TM issue - please helpHi mates,

[wizja]

TM issue - please help

Hi,

I've received such an email concerning my Nikonian.eu website:

Mr. [my surname],

We are the owners of Nikonians, a registered trademark in several countries.
We own a lot of property around that brand, included but not limited to nikonians.eu. Furthermore, we also own the trademark "nikonian" and it has been in use since the year 2000.

You are hereby requested to cancel the domain you have registered and take down the site without no further reminder from our side. Please inform us when that has been made.

Sincerely,
Bo Stahlbrandt
Nikonians EMEA Ltd.

And I did respond them with:

Dear Sir,

I did not mean to infringe any of your trademarks law concerning Nikonians.org property. Before I have registerd my domain name I did search several trademark databases and did not find what you say. I see that the "Nikonians" is indeed the registered mark of yours but I could not find the same for "Nikonian". As a proof I provide you with the following database search enigines:

United States Patent and Trademark Office:
http://tess2.uspto.gov

UK Patent Office:
http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk

Polish Trademark and Patent Office:
http://www.uprp.pl

If you can prove the "Nikonian" is a trademark of you here in Poland I would be appreciated.


Kindest Regards

There is also a website Nikonian.de and it is not the property of them. They don't have any information about "nikonian" trademark on Nikonians.org (only about "nikonians" tm).

What do you think about it? Please help me with this one.


Regards,
wizja

 

[bluesman]

Our guy didn't admit to anything, legally speaking. Here's what he said in the area in question: "I did not mean to infringe any of your trademarks law concerning Nikonians.org property. Before I have registerd my domain name I did search several trademark databases and did not find what you say."

First he states that he carries no intent to infringe, then he demands that they prove said infringement in light of his finding none, based on his trademark search.

That's hardly an example of acknowledging trademark ownership by the opposition and admitting wrongdoing regarding it.

(Another thought might be that he could instead avoid the international hassle and just switch to Pentax.)

 

[wizja]

You think Pentaxian will be better? :D

 

[DNQuest.com]

Actually, his opening statement shows he is apologizing for infringing.

 

[maximum]

I'm not giving advice, as much as commenting on what a few said above. You'll get alot of opinions, but the only ones that really matter in the end are the two parties fighting over the domain and their determination (some battles go to panels, then court, and back again forever - albeit, this is rare and takes money and determination).

DNQuest.com:

Well thought out, and well spoken advice! :great:

Possibly change registrars and add whois protection...even place the domain under fake information ownership. ----- Legally their best evidence is your email reply which really isn't great evidence from a judicial standpoint.

Change registrars and add whois protection? Labrocca, I am totally shocked you would think of advicing that one :o If it ever got to court, or especially to of any ICANN arbitration panels, this would be the ultimate proof of "bad faith" to do that now, considering they have already exchange correspondence. Folks can argue up and down about rather what he said in the emails is or is not neccessarily good or bad, legally speaking. However, an ICANN arbitrator (where this would end-up, assuming wizja isn't willing or can't hire a lawyer to fight this in court instead), wouldn't see it that way. The arbitration panels do not work off of the rules/concept "beyond all resonable doubt". They can judge "bad faith" without having to show or even claim it was a violation of any one nation's laws (is very subjective, and many of these panel members like to make the point).

wizja: Best of luck to you. Do, please keep us up-to-date on this.

 

[bluesman]

Actually, his opening statement shows he is apologizing for infringing.

You refer to the "did not mean" part? I'd submit that such verbiage is also part of most disclaimers that use "do not seek to, or imply in any way" and "similarities to any persons living or dead, is not intended" language.

(Granted, I personally would not have used any language in an email which might sound like "I'm sorry" in any way, shape or form for something I contend that I didn't do. But in itself, it's not an admittance of guilt.)

 

[MyPGP]

StahlbrandtSucks.Com - go for it

 

[DNQuest.com]

Yea, unfortunately, he did use that verbage and it will be used against him. As I have always stated, when you answer C+Ds, just stick to the points only. Never acknowledge a TM, never apologize, never, ask for money, always say why you regged the domain and your plans for it and that's all.

You refer to the "did not mean" part? I'd submit that such verbiage is also part of most disclaimers that use "do not seek to, or imply in any way" and "similarities to any persons living or dead, is not intended" language.

(Granted, I personally would not have used any language in an email which might sound like "I'm sorry" in any way, shape or form for something I contend that I didn't do. But in itself, it's not an admittance of guilt.)

 

[bluesman]

...Never acknowledge a TM, never apologize, never, ask for money, always say why you regged the domain and your plans for it and that's all.

True, especially the money part of that. I forget where I just saw it, but a poster on another thread recently said something like "it should be okay if my domain name just redirects to a 'for sale' page, right?"

Actually, WRONG! It would be a complete disaster - putting the spotlight on him as an unrepentant scammer, whose "business" exists to sell the names of others, and for no other reason.