspend the domain, not get ownership of it.

Source :

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/18/strange-thing-happening-domain-names-suspended-urs/

 

[ZapNano]

Frank Schilling gets RDNH win


Panel rules that Bernina International is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over Bernette.com domain name.

Frank Schilling has successfully defended his domain name Bernette.com in a UDRP, and the panel has found BERNINA International AG guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by filing the case.

Bernina is a Swiss company that has sold sewing machines under the Bernette brand since 1985. Schilling acquired the domain name in 2007.

Bernette is a common first and last name, and the parking page at Bernette.com has shown ads related to names, babies, and genealogy.

Bernina tried to buy the domain name between 2010 and 2016. Schilling’s brokers asked for between $26,000-$29,000 on multiple occasions in response to the inquiries.

Despite Schilling’s attorney John Berryhill warning Bernina that a UDRP filing would fail, the company still filed the UDRP. The UDRP certainly showed a lack of knowledge by the complainant.

For example, the complainant argued that Schilling obtained the disputed domain name from “apparently dubious Asian sources”. Schilling actually bought the domain name in an expired domain name auction and had no contact with the prior owner.

Bernina also included the brokers’ offers to sell the domain name to Bernina but did not mention that they were in response to its inquiries. Panelists tend to frown on this sort of trickery.

Bernina also argued:

The Respondent owns over 240,000 domain names. The Respondent and the Registrar are affiliated entities. They are “stockpiling” domain names via a network of companies at an offshore location without disclosing the beneficial owner’s identity. Such circumstances indicate bad faith. The Respondent’s only interest is in selling domain names and by operating offshore the Respondent is trying to hide by erecting legal hurdles against trade mark owners.

The panel found that the domain name wasn’t registered or used in bad faith. It found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on four grounds:

1. It didn’t mention its inquiries about buying the domain name, instead implying that they were unsolicited.
2. It didn’t do basic research to determine who owned the domain name, and instead said it was a person hiding behind “offshore” entities. As the panel pointed out, “doing a basic Internet search” would reveal the owner and his business model. Additionally, the business in Cayman is certainly not “offshore” as Schilling lives there and runs a large business there.
3. It’s a classic Plan B case in which the complainant filed a UDRP after failing to acquire the domain name through purchase negotiations.
4. Berryhill warned the complainant why it wouldn’t win a UDRP, but Bernina filed it anyway.

"Since 1985 been using the name Bernette for their product" Was the name "Bernettee.com" wasn't available back in 1985 to purchased?

 

[HotKey]

@jberryhill

I was kidding, more of a hypothetical. But it's not so far-fetched one day things could get that bad, if we let it.

What you've described, is exactly right.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

No, it does not mean that at all.

Domainers tend to believe that trademarks amount to some sort of monopoly for all uses of the protected mark, and this basic misunderstanding inspires the type of feverish and bizarre commentary exemplified by Mr. Ehrhardt's postings.

One of the oldest trademarks in continuous use is the red triangle that you see on bottles of Bass Ale:

They've been using that red triangle since the late 1700's, and it is pretty well established that a bottle of ale with a red triangle on it comes from them.

Does that mean you can't use red triangles for other things? No. Only in the fevered imaginations of certain ill-informed and prolific domain blog posters does it mean that.

Look, "TIDE" is a common word which refers to the movement of large bodies of water under gravitational influences. Anyone can use the word "tide" to refer to things having to do with its primary meaning.

"TIDE" is also one of the leading global brands of Procter & Gamble for laundry detergent.

Can you use it in a domain name? Well, that simply depends on what the domain name is doing. If the domain name is something like TideDetergent.tld, then it should be pretty obvious that the intended subject matter of the domain name is about trading on P&G's trademark for detergent. If the domain name is something like HighTideClocks.tld, then it is likewise pretty clear that the domain name has more to do with the seashore phenomena than the laundry detergent.

Does P&G have a right to protect their "TIDE" mark for detergent? Sure they do.

If you take a look at the Bernette.com case referenced above, we never disputed that, yes, that company has a trademark right in "Bernette" for sewing machines. The issue was that the domain name wasn't being used for anything having to do with sewing machines, but is being used and offered for sale on the basis of its value as a personal name.

