Ebay is threatening legal action against me - Advice needed.
- Thread starter Srewob
- Start date
- Status
Ya I caught that as well.
I imagine that lawyer likes saying things like that in court. Then people are like "Ah shit you got me".
Each case is a case on it's own, and this is a cut and dry one.
Take a look at the domain: ebaysellingtips.org
The word ebay is clearly used in reference to the auction marketplace ebay.com
By using the word ebay in the domain, the owner of the domain is making his online presence by using a federal mark which is solely reserved for eBay's online trading services.
Domains and books are two different things, that is being regulated by their own litigation proceedings. As i said, each case is a case on it's own.
Well if that is your experience then consider yourself lucky.
True, some companies don't want to follow the procedure where they might be spending more in legal fees. And as has been said earlier in the thread, these C&D letters are...can be send out in a automated fashion due to TM monitoring services.
But they (They as in eBay) can pursue and actually assign someone on to the case and don't think you can then put up a fight.
If you're infringing on a TM there is no reimbursement obligation.
Keep in mind that when you do take the hard ass option with a TM infringing domain like this you could be setting yourself up for a massive fine.
Try to defend a lost cause, try to hold on to your TM infringing domain(s) from big corporations and you'll literally pay for the consequences.
In copyright and trademark law a absence of legal threats does not by definition means your case is exhumed from further litigation, it just means it's not yet noticed, or important enough to prevent you from using the TM.
posted by Jon:
How do you know that Jon? There are over 1 million people making money selling on eBay, some of them full time, some of them making huge money. That's a market. ebaysellingtips.org could be something worthless or something valuable; if you have nothing aside from the domain name on which to base a judgment I'd venture to say you don't really have enough info.
posted by Edwin:
The existence of a trademarked term in a domain name does not automatically equal trademark infringement; if this was the case then eBay would have no need to send out polite e-mails to registrants. Sites like paypalsucks . com would not exist since they would be trivially easy to shut down using a trademark broadsword.
No. I consider myself "not an infringer of others' intellectual property" and "smart enough to hire a decent lawyer" but never lucky. I'd be in Vegas if I was lucky, not doing this stuff for a living.
I'm not talking about taking a hard ass option; I'm talking about not taking the candy ass option and just rolling over every time you get an e-mail from eBay or another IP holder.
There is no such thing as a domain which infringes on trademark in and of itself. IP Holders have to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the registrant in order to successfully take hold of a domain name and have to demonstrate action taken in bad faith in order to collect any penalties over and above the name and legal fees. (Cybersquatting rules aside of course.)
It can also mean you aren't infringing on trademark and the IP holder knows it.
I realise that I may come across as anti-IP in these discussions, but this isn't the case -- I'm just anti-douchebag, and cases like eBay sending out automated e-mails to every registrant who has the word eBay in a domain name is douchebaggery at its finest. They're gambling on the premise that any individual domainer will be scared shitless at the idea of standing up to them, rather than worrying with things like the legal process for handling this issues, issues of good faith vs. bad faith etc.
Frank
How do you know that Jon? There are over 1 million people making money selling on eBay, some of them full time, some of them making huge money. That's a market. ebaysellingtips.org could be something worthless or something valuable; if you have nothing aside from the domain name on which to base a judgment I'd venture to say you don't really have enough info.
posted by Edwin:
The existence of a trademarked term in a domain name does not automatically equal trademark infringement; if this was the case then eBay would have no need to send out polite e-mails to registrants. Sites like paypalsucks . com would not exist since they would be trivially easy to shut down using a trademark broadsword.
No. I consider myself "not an infringer of others' intellectual property" and "smart enough to hire a decent lawyer" but never lucky. I'd be in Vegas if I was lucky, not doing this stuff for a living.
I'm not talking about taking a hard ass option; I'm talking about not taking the candy ass option and just rolling over every time you get an e-mail from eBay or another IP holder.
There is no such thing as a domain which infringes on trademark in and of itself. IP Holders have to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the registrant in order to successfully take hold of a domain name and have to demonstrate action taken in bad faith in order to collect any penalties over and above the name and legal fees. (Cybersquatting rules aside of course.)
It can also mean you aren't infringing on trademark and the IP holder knows it.
