Trademark ?

[Want2learn]

If Fox News had this trademarked: VRFOX

Then FOXVR is or is not a violation? For the sake of clarity, it would not be a website that looks anything like Fox or Fox News.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

 

[MapleDots]

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

Agreed 100%

 

[Kate]

OP: you might want to change your user name.
Notwithstanding possible TM issues, these names aren't great and not investment-worthy

 

[dordomai]

Unfortunately, this thread has become more disparaging than factual and educational. Trying to change that tone and get back on topic, I will say, most all words are TM'ed and there are multiple uses for most of these words. Most TM's do NOT own the rights for all uses. If TM holders owned the rights for all uses there would be no such thing as domain investing. For example, lets take the recent sale of Shoes.com...The word "shoes" has over 4000 records (live/dead) currently showing at USPTO. That does not mean the owner of Shoes.com is trespassing on a TM....

disagree. there is a difference between a generic trademarked word with non well known TM holders that is used in a non-infringing manner - most words have TMs - and a made up term that has a very well known TM holder and a term that has no real use other than selling it to the holder.

you can't compare shoes.com with that one.

What matters is what others think what your intent is. There are many good and perfectly legal reasons for owning and selling shoes.com but for an obscure term with a famous TM in it, not so much.

 

[Internet.Domains]

disagree. there is a difference between a generic trademarked word with non well known TM holders that is used in a non-infringing manner - most words have TMs - and a made up term that has a very well known TM holder and a term that has no real use other than selling it to the holder.

you can't compare shoes.com with that one.

What matters is what others think what your intent is. There are many good and perfectly legal reasons for owning and selling shoes.com but for an obscure term with a famous TM in it, not so much.

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

 

[dordomai]

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

if you have a credible business around that term maybe.. if you have no good reason for owning it you might lose that is the reality. seriously why would a domainer register that one?

do you think the website along with this thread indexed in Google would convince a panelist?

answer is no of course.

 

[Internet.Domains]

if you have a credible business around that term maybe.. if you have no good reason for owning it you might lose that is the reality.

Of course with legal matters anything can happen. However, you are using "maybe" and "might" in your statement, constituting a long shot. If I went through your domain portfolio I am sure I can find some TM's within your domains, that is reality....

 

[dordomai]

Of course with legal matters anything can happen. However, you are using "maybe" and "might" in your statement, constituting a long shot. If I went through your domain portfolio I am sure I can find some TM's within your domains, that is reality....

i think you don't understand. this is not just about having a TMed term in a domain, it ist also the circumstances and the term itself. Basically it looks like BS and people aren't stupid and might conclude someone is trying to cybersquat.

 

[Internet.Domains]

i think you don't understand. this is not just about having a TMed term in a domain, it ist also the circumstances and the term itself. Basically it looks like BS and people aren't stupid and might conclude someone is trying to cybersquat.

In that case, maybe you can explain how you think VRNYT.com is cybersquatting on the New York Times?

 

[Want2learn]

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

Vacation Rentals Now Yours Too!

I hope a travel/vacation business sees the value in the domain! Im ready for a nice rental, been to out of reach for too long.

 

[MapleDots]

@Internet.Domains @dordomai

I am very much enjoying reading you banter back and forth and I did the same recently in another topic so I am going to keep my nose clean on this one.

That said, I think the trademark debate will go on forever and it will always be open to interpretation.

 

[Want2learn]

What it sounds like to me is that some people have no imagination or creativity. I have not once alluded to the times. There are a billion time share/rental/vacation places that would fit very nicely with my domain.

One thing I have learned in my short time here is that aged domains generally do a little better . . . so at this time I have no plans to develop the domain (fully) as I wait for the domain to age. Maybe one of you would have better plans for it? If so let me know I am open!

 

[dordomai]

In that case, maybe you can explain how you think VRNYT.com is cybersquatting on the New York Times?

explain what else are they doing if they are not squatting on the TM? can you come up with a credible reason?

http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/nytvr/

Coca and Cola are both generic terms and I don't think there is a TM for ColaCoca does that mean I can register and sell ColaCoca.com?

 

[biggie]

OP: you might want to change your user name.

lol Kate

at this point, it does seem contrary



hope @Want2learn understands that our comments are not to be taken personally, just business.

Good Luck!

imo...

 

[Internet.Domains]

@Internet.Domains @dordomai

I am very much enjoying reading you banter back and forth and I did the same recently in another topic so I am going to keep my nose clean on this one.

That said, I think the trademark debate will go on forever and it will always be open to interpretation.

Yes, we are having a very cordial discussion with different interpretations.

explain what else are they doing if they are not squatting on the TM? can you come up with a credible reason?

Vacation Rentals Now Yours Too..........This according to the current plan, subject to change of course.

 

[dordomai]

Yes, we are having a very cordial discussion with different interpretations.



Vacation Rentals Now Yours Too..........This according to the current plan, subject to change of course.

that is a reason but not one that i find very credible, the domain is also listed for sale on sedo. does not look like development to me.

 

[Internet.Domains]

that is a reason but not one that i find very credible, the domain is also listed for sale on sedo. does not look like development to me.

So listing a domain for sale on a marketplace constitutes bad faith, under that thinking?..........We are worlds apart on interpretation, it has been a civilized debate and I appreciate that.

 

[JB Lions]

Currently USPTO shows three separate TM holders for different uses with the term "NYT".... Which one has the rights to "NYT" under your thinking? Can a new use be registered for "NYT" under your thinking?.......Or are we all to submit to the New York Times because they are shown in the first 50 pages on Google?.........Owning a domain with "NYT" is not bad faith unless the content on the website trespasses one of the registered TM holders.

You've been leaving out the VR part in your replies.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+vr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+vr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=vr+nyt

Whatever order you want to put it in.

What it sounds like to me is that some people have no imagination or creativity.

Like I said, we're domainers, you're in a domaining forum. We all would like to get a nice big sale from a big company. Register something in the area of a company, pretend it to be something else, roll the dice. I imagine when you bought it, you had visions of the New York Times buying it from you, right.

 

[Internet.Domains]

You've been leaving out the VR part in your replies.

VRNYT.com has nothing to do with VR or Virtual Reality. The TM, according to USPTO, in regards to NYTVR is related to VR or Virtual Reality. I really don't see how you see the connection in this case.

 

[Want2learn]

You've been leaving out the VR part in your replies.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+vr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+vr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=vr+nyt

Whatever order you want to put it in.



Like I said, we're domainers, you're in a domaining forum. We all would like to get a nice big sale from a big company. Register something in the area of a company, pretend it to be something else, roll the dice. I imagine when you bought it, you had visions of the New York Times buying it from you, right.

No I actually think that VRNYT will attract other businesses that can use the acronym.