This reasoning doesn't apply to marks which are so famous, well-known and distinctive that there is no conceivable good faith use for the domain name. Something like Coca-Cola-<anything>.tld is clearly valuable only because of the presence of perhaps the most well-known mark on the planet.

But as long as domainers look at trademarks as a binary proposition: i.e. there either is or is not a "trademark", then they are going to continue to misunderstand how trademarks work, and engage in pointless uninformed rants on the subject in general.

TM,s are Nonsense

NOKIA includs KIA ???

what does all these TM,s have to do with Domains ? especially .com domains ??

REVOLUTION

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Police - is a Music Band
Police - is a SunGlass Brand ( ™ )
Police - is a force it is a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enforce the law

so who has the right to own POLICE.com ?

maybe i should call the Police

Revolution

 

[Dave_Z]

TM,s are Nonsense

NOKIA includs KIA ???

what does all these TM,s have to do with Domains ? especially .com domains ??

REVOLUTION

Probably because you still misunderstand.

If Kia Motors wants Nokia just because of its last three letters, then the former should demonstrate rights for the latter. Importantly, the South Korean automaker must prove consumers will associate the term with its source---which is the point of trademarks---being the company rather than the phone manufacturer.

A trademark doesn't bestow monopoly for any and all uses of it, albeit that doesn't stop some mark holders from insisting otherwise (as someone named Leo Stoller tried years ago if you wanna check).

Note that a trademark can consist of a word or phrase. A domain name can contain a word or phrase, right? Depending on the context of the domain name, especially how one uses it, it might (not) exploit someone's mark---especially if that's the person's intent.

So if you register something like policeshadesDOtwhatever to exploit the sunglass maker's mark via selling eye shades, then you risk their ire. Likewise, the company should prove it has rights to your domain name if it wants the name instead of maybe buying it from you.

I voted no, by the way, because a revolution isn't necessary when one can know more how trademarks work.

Nobody's born knowing these things as Dr. Berryhill once said. Knowing and understanding this one takes time and patience, but that's if one is willing to understand rather than engage in "pointless uninformed rants".

But, whatever works for whoever.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Probably because you still misunderstand.

If Kia Motors wants Nokia just because of its last three letters, then the former should demonstrate rights for the latter. Importantly, the South Korean automaker must prove consumers will associate the term with its source---which is the point of trademarks---being the company rather than the phone manufacturer.

A trademark doesn't bestow monopoly for any and all uses of it, albeit that doesn't stop some mark holders from insisting otherwise (as someone named Leo Stoller tried years ago if you wanna check).

Note that a trademark can consist of a word or phrase. A domain name can contain a word or phrase, right? Depending on the context of the domain name, especially how one uses it, it might (not) exploit someone's mark---especially if that's the person's intent.

So if you register something like policeshadesDOtwhatever to exploit the sunglass maker's mark via selling eye shades, then you risk their ire. Likewise, the company should prove it has rights to your domain name if it wants the name instead of maybe buying it from you.

I voted no, by the way, because a revolution isn't necessary when one can know more how trademarks work.

Nobody's born knowing these things as Dr. Berryhill once said. Knowing and understanding this one takes time and patience, but that's if one is willing to understand rather than engage in "pointless uninformed rants".

But, whatever works for whoever.

Thank you

You should read the whole thread

A TM is Nonsense
A TM department doesn,t care about you

They deal individually and superficial

Please try to understand what a TM even is and what does it mean

A TM is an Invention from stupid people to create business

If someone can take away a domain from you ( even when the TM is registered later than the registration ) than you will understand

The Universe has it,s own Law
One day you will understand ️

There is no need for a TM

Btw

I am fighting the german Government because they stole my idea
( german olympic team )

 

[Dave_Z]

I understand what a TM means and does. Meanwhile, you see TM differently for whatever reason (though your fight with the German government seems a hint).

Some people and especially Dr. Berryhill offered a real-world take on TMs, so how you treat this issue is up to you.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

I understand what a TM means and does. Meanwhile, you see TM differently for whatever reason (though your fight with the German government seems a hint).

Some people and especially Dr. Berryhill offered a real-world take on TMs, so how you treat this issue is up to you.

it is a matter of time that you will understand

 

[Dun]

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Australian swimwear company guilty of RDNH over Hottie.com


Company owns Hottie.com.au, wants Hottie.com.

