Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Anyone famaliar with the Anti-Cybersquatting Act?

  1. #1
    ddt
    ddt is offline
    FLAC ddt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,123

    Anyone famaliar with the Anti-Cybersquatting Act?

    Is anyone famaliar with this? I got a letter from a law firm the other day.

  2. #2
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    294
    i think its when you register a website name just to hold the name. Like if you register the site www.joeblow.com for like years and do nothing with it that cybersquatting to hold the name. So if Joe Blow comes along and wants a website, he can challenge you for the name. This is so people don't buy up all the brand name and then sell it off to the companies for a huge amount. Like before all the companies like ibm, dell, etc.. went online, these people register the name just to sell it back to them.

  3. #3
    ddt
    ddt is offline
    FLAC ddt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,123

    Well, some of that's right. I know how the law reads. I'm just curious if I'm in voilation. Here's the law.


    (A)

    A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person -

    (i)

    has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

    (ii)

    registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that -

    (I)

    in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

    (II)

    in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

    (III)

    is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 (Red Cross) of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36 (Olympics)


    And here's the scenario.

    There is a company we'll call company X. Company X holds a trademark for the name. They've been around since 1999. Well I was thinking of buying a franchise in a particular city. So I regstered a domain name like www.companyxofcityname.com. I get a letter from their attorneys which states that I'm in violation of the anti-cybersquatting act.

    I've never once offered to sell the domain to anyone. In fact it's not my intent even today. It's up to the courts to decide if the company's trademark is "famous." Examples given were Microsoft, Exxon, and Kodak.

    There is not one of their franchises in the "cityname" I used in the domain name. In fact there are none close. Kind of hard to be called famous if no one there has even heard of it.

    I know there was talk from some fellow investors of someone else buying a franchise in that city, but my domain name was registered prior to that. I can bet that the only reason they found out is because they tried to register it.

    I'm going to tell their atty's to **** off tomorrow AM. I've done my homework. I was just curious if anyone else could see something I didn't.

  4. #4
    Maximum Bitrate
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    744
    I've had this happen to me, but reversely. In October of 2000 I registered www.cpubuilder.com with the intent to create a website, which I did. Then in March, Stratitech sends me an e-mail saying that since I'm planning to use that name to deal with computers, it will cause confusion in the marketplace. Nevermind, they, on the other hand, have only registered CpubuilderS as a trademark in that same month (March). So then I was forced to sign the name over to them. Seems kind of dumb to me.

  5. #5
    Maximum Bitrate CrazyLittle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    649
    Matty- no - you didn't need to sign jack -or- **** over to them.

    You cannot trademark prior art.

    See the Etoys.com vs. etoy.com

    etoy.com was an artist's webpage that had been around since like 1994. etoys, the online toy retailer, sued etoy and lost. If somebody were to create some company named "Crazylittle(anything)" tomorrow and then write me a letter in an attempt to bully that name away for me, I would simply respond by filing my own trademark claim and then suing them for dilution damages. It's the "ownership by invention" rule. If you're the one that came up with it first, nobody can take it away from you.

    Now really, you need to inform us as to what that "Company X" really is, because you're not giving us the whole picture.

  6. #6
    ddt
    ddt is offline
    FLAC ddt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,123
    company X is Homvestors. http://www.homevestors.com

    I registered http://www.homevestorsofchicago.com

    BTW.. short guy in the blue shirt on the home page... that's the dude who's thinking of buying the Chicago Franchise.

  7. #7
    ddt
    ddt is offline
    FLAC ddt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,123
    anyone?

  8. #8
    FLAC MP3DUB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland, IL
    Posts
    1,779
    I know a former employer of mine had to use it recently because his business was hisdomain.com, and his biggest competitor bought hisdomains.com and pointed it at their websit (altho I still can't figure out why he didnt own both in the first place, ive got no legitimate companies, and yet have multiple spellings and .orgs and .nets for some of my domain names ).
    -Nick

    _____________________________
    Since when is insanity a bad thing?
    Monthly MP3Car Chicago Meets
    www.mp3vw.com Last updated: 07/07/2008

  9. #9
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Yarmouth NS, Canada
    Posts
    336
    Part of the problem is if they know of and use the UDRP you may not have any choice in the matter. The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.. worst acronym ever) allows any other individual to file a proceeding that will be overseen by by a thid party (usually WIPO).

    If they rule that the domain name should be turned over to the copyright owner (and they do look into the issue quite thoroughly) then the registrar of the name will transfer it to that individual. Unfortunately you won't have any say regarding this as ICANN says that’s the way it is and the registrars agreed to this to become accredited..

    The UDRP does have a good reason behind it. It was designed to stop all the squatters out there that were just trying to make a quick buck sitting on a company's trademark. Its all grey area to me, its good and its bad (but hey, most things involving lawyers are like that )
    MP3 Cavalier - http://www.mp3cavalier.com
    MP3 Grand Prix - http://www.mp3gp.com

  10. #10
    ddt
    ddt is offline
    FLAC ddt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,123
    screw 'em. I told them they weren't getting it. The said they could make it long and expensive...

    ... I told them then their client is just going to have to decide if they're willing to take the loss

    EDIT had to fix the typo's

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •