2 ms·

Isn't a UDRP for Tesla.com nonsensical because Tesla.com isn't similar to Teslamotors.com?

• vvanders 11y ago
  The UDRP was for Tesla Industries not Telsa Motors as per the article.
• underwater 11y ago
  The post says the UDRP was for teslaind.com, not teslamotors.com.
• CyrusL 11y ago
  It can depend on the usage of Tesla.com . For example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own. This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
• gist 11y ago
  It's nonsensical because there is nothing wrong with owning that domain (from multiple perspectives) and most importantly the ownership predates Teslas use of the name by a long time (and a short time is all you need). So unless the owner is trying to compete in an area similar to Tesla's trademarks it's a non starter. UDRP won't get you a name unless certain conditions are met and even then there are ways to hold onto the name (you can file federal lawsuits for example) if there is enough money involved. In the end this becomes a battle of nerves as well as gambling as to what the fold price will be of both parties before they walk. The truth though is tesla.com is what I call a bastard domain. As a result of the fact that Tesla is effectively the only buyer of the name (because any new use they'd have established broad rights by their popularity let's say) it would be hard for a new buyer to justify purchasing the domain for as high of a price as Tesla would pay for it.