They're going to have to pay to drop the .au off their domain name.

Easton Corp Pty Ltd, which sells swimwear and lingerie at Hottie.com.au, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Hottie.com.
The current owner of the domain name bought it for $10,000 back in 2005. Easton Corp apparently communicated with the prior owner about buying the domain name before the current owner acquired it.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the three-person WIPO panel wrote:

The Panel recognizes that the Complainant is not represented by counsel but finds nevertheless that this is an appropriate case for a finding of attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Complainant acknowledged in the Complaint that the Domain Name was created many years before the Complainant’s business was launched. It was readily ascertainable that the registration had changed hands months before the Complainant’s trademark was granted and published. This all should have given the Complainant pause before advancing an argument that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in a bad faith effort to exploit the Complainant’s trademark, which is what the UDRP is designed to combat. Further, the Complainant does not seem to have noticed that its communications about purchasing the Domain Name were with a previous owner. Bringing a UDRP action nearly twelve years later against a subsequent owner has cost the owner substantial sums, when there was no realistic chance of proving that this party had acted in bad faith. The UDRP was intended to serve as an efficient means of redress against cybersquatters, not a cheap alternative to commercial negotiation with legitimate domain name holders.

Source : http://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/24/australian-swimwear-company-guilty-rdnh-hottie-com/

 

[Dun]

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

 

[gtldomainer]

Any sane person can say it's completely BS thing for one company to claim all domain names that are similar to their company names, TM or not. That's greedy big sharks on the play.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Since 23 October 2012, the At-sign is registered as a trade mark by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office—DPMA (registration number 302012038338) for @T.E.L.L.



REVOLUTION

 

[royj]

Got any ideas as what I could do with ipads.co ? Or is that just a law suit waiting to happen ?

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Got any ideas as what I could do with ipads.co ? Or is that just a law suit waiting to happen ?

no why ?

iPad.com will launch soon and it is not Apple ( Computer )

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Asset management firm Tobam is a reverse domain name hijacker



French company filed UDRP after failing to acquire domain name.

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) UDRP panel has found Paris asset management firm Tobam to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

Tobam filed a cybersquatting complaint against the owner of Tobam.com. The asset management firm uses the domain name Tobam.fr.

The owner of the domain name registered it along with many other surnames with plans to launch a surname email business. The business never got off the ground, but he registered the domain name before the complainant was in existence. This makes it impossible that the registrant acquired the domain name in order to cybersquat on the complainant’s brand.

WTF

Source : http://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/2...obam-reverse-domain-name-hijacker/#more-51736

 

[MANNYKURSH]

i m afraid to loose some of my domains too

 

[Dun]

i m afraid to loose some of my domains too

^{.. that must be awful}

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

i m afraid to loose some of my domains too

no fight ...
if neccessary cancel the TM

watch : www.nissan.com ( the best inspiration to fight for your right )

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Tencent beats back cybersquatting complaint over its Joox.com domain name


Big Chinese internet company forced to defend its Joox.com domain name.

jooxTencent, the $250 billion company behind QQ, has successfully defended the domain name it uses for its music service Joox.

A Brazilian company that uses the domain name Joox.io for its custom products business filed the complaint.

Source : http://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/3...ybersquatting-complaint-joox-com-domain-name/

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Is there a © on Copyright ?

Is there a ™ on Trademark ?

Is there a ® on Registered Sign ?

just nuts ...

Inventions to steal money

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

XNXX.com Loses UDRP On XXNX.com

JUNE 24, 2014 BY MICHAEL BERKENS 8 COMMENTS

A three member UDRP panel has rejected the owner of a popular adult webiste XNXX.com attempt to grab the domain name XXNX.com in a Very interesting opinion.

The complaint was brought by WGCZ S.R.O. who was represented by Randazza Legal Group

The domain holder was represented by The Muscovitch Law Firm

Here are the arguments made by the domain holder:

“”The Respondent first claims to have registered the disputed domain name, , on or about November 29, 2002, and submits what are said to be the earliest available historical Domaintools.com WhoIs records, showing the Respondent, Murat Yikilmaz, as the recorded registrant, administrative, billing, and technical contact, for the disputed domain name.

Source : http://www.thedomains.com/2014/06/24/xnxx-com-loses-udrp-on-xxnx-com/