I realise that I may come across as anti-IP in these discussions, but this isn't the case -- I'm just anti-douchebag, and cases like eBay sending out automated e-mails to every registrant who has the word eBay in a domain name is douchebaggery at its finest. They're gambling on the premise that any individual domainer will be scared shitless at the idea of standing up to them, rather than worrying with things like the legal process for handling this issues, issues of good faith vs. bad faith etc.
Frank
True, but that is NOT the case with ebaysellingtips.org - that is a TM infringing domain.
Paypalsucks.com is a case on it's own...different then ebaysellingtips.org (Usage)
My bad, i interpreted your post as you have.
You would have to agree it's not smart to hire a lawyer to defend a domain like ebaysellingtips.org?
Right! - Just pick your battles wisely is all i'm saying.
ebaysellingtips.org is just a bad reg, simple as that, got my fair share of those when i was a noob at domaining, let them all expire and learned my lesson.
Should i own Apple.com you would have to stab, torture, run me over with a truck and shoot me in the head before i would let that domain go.
I would definitely put up a fight for that type of domain.
Of course there is and you acknowledge it...in your own words:
So a domain like NikeShoes.com is a trademark infringing domain if it's registered by anyone else then Nike.
No UDRP panel that would choose to deny Nike this domain when it's being presented in front of a UDRP panel, it's an automatic loss.
Yes it can, but let's not make this discussion about two types of domain legal issues, namely:
A: Domains containing generic words (i.e. Apple, Shell) used in a legitimate way.
B: Non generic domains containing a string of characters forming a word/expression that is trademarked.
I agree, but do you think ebaysellingtips.org is a domain that coincidently has the word ebay in it?
Of course, as we expand this discussion it gets more into opinions that would need to be sorted out by the relevant parties, but ...
I don't see it. Bad faith has to be demonstrated, and "selling on eBay" is a practice engaged in by millions of people all over the world -- at this point it is a "general discussion" thing, and if it were my domain (although I wouldn't want it, but generally speaking, if it were mine) and I had some reason to want to hang onto it, this would be one of my primary defences of the domain.
Right, but there's no demonstration of usage simply by ownership of the domain, and as we both seem to agree it's not clearly a case of cybersquatting since it is not an obvious term like nikeshoes.com
Again, it would depend on a lot of factors unknown to me, but I can think of legit uses for the name that, if it were mine, would make me want to defend it.
OK; it sounded more like the "any domain with a trademark in it is infringement" party line -- my bad. Obviously, of course, eBay feels that any domain with the word eBay in it is infringement, hence their letter to the OP. And to reiterate: that is bullshit, and they and other large companies just bank on the idea that the recipients of such letters will be too scared to stand up for themselves.
Do you have a tatoo of Uzi Nissan on your body somewhere? Now that guy is a fucking fighter! (those of you unfamiliar with domaining legends should visit nissan.com sometime ... I bet it isn't what you're expecting to see at that URL.)
Right; I went back and added the cybersquatting bit in my edit. I idiotically proceed from the notion that people on internet forums are not thieves, cybersquatting dickheads etc. and so it slips my mind to mention the obvious exceptions sometimes.
I seriously doubt that Nike would have any problem getting it back. A site about tips for selling on eBay is a much more tenuous connection to a trademark claim. eBay cannot legitimately claim to be the only source or only reliable source of such information, and cannot claim that the information is not of general interest to a large number of people in the US and around the world.
It is definitely not about that: I am saying that a website containing tips for current and potential sellers on eBay is not necessarily in infringement of eBay's copyright. eBay would have to prove bad faith, as it is not possible that anyone with a three-digit IQ would mistake it for eBay, absent bad faith on the part of the site owner.
Mind you, I'm not saying eBay would lose the case either -- they might win, and it could be a serious ass-raping for the domain registrant. But I do not believe that they could just smack it down from a domain trademark angle.
Frank
I don't see it. Bad faith has to be demonstrated, and "selling on eBay" is a practice engaged in by millions of people all over the world -- at this point it is a "general discussion" thing, and if it were my domain (although I wouldn't want it, but generally speaking, if it were mine) and I had some reason to want to hang onto it, this would be one of my primary defences of the domain.
Right, but there's no demonstration of usage simply by ownership of the domain, and as we both seem to agree it's not clearly a case of cybersquatting since it is not an obvious term like nikeshoes.com
Again, it would depend on a lot of factors unknown to me, but I can think of legit uses for the name that, if it were mine, would make me want to defend it.
