sucks to be this domainer
- Thread starter smaxor
- Start date
- Status
And I thought we could bribe judges only in India. Wipo is full of retards these days, maybe people should start using other arbitration service providers who have an iota of brain left in them.
Appeal Anyone? I am sure that it will win. Just happened in the myspace.co.uk case.
Here's the full decision -- Decision
Appeal Anyone? I am sure that it will win. Just happened in the myspace.co.uk case.
Here's the full decision -- Decision
Wow. This is ridiculous. I hope someone organizes a campaign so those 3 assholes get overloaded with angry phone calls and hate mail.
Very true! ...and super high quality names at that. Still sucks for him though.
-=Chipmunk=-
That's far from the point.
The point is that these dipshit corporations who totally missed the boat on the internet and domain names are making up for their lack of foresight by hitting legit domain owners with frivolous lawsuits. They find out how much a domain owner wants for a domain, and if they think they can get it for less than that amount in court fees, they just fire up the lawyers.
We're talking about guys who were paying $80/year per name in reg fees, using an unproven business model that nobody believed in, and many of whom either held on during or profited from the burst of the dot com bubble. Actual visionaries, most of whom were just normal everyday people that saw a good thing coming. And now, they're having their property and livelihood taken because Lufthansa saw a pretty toy they wanted.
This is PROPERTY. Not "intellectual property", a patent on an idea for how to cut your hair with a vacuum. It's no better than "eminent domain", it's fucking criminal, and these corrupt domain name governing and legal groups should be held accountable. As should the companies bringing these lawsuits.
There will be drastic industry changes made so to fight for the (dare I call him a little guy?) little guys.. but not anytime soon.
The beauty of the domainer industry is also the parts that make it tough. Like the fact that it's fairly untapped and small in comparison to the affiliate marketing industry, who is also considered a somewhat small industry still. But even though the secretive domainer or wholesale/broker domainer industry being small and very well funded has it's downfalls, because justice is tough to come by, and being that it's an international industry from the start, there is no one single government that can rule and say yes to this or no to that, just legal groups, and self appointed groups. Of course, there's also the monopoly on ICANN, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms that I do not want to even dig into.
Someone can be pissed about this, or they can learn a lesson. If you're squatting or fucking around with obvious TM's, and you lose it, don't blame anyone but yourself. You knew what you were taking a chance with, and instead of playing it safe, you gambled, and lost. Deal with it. But look at it in a different light. You may have lost a major premium domain worth potential millions, but at the same time, you can go off, snag a bunch of premiums or generics, flip them for thousands or tens of thousands in profits, and it would be as if you didn't lose anything in the first place.
We're lucky enough, imho, to be in an industry where small investments can yield some VERY quick and high profit margins over and over again. Best of all, you're a winner in my eyes if you didn't land yourself in jail or have to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the loss of the domain ruling.
The beauty of the domainer industry is also the parts that make it tough. Like the fact that it's fairly untapped and small in comparison to the affiliate marketing industry, who is also considered a somewhat small industry still. But even though the secretive domainer or wholesale/broker domainer industry being small and very well funded has it's downfalls, because justice is tough to come by, and being that it's an international industry from the start, there is no one single government that can rule and say yes to this or no to that, just legal groups, and self appointed groups. Of course, there's also the monopoly on ICANN, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms that I do not want to even dig into.
Someone can be pissed about this, or they can learn a lesson. If you're squatting or fucking around with obvious TM's, and you lose it, don't blame anyone but yourself. You knew what you were taking a chance with, and instead of playing it safe, you gambled, and lost. Deal with it. But look at it in a different light. You may have lost a major premium domain worth potential millions, but at the same time, you can go off, snag a bunch of premiums or generics, flip them for thousands or tens of thousands in profits, and it would be as if you didn't lose anything in the first place.
We're lucky enough, imho, to be in an industry where small investments can yield some VERY quick and high profit margins over and over again. Best of all, you're a winner in my eyes if you didn't land yourself in jail or have to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the loss of the domain ruling.
You can have a trademark without exclusive rights. That means the use of the domain matters a lot under the UDRP rules.
For example, I can own Apples.com and sell Granny Smith's all day. But the second I start selling iPods the domain will be lost even though it is a "generic."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the owner of LH.com was not doing ANYTHING related to Lufthansa.
Moreover, using the example of Apples.com is NOTHING like what has just happened.
The letters LH are used by thousands of companies, what gives lufthansa the right to acquire it over all the others?
I gave the Apples example to show how someone can have trademark rights to a generic in response to your post. I don't think FMA was using LH.com in such a way.
