(Sub) domain laws

[scott1995]

Are there really any sub domain laws right now? I remember something about google getting sued over a blog spot blog, but lets say someone has youtube.theirdomain.com, could they get sued for trademark infringement?

 

[blaknite]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Its not the subdomain that would be violating the law its your use of the trademark. Theres no need for additional legislation to make this illegal. A trademark gives the owner exlusive right to "trade" (do business and market goods) using a specific mark(name or likeness). Its not the name itself thats a violation of the law, but rather your intent to use (or misuse) someone elses good name that is wrong.

If you were to have a newspaper run an add for a new grill your company makes and you put on the ad that George Forman endorses your product without his consent, it would clearly be an attempt to use his name and the trust he's built with people to further your own goals. Trademark law gives businesses that same right to a name so that they can build a good reputation. Using that name for your own profit is illegal regardless of what angle you find to exploit it.

 

[BiddersUp]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Its not the subdomain that would be violating the law its your use of the trademark. Theres no need for additional legislation to make this illegal.

Great Point. I repped you. I have not located any "specific" legislation as it relates to subdomains. For example, I am selling riches.ws . Here
The Main site could sell subdomains such as:

RealEstate.Riches.ws
Get.Riches.ws
My.Riches.ws

etc....As long as you are not selling or promoting the use of trademarked names there should not be any problems with your use of subdomains. You should be able to spot the obvious Trademark violations. However, just remember to set up your TOS so that you are not held liable for the neglect or misuse of trademarks by others.

 

[shockie]

you can get sued for trademark infringement even if you don't own any domains...

 

[scott1995]

Ok thanks, this helped a bit, great answers guys. Now one last question, there is a free sub domain provider (co.cc) which normally gives free domains but charges for ones that are popular in TLDS (normally trademarked domains too) lets say $10. Wouldn't that be cyber squatting on their part, making it illegal for them to do so?

 

[BiddersUp]

Ok thanks, this helped a bit, great answers guys. Now one last question, there is a free sub domain provider (co.cc) which normally gives free domains but charges for ones that are popular in TLDS (normally trademarked domains too) lets say $10. Wouldn't that be cyber squatting on their part, making it illegal for them to do so?

Yea, I would say so. In such a case where there are "trademark issues" it is best to look for another subdomain provider. However, I want to stress that "most" sub domain providers do not use or encourage the use of trademarked names. It is best to locate a subdomain provider within your "niche" that has strict rules against trademark infringement. Paying a fee is totally acceptable and expected...especially for a good keyword name.


Much Success

 

[Dave_Z]

Currently the closest thing to this was the Jews For Jesus vs. Google dispute.
Look it up online, though it was resolved before a judge decided the matter.

Goes to show it's definitely possible. Someone just has to do something.

 

[5867dude]

Ok thanks, this helped a bit, great answers guys. Now one last question, there is a free sub domain provider (co.cc) which normally gives free domains but charges for ones that are popular in TLDS (normally trademarked domains too) lets say $10. Wouldn't that be cyber squatting on their part, making it illegal for them to do so?

I reckon they would be allowed to do that as they could say they were charging for more desired domains and claim they didn't mean to infringe trademark.

 

[scott1995]

I reckon they would be allowed to do that as they could say they were charging for more desired domains and claim they didn't mean to infringe trademark.

well anyone could pretty much do that, but it still in fact would be profiting off of a trademark. Still, seems no one has had a problem with them about it yet.