OK; it sounded more like the "any domain with a trademark in it is infringement" party line -- my bad. Obviously, of course, eBay feels that any domain with the word eBay in it is infringement, hence their letter to the OP. And to reiterate: that is bullshit, and they and other large companies just bank on the idea that the recipients of such letters will be too scared to stand up for themselves.
Do you have a tatoo of Uzi Nissan on your body somewhere? Now that guy is a fucking fighter! (those of you unfamiliar with domaining legends should visit nissan.com sometime ... I bet it isn't what you're expecting to see at that URL.)
Right; I went back and added the cybersquatting bit in my edit. I idiotically proceed from the notion that people on internet forums are not thieves, cybersquatting dickheads etc. and so it slips my mind to mention the obvious exceptions sometimes.
I seriously doubt that Nike would have any problem getting it back. A site about tips for selling on eBay is a much more tenuous connection to a trademark claim. eBay cannot legitimately claim to be the only source or only reliable source of such information, and cannot claim that the information is not of general interest to a large number of people in the US and around the world.
It is definitely not about that: I am saying that a website containing tips for current and potential sellers on eBay is not necessarily in infringement of eBay's copyright. eBay would have to prove bad faith, as it is not possible that anyone with a three-digit IQ would mistake it for eBay, absent bad faith on the part of the site owner.
Mind you, I'm not saying eBay would lose the case either -- they might win, and it could be a serious ass-raping for the domain registrant. But I do not believe that they could just smack it down from a domain trademark angle.
Frank
In a related story, I'd be interested to know how this thread turned out -- another large company trying to shit on independent domain owners and webmasters:
http://www.wickedfire.com/hosting-domains/26326-i-just-got-c-d-scholastic.html
Frank
http://www.wickedfire.com/hosting-domains/26326-i-just-got-c-d-scholastic.html
Frank
Do yourself a favour and just give them the name. I've had dealings with ebay's legal dept before, and believe me they can bite. You cant possibly win, and they wont take no for an answer.
Dave
Dave
are they really that strict? no one can use that name to promote them even?
I mean make money on ebay, that will make ebay more money also?
There is no way they will accept this?
I would contact them myself and explain.
Maybe they say no, i have no idea at all. But its worth a mail i think.
But i have been wrong one or two times before.
Laffe
I mean make money on ebay, that will make ebay more money also?
There is no way they will accept this?
I would contact them myself and explain.
Maybe they say no, i have no idea at all. But its worth a mail i think.
But i have been wrong one or two times before.
Laffe
Except for the fact that ebay selling tips and instructional guides, and ebay courses and seminars, and eBooks, and whatever the fuck else you could possibly think of has already been done a million times over.
I'm not saying its not valuable but I'm saying if you don't have enough to fight the C&D you probably don't have enough to fight out the billion other people doing exactly the same thing.
So in my opinion your statement towards Jon is just as judgemental and un-factual then his statement.
Just reg auctionsellingtips.org or something and continue on.
But is it just me or is that Edith fag a little arrogant?
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. We know you work for a famous company, stop repeating it. Besides, it's not like eBay's Founder's daughter produces naughty sex tapes....
But is it just me or is that Edith fag a little arrogant?
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. We know you work for a famous company, stop repeating it. Besides, it's not like eBay's Founder's daughter produces naughty sex tapes....
Holy Resurrection Batman!
posted by Aequitas:
My exact words are right there -- you quoted them. Jon's exact words are right up there, and the implication of those words is that the domain was intended for some sort of bullshit get rich quick scheme. All I said (as you just quoted) was that the amount of information that Jon has (a domain name) he doesn't really have enough info. I hardly consider that judgmental, and am not sure how "non-factual" even comes into play.
1) Jon does not know the intent of the OP -- he supposes it. That's a fact.
2) Jon does know the domain name that the OP registered. That's a fact.
3) As I pointed out in the same paragraph you're quoting (oops you forgot to c&p this part) there are over a million people selling on eBay to one degree or another, so "eBay selling tips" is a market. That's a fact, and therefore ...
4) ebaysellingtips.tld is a semi-generic domain name that appeals to a broad market. Just the exact phrase "ebay selling tips" generates over 400,000 results on Google (in fact you kinda say this yourself, which makes this whole thing even more confusing.) Short version (too late!) is that tips for selling on eBay is a serious market. Fact.
Where's the non-fact?
