Twiiter . com sold for $16,999 on DropCatch - UDRP waiting to happen?

[draco]

Twiiter . com sold for $16,999 on DropCatch today. There were 104 bids. Is it just me, or is that a waste of money and a UDRP waiting to happen?

 

[ontiscal]

A question to all you parking and typo experts
What would be a good way to monetize this domain without getting into trouble?

There is no a good way. Usually domains are redirected to ads or pages with affiliate links.
But monetising a typos trademark implies the automatic loss of the domain in case of UDRP because there is a clear bad faith.

 

[kor]

A question to all you parking and typo experts
What would be a good way to monetize this domain without getting into trouble?

Ads.

MORE ADS!

 

[ARCCLOUD]

There is no a good way. Usually domains are redirected to ads or pages with affiliate links.
But monetising a typos trademark implies the automatic loss of the domain in case of UDRP because there is a clear bad faith.

Yikes, more than enough reason for the UDRP to stick.

 

[silentg]

.TV dropped as well and got reserved by the registry.

 

[mdent]

Ads.

Right, what kind of ads, though? How do you set it up to avoid "risky" ads? Which service to use?

 

[kor]

Right, what kind of ads, though? How do you set it up to avoid "risky" ads? Which service to use?

Define "risky" ads.

 

[mdent]

Define "risky" ads.

Anything that even remotely relates to Twitter somehow

 

[kor]

Anything that even remotely relates to Twitter somehow

No.

-38
telecommunication services, namely, providing online and telecommunication facilities for real-time interaction between and among users of computers, 
mobile and handheld computers, and wired and wireless communication devices 
• enabling individuals to send and receive messages via email, 
instant messaging or a website on the internet in the field of general interest 
• providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among users in the field of general interest 
• providing an online community forum for registered users to share information, photos, audio and video content [ abut ] * about * themselves, 
their likes and dislikes and daily activities, to get feedback from their peers, to form virtual communities, and to engage in social networking

-41
providing on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring user-defined content in the field of social-networking

-45
providing a website on the internet for the purpose of social networking

 

[Ronnydeboo]

I would not have paid even a dollar for that domain. In my opinion it is done with bad faith and has been abusive registration of the domain. I also think i violates twitter's trademark rights despite the fact that it is a dictionary word.

 

[Finest]

Right, what kind of ads, though? How do you set it up to avoid "risky" ads? Which service to use?

Bird supplies
But good luck recouping the hefty investment.

 

[Ronnydeboo]

For those Who still have doubts, Dont miss the oportunity to bid for Twitter.us

 

[alcy]

watch owner make 1k per day in parking

 

[mixing]

Twitter.ca dropped earlier this month and was caught. It sold for $12,000

There were no previous CDRP's ever filed against it. Also, it appears the name was not purchased via auction by Twitter, MarkMonitor or similar..

Twitter never filed a CDRP for the .CA version after all of these years.. Personally, I'd never want to own it because I agree with most everyone here that it's a CDRP waiting to happen. However, it also appears Twitter isn't too worried about going after their domain in other extensions. Not sure if that's because it's a dictionary word or what.. I mean, obviously they know these extensions exist...

 

[Davidking]

Hey draco. The sale of the domain "Twiiter.com" for $16,999 on DropCatch with 104 bids does raise some questions regarding its value and potential trademark issues. While it's subjective to determine whether it was a waste of money or not, there are a few considerations to keep in mind.

Firstly, the similarity of "Twiiter.com" to the well-known social media platform "Twitter.com" may indeed lead to potential trademark disputes. The inclusion of an additional "i" in the domain name could potentially confuse users and infringe upon Twitter's trademark rights. In such cases, Twitter may choose to file a UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) complaint to regain control over the domain.

However, it's important to note that the final outcome of any potential UDRP case is uncertain and depends on various factors, including the specifics of the situation and the decisions made by the UDRP panel.

As for the value of the purchase, it ultimately depends on the buyer's intentions and objectives. Some individuals or businesses might see potential value in acquiring similar domains for branding purposes or as an investment, hoping for a future return on their investment. However, the risk of potential trademark disputes and associated legal costs should also be considered when assessing the overall value of such acquisitions.

In summary, the purchase of "Twiiter.com" for $16,999 does raise concerns regarding potential trademark issues. While the value and potential outcomes of such acquisitions can vary, it's essential to carefully evaluate the risks and benefits associated with similar domain purchases.