The LH.com decision is partly the result of poor negotiation, partly poor decision making by the panel, partly a poor job by the respondent's lawyer, and partly legitimate. Doing a TM search for Germany and Switzerland shows Lufthansa DOES have legitimate interest in the name. When combined with FMA's offer to lease, and a dumb panel, the name was lost.
The lesson here is how careful to be when negotiating the sale/lease of a domain name.
The LH.com decision is partly the result of poor negotiation, partly poor decision making by the panel, partly a poor job by the respondent's lawyer, and partly legitimate. Doing a TM search for Germany and Switzerland shows Lufthansa DOES have legitimate interest in the name. When combined with FMA's offer to lease, and a dumb panel, the name was lost.
The lesson here is how careful to be when negotiating the sale/lease of a domain name.
Couldn't agree more.
I think you missed the point. This sets precedent for other companies to unrightfully steal (yes, steal) domains from their rightful owner when their IS no trademark infringement and there never WAS at the time of the domain purchase.
I think you agree with eachother.
I think rather than "learning from this" and being happy that we have the opportunity to make money domaining and AMing we should instead be questioning corruption in the system that allows these unjust decisions to be upheld.
I think dogfighter hit the nail on the head.
How's this for a theory...
Decently funded person researches and finds TM's for established business names like Industry Textile (registed 1956) buy the TM from the business (let's say $50k) sues Mark Cordover for IT.com (another $50k) .. person can get ownership of IT.com (Registered 1992) for $100k - beats 800-900k. Just a simple example of how older TM's could be abused if his loop-hole is not put in check.
Decently funded person researches and finds TM's for established business names like Industry Textile (registed 1956) buy the TM from the business (let's say $50k) sues Mark Cordover for IT.com (another $50k) .. person can get ownership of IT.com (Registered 1992) for $100k - beats 800-900k. Just a simple example of how older TM's could be abused if his loop-hole is not put in check.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Trademark law is pretty messed up.
Recently Cadbury's has been fighting two other chocolate companies, here and abroad.
In Australia, they're fighting with Darrel Lea.
In the States, Milka.
The trademark fight? I shit you not: "The colour Purple".
Apparently, Cadbury's has trademarked an entire range of the visible spectrum.
Now, in Australia, where we still have some common sense in our legal circles, they lost this fight. A judge (I forget which one) said that you can't trademark a colour, although you may apply for a particular pantone (which I doubt Cadbury's will do, because ensuring that their all packaging sticks to a pantone colour would cost a LOT of money when they're printing their packaging by CYMK processes)
Cadbury's has appealed the decision.
In the US, Milka lost...
Apparently, under American law, wavelengths of light are something you can own...
Milka has since changed it's packaging colour to "Deep-sub-Lavendar"... (can we get a jerking off emoticon, please?)
Makes me wonder why Pimps haven't weighed into the argument. I was under the assumption they'd be interested in making sure that ALL chocolate can come in purple wrapping
Recently Cadbury's has been fighting two other chocolate companies, here and abroad.
In Australia, they're fighting with Darrel Lea.
In the States, Milka.
The trademark fight? I shit you not: "The colour Purple".
Apparently, Cadbury's has trademarked an entire range of the visible spectrum.
Now, in Australia, where we still have some common sense in our legal circles, they lost this fight. A judge (I forget which one) said that you can't trademark a colour, although you may apply for a particular pantone (which I doubt Cadbury's will do, because ensuring that their all packaging sticks to a pantone colour would cost a LOT of money when they're printing their packaging by CYMK processes)
Cadbury's has appealed the decision.
In the US, Milka lost...
Apparently, under American law, wavelengths of light are something you can own...
Milka has since changed it's packaging colour to "Deep-sub-Lavendar"... (can we get a jerking off emoticon, please?)
Makes me wonder why Pimps haven't weighed into the argument. I was under the assumption they'd be interested in making sure that ALL chocolate can come in purple wrapping
Like I said above, wipo decision has been challenged and I believe that they will win -- http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa/fma-v-lufthansa-amended-complaint.pdf
You people panic a bit too fast.
You people panic a bit too fast.
Trademark law is pretty messed up.
Recently Cadbury's has been fighting two other chocolate companies, here and abroad.
In Australia, they're fighting with Darrel Lea.
In the States, Milka.
The trademark fight? I shit you not: "The colour Purple".
Apparently, Cadbury's has trademarked an entire range of the visible spectrum.
Makes me wonder why Pimps haven't weighed into the argument. I was under the assumption they'd be interested in making sure that ALL chocolate can come in purple wrapping
Maybe the estate of Jimi Hendrix should weigh in too. :rasta:
- Status