Frank
Frank
posted by Aequitas:
My exact words are right there -- you quoted them. Jon's exact words are right up there, and the implication of those words is that the domain was intended for some sort of bullshit get rich quick scheme. All I said (as you just quoted) was that the amount of information that Jon has (a domain name) he doesn't really have enough info. I hardly consider that judgmental, and am not sure how "non-factual" even comes into play.
1) Jon does not know the intent of the OP -- he supposes it. That's a fact.
2) Jon does know the domain name that the OP registered. That's a fact.
3) As I pointed out in the same paragraph you're quoting (oops you forgot to c&p this part) there are over a million people selling on eBay to one degree or another, so "eBay selling tips" is a market. That's a fact, and therefore ...
4) ebaysellingtips.tld is a semi-generic domain name that appeals to a broad market. Just the exact phrase "ebay selling tips" generates over 400,000 results on Google (in fact you kinda say this yourself, which makes this whole thing even more confusing.) Short version (too late!) is that tips for selling on eBay is a serious market. Fact.
Where's the non-fact?
Frank
Frank
If the OP wants to start a site about tips to start selling on eBay that's great...but he doesn't have the right to use eBay in his domain as it is potentially to be confused for a site owned by eBay.
A site operated by eBay to provide helpful information to sell on eBay.
- which is why Phishing paid off for quite some people.
There is no defence for this domain really.
The context for which the domain is registered - "eBay" +"Selling" +"Tips".org is clearly in reference to eBay's auction platform and eBay is a federal trademark that is solely reserved for eBay's online trading services.
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about that Frank?
Especially if a domain like PerfumeBay.com is being pulled away from a site owner? - put that in contrast to a domain that is clearly in reference to the eBay auction platform and any savvy domainer knows the domain eBaySellingTips.org does not have any rational defence in court, etc.
If you think otherwise Frank, you're simply not a rational thinker in my opinion.
A site operated by eBay to provide helpful information to sell on eBay.
Yeah, i wouldn't be confused, or a ton of other people wouldn't take it as a site operated by ebay to help their audience, but there are simply people that would think otherwise. There lots of people with a 2 digit IQ
- which is why Phishing paid off for quite some people.There is no defence for this domain really.
The context for which the domain is registered - "eBay" +"Selling" +"Tips".org is clearly in reference to eBay's auction platform and eBay is a federal trademark that is solely reserved for eBay's online trading services.
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about that Frank?
Especially if a domain like PerfumeBay.com is being pulled away from a site owner? - put that in contrast to a domain that is clearly in reference to the eBay auction platform and any savvy domainer knows the domain eBaySellingTips.org does not have any rational defence in court, etc.
If you think otherwise Frank, you're simply not a rational thinker in my opinion.
I have some experience in this area, specifically with regard to a major computer manufacturer and a domain consisting of their trademark. I eventually settled with them for a small amount of money, but it was a long ordeal, and I had one important fact on my side: I'd run a successful website on the domain for five years before the trademark owner bothered to contact me.
Even then, it was pretty hit and miss.
I can't state one important point enough: your arguments about generic terms and law don't matter a shit. Think you're in the right? Great. Have a read of ICANN's UDRP policies (link here: ICANN | Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) and have a good, long, think about whether they'd decide in your favour. You might like to perform a Google search and have a read through of their previous judgements.
Right now, eBay are playing nice, because that's easy. Next step would be to forcibly remove the domain from you. If they take this step, they will win, end of story.
Even then, it was pretty hit and miss.
I can't state one important point enough: your arguments about generic terms and law don't matter a shit. Think you're in the right? Great. Have a read of ICANN's UDRP policies (link here: ICANN | Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) and have a good, long, think about whether they'd decide in your favour. You might like to perform a Google search and have a read through of their previous judgements.
Right now, eBay are playing nice, because that's easy. Next step would be to forcibly remove the domain from you. If they take this step, they will win, end of story.
I registered a domain called paypalooza and got the same BS email, which I ignored.
Because the name had 'paypal' in it, seems they figured I was doing some trademark infringement. The name was actually setup as a payment gateway review.. [pay][palooza].
I've not used the domain yet, but that's not because I'm afraid to.
God forbid should Starbucks find out you have a domain name with the word 'coffee' in it.
Because the name had 'paypal' in it, seems they figured I was doing some trademark infringement. The name was actually setup as a payment gateway review.. [pay][palooza].
I've not used the domain yet, but that's not because I'm afraid to.
