ATTN REGISTRARS! it.com domain sunrise starts on Jan 2nd! GET READY NOW

question What’s considered infringement?

Catch.Club
Impact
11,817
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.

DealMaker1

Established Member
Impact
185
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Try and see what happens. There is a conflict between the official government registry and what domainers THINK is possible. If you can possibly make a domain a certified, patented entity, all the power to you. But when a domain like google.com drops, don't think for a second it is yours. It isn't. They have very strong trademark rights, and you will only be wasting your time. This goes for all TMS.
 
0
•••

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
7,207
Try it. See what happens.

I’ve tried it quite a few times.

Please look at this trademark registration. It is for a domain name. It is a standard character mark for Ticketstub.com.

Also, look at the attorney of record.

01BD12E9-D0C2-46C9-857F-6478D23E17DD.jpeg


So, okay, I tried it. It worked. I’m impressed with the commitment it takes to maintain a position despite literally thousands of datapoints to the contrary.
 
5
•••

DealMaker1

Established Member
Impact
185
Well. You are in trouble already. Heard of StubHub.com? Sorry, but they had the name first. With that name and traffic, you could try and approach them. They will not say no to more traffic, but it has to be proven
 
0
•••

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
7,207
Last edited:
1
•••

DNWon

eCommerce Branding SpecialistTop Member
Impact
6,619
1
•••

DealMaker1

Established Member
Impact
185
We already have examples, 11,000 domain names that have received a valid TM from the USPTO, provided by @jberryhill . So what you're saying is that those 11,000 domain names are NOT trademarks, and the USPTO was incorrect in granting them?

Yes. This what I'm saying. The registry OWNS these domains. Whether it is 11000 or 1000000. You are only a renter.
 
0
•••

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
7,207
Well, for that matter, no one permanently owns anything. Eventually we all die and own nothing.

But so what? Trademark registrations are also not permanent and also require periodic maintenance fees to keep them in force as well. The initial term of a US trademark registration is six years, and further payments are due at ten year intervals. If the mark is not used for three years, it is presumed abandoned.

They can also be revoked for various reasons too.

So, if you are saying that domain names can’t be trademarks because they can be revoked and require periodic payments, I have some news for you about trademarks.
 
3
•••
Impact
11,817
Thanks @jberryhill for all the insight!

This same scenario happened years ago with another .io that I own. After complaining to the app store they removed it.

As for domains qualifying as trademarks…yes they do and it’s a proven fact!
 
1
•••

Sam1234

Top Member
Impact
558
I believe the textbook definition of infringment is "whatever the judge handling the case decides is infringement", so there's plenty of room for stupidity, bribery, and bias. But I don't think it's infringement unless you built your brand first in any case. This is not legal advice and I am not qualified to give legal advice.
 
Last edited:
0
•••

Sam1234

Top Member
Impact
558
That company sure seems pretty shady though. Check out this game called "Pocket Monster Run" for which the main character looks an awful lot like Ash from Pokemon. Pokemon is short for "Pocket Monsters" and in some regions there is a Pokemon game called Pocket Monsters.

https://krugames.net/game/pocket-monster-run/

The developer is called "Upland".
 
Last edited:
0
•••

lock

FREE.MARKETINGTop Member
Impact
7,341
I thought i would just watch the comments nothing has been done you just have the domain undeveloped.
 
0
•••

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
7,207
Thoughts?

I wouldn't get excited about it. You'll notice that the publisher is "Barreye.Lab" and that's not a domain name either. So, maybe someone there just has a habit of making things look like filenames.

Speaking of filenames, if we were doing it over again, we never would have used ".com" in the first place.

As many may recall, before the domain name system took off, ".com" was widely used as a file extension for executable files in DOS. What was really frustrating early on in domain work was that when filename conventions became more relaxed people would use ".com" within filenames for things like UDRP decisions. It took the ADRForum quite a long time to understand that if they emailed a file like "Decision-Foo.com-final.doc" then a lot of email systems would see a file attachment with ".com" in it, assume it was a malicious executable file, and trash the email as likely containing a virus.

So, maybe they just named the baby "IO" and like to use dots as punctuation, such as in their publisher name which is also clearly not intended as a domain name reference.
 
3
•••

DealMaker1

Established Member
Impact
185
We already have examples, 11,000 domain names that have received a valid TM from the USPTO, provided by @jberryhill . So what you're saying is that those 11,000 domain names are NOT trademarks, and the USPTO was incorrect in granting them?
Yes. That's what I'm saying. .com itself is a type of mark. And how do you trademark a trademark? You can't. The USPTO can grant anything they want. It doesn't mean it's not contestable.
We already have examples, 11,000 domain names that have received a valid TM from the USPTO, provided by @jberryhill . So what you're saying is that those 11,000 domain names are NOT trademarks, and the USPTO was incorrect in granting them?
Im saying you have to go to TESS and check it out for yourself. Let's take Google.com as a basic word/design search. Is there anything for "Google.com"? Nothing. Two dead things. Now just type in "Google"and you get 1900 results for all kinds of trademarks and patents. This proves my point.

Also, for example, let's take a random company, cookitnow.com. Let's say I register it for 2 years and get a TM for ten years. The business then goes belly-up after two years and I let the domain drop but still have 8 years left on the official TM. So now that domain drops and somebody buys and starts their own cookitnow.com and it becomes successful.

So what happens now? The second person doesn't own the TM for cookitnow.com but I could register that domain because it dropped and went back into the pool for anyone to legally register. The USPTO has no jurisdiction over the .com registry. The .com registry doesn't care about TMs, only lending out .coms to people for a price. So the .com registry by virtue of renting the domain to someone else, really invalidates the original USPTO TM filing. It's like there are two renters for an apartment. The first buys renters insurance for the apartment for five years but leaves after one. Is the renter's insurance now valid for 4 years for the second renter? No. As soon as the first dude left the said apartment and his name was no longer on the apartment lease, that original renters insurance contract, with his name on it, ceases to exist.

If Google.com, the domain, were truly trademarkable, don't you think they would have done it? If it is indeed a fact that USPTO allowed domains to be TMed, I would also suggest they let it slide for the money, and they all can be contested because you can't trademark a trademark.

Cheers
 
0
•••

DealMaker1

Established Member
Impact
185
I’ve tried it quite a few times.

Please look at this trademark registration. It is for a domain name. It is a standard character mark for Ticketstub.com.

Also, look at the attorney of record.

Show attachment 230617

So, okay, I tried it. It worked. I’m impressed with the commitment it takes to maintain a position despite literally thousands of datapoints to the contrary.
And? So the USPTO wants to make money as a registry. Good. .com is its own registry. So what happens if Ticketstub.com, the actual domain, drops? Nothing. Because ticketstub was RENTING ticketstub.com from the .com registry. So then you are in a quandary, arent you? I am now renting ticketstub.com as a different entity, and legally I can do whatever I want with it and the .com registry won't give two shakes about that TM because they know you can't TM their extension, and it IS their extension, not ticketstub's. So TM and patent all you want, but it is contestable at every level because essentially you can't TM a TM. Essentially, the USPTO has marked that exact word expression for you, but if the domain drops, all bets are off. You no longer are legally renting that name so it pretty much invalidates the TM.

So because of the fluid nature at the .com registry, it cannot possibly recognize the validity of any of those .com TMs. USPTO recognizes it because it's a moneymaker. But there still remains the conflict between the two registries which can never be resolved.

Please realize that .com is under the jurisdiction of US Law. So is the USPTO. So we are going to have dualling banjos at best.
 
Last edited:
0
•••