TM infringement from search box type-ins

[Seabass]

I read somewhere before that searching from the search box on a parked domain is not considered a TM violation.

For example, if you owned Apples,com and had it parked and did a search for "Apple computers", would the UDRP panelists, or a court of law find that to be a TM violation by the owner of Apples,com ?

I'm unclear on this. Will that get us in trouble? Does anyone know the answer to this for sure?

Thanks!

 

[bmugford]

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how you can be held responsible for what a user searches for. If you own Apple.org and it is a site about Candy Apples, I don't think a manual search for Apple Computers can really be held against you.

Brad

 

[Seabass]

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how you can be held responsible for what a user searches for. If you own Apple.org and it is a site about Candy Apples, I don't think a manual search for Apple Computers can really be held against you.

Brad

Thanks for the reply.

That was the notion I remember reading elsewhere but wanted to see if anybody might know the answer to this for sure.
.

 

[Robbie]

Im not a lawyer either but I would have to agree - How can you be responsible for anothers actions.

Several names that TM instead of placing adwords on a site have just placed an Adwords Google Search Bar in the Center of the page.

This is what I would do if I thought there was any risk of the domain being taken away from myself due TM issues.

Regards,

Robbie

 

[jberryhill]

http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/860527.htm

As noted above, Complainant's "evidence" consists of Complainant's own manipulation of search results on the Respondent's web page, and the claim that Respondent intentionally placed those automatically generated links on the web pages shown in Complainant's exhibit 3. It is clear that Complainant's exhibit 3 carries notations indicating the manner in which Complainant's counsel generated this fictitious evidence; and further, Complainant does not mention that the initial UDRP filing against this domain name was withdrawn by Complainant so that it could add these recent allegations. Again, we observe that the domain name was registered in 2002, and the Complainant's search was conducted in January 2007 in order to generate the claimed evidence of bad faith.

 

[bmugford]

jberryhill, thanks for the information. Rep Left.

Brad

http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/860527.htm

As noted above, Complainant's "evidence" consists of Complainant's own manipulation of search results on the Respondent's web page, and the claim that Respondent intentionally placed those automatically generated links on the web pages shown in Complainant's exhibit 3. It is clear that Complainant's exhibit 3 carries notations indicating the manner in which Complainant's counsel generated this fictitious evidence; and further, Complainant does not mention that the initial UDRP filing against this domain name was withdrawn by Complainant so that it could add these recent allegations. Again, we observe that the domain name was registered in 2002, and the Complainant's search was conducted in January 2007 in order to generate the claimed evidence of bad faith.

 

[Dave_Z]

Damn, do you ever lose?

Off-topic, but he actually has a few times. Sounds nice to be Rocky Marciano
in this field, but...we're all human.

 

[jberryhill]

Damn, do you ever lose?

A couple of times, yes. Quite a few of those were followed by litigation which settled.

Nobody wins 'em all.

A related issue is in the pig.com case, in which the complainant was buying PPC advertising to place itself into the ad feed, and then complaining that the website had an "unauthorized link to our products".

People will try anything.

 

[Peter]

Out of interest how do you go about proving that the complainant was the person who did the searches etc?

Oh and a request would it be possible for the wipo cases to be written in English instead of gobbledegook, would make life easier than translating it lol.