God forbid should Starbucks find out you have a domain name with the word 'coffee' in it.
posted by Edwin:
I don't disagree with that actually -- in fact, the "potential for confusion" clause is the only plausible grounds on which eBay could argue. But this is a court/arbitration matter, not an arguing on the Internet matter, and my actual point -- which I have stated again and again here -- is that the existence of the word or string "ebay" in a domain name does not make for an open-and-shut case of trademark infringement, even if the site is going to somehow or another have something to do with eBay.
To be clear, I think the OP would save himself a lot of potential grief if he just gave it up. But getting into the specifics of his case was not my intent -- it just keeps coming back to that despite my efforts to talk about domain trademark issues in a general sense, which is actually a pretty important topic for a forum filled with people doing stuff online to make money (isn't it?)
Well, PerfumeBay.com is another specific case, and the specifics suggest to me that both parties -- eBay and Jacquelyn Tran -- are stupid assholes. On eBay's side, Tran was an eBay seller who registered the domain perfumebay.com and built a site around it while maintaining her store at eBay. She also bid on PPC terms like "perfume ebay" and, despite having multiple domain names related to perfume, pointing to separate but nearly identical sites selling perfume, she spent the bulk of her promotional budget on perfumebay.com and derived the majority of her sales through that domain. For Tran to say with a straight face that she went from selling perfume on eBay to selling perfume on PerfumeBay with no intent whatsoever of capitalising on the domain trademark similarities is laughable -- she may not have meant it maliciously, may have even meant it as a clever play on words or something else similarly innocuous, but anyone who believes that she did it and it never crossed her mind to think "OH, ebay, perfumebay, those are similar" should be shot through the back of the head for the sake of preserving the gene pool.
On the other hand, eBay evinced the exact sort of ham-handed bullshit attitude towards this case that gets me so riled up: they sued Tran for breach of contract and tried to use this claim as a blunt edge to dismiss Tran's counterclaims to eBay's trademark case, when Tran had never signed any such agreement with them and in fact had specifically rejected it; they claim that the word "bay" -- not "ebay" but "bay" -- is a special thing that can only ever belong to eBay, they abused the seniority aspects of trademark with regards to market presence by first arguing that eBay was a major supplier of perfume online, when in fact 1)eBay is not a supplier of anything online, and 2) every single perfume seller on eBay combined sold less perfume than PerfumeBay did per year (they then fell back on seniority-by-date since they obviously were not a senior perfume market player, and if this argument were to have been carried on they would have had to get individual eBay perfume sellers to climb on board to form a litigant class, since eBay cannot actually represent their interests in court as it attempted to claim it was doing.) They also tried to get the Perfume Bay trademark abolished (an totally unrelated thing to eBay, which ironically was the starting point of this case -- not the domain name.) They provided a laughable "phone study" on the dilutive effects of the use of the word "bay" which would not have passed a Marketing 101 professor without being flamethrowered, let alone a federal judge. In other words they just basically threw every douchebag trick they could think up at this case in hopes that Tran would fold. Tran didn't fold, and it took years for eBay to finally get the case closed and also head off an appeal (note that it is still not entirely over -- Tran is already working on a Supreme Court hearing. I personally think she'll lose by reason of the flaws in her argument I outline above.)
Each case has its own specific merits, and again I'm trying to talk more generally about the law as it applies to domain names and web content. But since you brought it up, the PerfumeBay case really had enough bad marks against the defendant, to say nothing of the fact that eBay took a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach to their case, along with the fact that it took years to sort out and still isn't quite over, only lends weight to what I keep saying over and over, which is that the presence of a trademark in a domain name does not make for an open-and-shut case of infringement.
I am certainly not an expert on trademark law, but as I mentioned above I've been down this road a few times with domains that I own or owned, and so cases like Uzi Nissan and PerfumeBay.com are obviously of interest to me, and the more I see people just caving in to the first C&D they get e-mailed the more frustrated it makes me -- it sets a bad precedent for all domainers and site builders when a handful of deep-pocketed overlawyered companies can dictate what can and can't be owned or put up on the Internet, and also gives the entire domaining and affiliate marketing industry a bad image when anyone setting up Site B in reference to Site A is lumped in with overt trademark, copyright and patent infringement.
posted by moomycow:
Talking about trademark law and case precedents don't matter a shit when talking about trademark law and case precedents?