 

[kor]

@Davidking

Are you GPT sir?

 

[TLDN]

Twitter itself may have snagged the winning bid, or someone in another country with a bad legal system, or a nefarious underground person.

 

[Jenksy]

@Davidking

Are you GPT sir?

Good catch.

 

[accuname]

Theorectically I think as long as the use is in a different patent class it could be put to use. Example of companies with the same dictionary word but different classes is "delta". Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets.

 

[Peter45]

It doesn't matter if the TM is invented or a dictionary word

Not for disrespect but it does. As a general rule, TMs representing dictionary words are more difficult to defend than fictional ones.

Yes, UDRP is inevitable here. There's no "good faith" you can invent to justify such an "investment".

The Nice classification contains almost 50 categories.
If I understand Kor's post #33 correctly, Twitter's TM is registered only for 3 of them, i.e. twitter/com can be used - even in the USA - by businesses within over 40 Nice categories.

According to the Madrid Monitor, internationally Twitter TM relates only to 2 categories: 35 and 42.

There are 120 Twitter TM registrations and 44 Twitter TM pending registrations.
I'm talking only about "Twitter", without any suffix, prefix or any other additions.

"Good faith" in using twitter/tld is more than possible.

However, it also appears Twitter isn't too worried about going after their domain in other extensions.

Maybe it's not that they aren't worried but rather that they can't do anything as those domains are legitimately used?

Bird supplies

Twitter/tld - just like apple/com - doesn't need necessarily to be used according to his dictionary meaning.

I also think i violates twitter's trademark rights

A domain, or the registration thereof, per se don't violate TM rights.
In order to violate TM rights you need the intention of the domain owner to do it.

Right, what kind of ads, though? How do you set it up to avoid "risky" ads? Which service to use?

Ads relating to services or goods pertaining to Nice classification categories untouched by Twitter TM.
E.g. Sedo parking service offers the option of selecting keywords and categories for each domain.
Will the links displayed through that domain adapt to those settings? Don't know

----------

All that said, I wouldn't touch this kind of domains

 

[Alop]

o heck what a play

 

[etiqdom]

Not for disrespect but it does. As a general rule, TMs representing dictionary words are more difficult to defend than fictional ones.


The Nice classification contains almost 50 categories...

No disrespect likewise, Sir, but the domain is already developed in bad faith. Paragragh iv specifically:

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

 

[Peter45]

Hi @etiqdom

the first point, your statement "It doesn't matter if the TM is invented or a dictionary word".

I would say, in general it does, i.e. the burden for the complainant is heavier, so to speak, when the TM represents a dictionary word and the defendant declares that he was using the domain according to its dictionary meaning.

But of course, being a dictionary word doesn't preclude the possibility of a domain being declared as violating a TM.

 

[Peter45]

The second point, I was arguing against the idea - maybe I misunderstood you - that just because a domain matches a TM, then "UDRP is inevitable here. There's no "good faith" you can invent to justify such an "investment".
That's not true.

In order for a Complainant to prove bad faith, there need to be more than just the domain matching the TM wording.
If that matching would be enough, then 120 "Twitter" TM registrations couldn't exist, and those 44 "Twitter" TM pending registrations would have no chance.

"Good faith" in using twitter/tld is more than possible.

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

This quote has nothing to do with the case we are discussing about, because it address a Respondent attracting users to "Respondent’s website or other online location".
What we are talking about is someone simply registering a domain (and probably putting it on sale).
In @draco opening post there is no mention of the Registrant attracting users to his "website or other online location".

Your remark "UDRP is inevitable here. There's no "good faith" you can invent to justify such an "investment" didn't concern someone attracting users to his "website or other online location", but only someone registering a domain.

 

[etiqdom]

Peter, you miss my points, Sir. This is typosquatting, and not whatsover a dictionary/invented word difficulty problem. The "investor" knew exactly what was he doing by buying precisely not Twitter (for further developing it as a local garden full of mockingbirds), but a misspelled version of a well-known TM. Some pros here pointing to ads were spot on.

On the topic: please see Instagram vs. Lnstagrarn WIPO case.

Kindest wishes,
Marina

 

[kor]

Instagram

Instagram is already a fictional word. You cannot defend "Lnstagrarn" from any point.

However, any common dictionary word can be used with intentional misspelling.

If we were to go by your logic, 300 registered companies with the name "move" should have already filed a lawsuit against 200 registered companies using the "moov" brand.