Frank
I don't disagree with that actually -- in fact, the "potential for confusion" clause is the only plausible grounds on which eBay could argue. But this is a court/arbitration matter, not an arguing on the Internet matter, and my actual point -- which I have stated again and again here -- is that the existence of the word or string "ebay" in a domain name does not make for an open-and-shut case of trademark infringement, even if the site is going to somehow or another have something to do with eBay.
To be clear, I think the OP would save himself a lot of potential grief if he just gave it up. But getting into the specifics of his case was not my intent -- it just keeps coming back to that despite my efforts to talk about domain trademark issues in a general sense, which is actually a pretty important topic for a forum filled with people doing stuff online to make money (isn't it?)
Well, PerfumeBay.com is another specific case, and the specifics suggest to me that both parties -- eBay and Jacquelyn Tran -- are stupid assholes. On eBay's side, Tran was an eBay seller who registered the domain perfumebay.com and built a site around it while maintaining her store at eBay. She also bid on PPC terms like "perfume ebay" and, despite having multiple domain names related to perfume, pointing to separate but nearly identical sites selling perfume, she spent the bulk of her promotional budget on perfumebay.com and derived the majority of her sales through that domain. For Tran to say with a straight face that she went from selling perfume on eBay to selling perfume on PerfumeBay with no intent whatsoever of capitalising on the domain trademark similarities is laughable -- she may not have meant it maliciously, may have even meant it as a clever play on words or something else similarly innocuous, but anyone who believes that she did it and it never crossed her mind to think "OH, ebay, perfumebay, those are similar" should be shot through the back of the head for the sake of preserving the gene pool.
On the other hand, eBay evinced the exact sort of ham-handed bullshit attitude towards this case that gets me so riled up: they sued Tran for breach of contract and tried to use this claim as a blunt edge to dismiss Tran's counterclaims to eBay's trademark case, when Tran had never signed any such agreement with them and in fact had specifically rejected it; they claim that the word "bay" -- not "ebay" but "bay" -- is a special thing that can only ever belong to eBay, they abused the seniority aspects of trademark with regards to market presence by first arguing that eBay was a major supplier of perfume online, when in fact 1)eBay is not a supplier of anything online, and 2) every single perfume seller on eBay combined sold less perfume than PerfumeBay did per year (they then fell back on seniority-by-date since they obviously were not a senior perfume market player, and if this argument were to have been carried on they would have had to get individual eBay perfume sellers to climb on board to form a litigant class, since eBay cannot actually represent their interests in court as it attempted to claim it was doing.) They also tried to get the Perfume Bay trademark abolished (an totally unrelated thing to eBay, which ironically was the starting point of this case -- not the domain name.) They provided a laughable "phone study" on the dilutive effects of the use of the word "bay" which would not have passed a Marketing 101 professor without being flamethrowered, let alone a federal judge. In other words they just basically threw every douchebag trick they could think up at this case in hopes that Tran would fold. Tran didn't fold, and it took years for eBay to finally get the case closed and also head off an appeal (note that it is still not entirely over -- Tran is already working on a Supreme Court hearing. I personally think she'll lose by reason of the flaws in her argument I outline above.)
Each case has its own specific merits, and again I'm trying to talk more generally about the law as it applies to domain names and web content. But since you brought it up, the PerfumeBay case really had enough bad marks against the defendant, to say nothing of the fact that eBay took a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach to their case, along with the fact that it took years to sort out and still isn't quite over, only lends weight to what I keep saying over and over, which is that the presence of a trademark in a domain name does not make for an open-and-shut case of infringement.
I am certainly not an expert on trademark law, but as I mentioned above I've been down this road a few times with domains that I own or owned, and so cases like Uzi Nissan and PerfumeBay.com are obviously of interest to me, and the more I see people just caving in to the first C&D they get e-mailed the more frustrated it makes me -- it sets a bad precedent for all domainers and site builders when a handful of deep-pocketed overlawyered companies can dictate what can and can't be owned or put up on the Internet, and also gives the entire domaining and affiliate marketing industry a bad image when anyone setting up Site B in reference to Site A is lumped in with overt trademark, copyright and patent infringement.
posted by moomycow:
Talking about trademark law and case precedents don't matter a shit when talking about trademark law and case precedents?
Frank
Don't get me wrong I know what you said was fact and all I'm saying is that this market has been over saturated for a very very long time and that right there is a fact.
- Status