3 ms·

I have to agree that it's the better option. Certainly not a 100% fail-safe solution – I see people already listing domains that were seized for various inexcu

I have to agree that it's the better option. Certainly not a 100% fail-safe solution – I see people already listing domains that were seized for various inexcusable reasons – but the Nissan.com case [0] (Nissan the car company vs. Mr. Nissan the run-of-the-mill computer sales guy) comes to mind as a classic (and fascinating) counterexample. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Compu...

adventured 8y ago
Madonna Ciccone famously thefted the Madonna.com domain away from Dan Parisi on the ridiculous basis that she somehow magically had a deserving claim on the domain due to her trademark of "Madonna" related to "entertainment services and related goods." https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d200...
- jakejarvis 8y ago
  Yikes. Like I said, domains are still far from fail-safe. The Madonna theft was almost 20 years ago, when trademarks seem to have reigned supreme in court, so hopefully more judges are better informed today and know this is unacceptable and not how the internet operates anymore... ...but I am often told I'm too optimistic.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >The only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain. That purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. Trademark Law. >[...] In the Sting decision there was evidence that the Respondent had made bona fide use of the name Sting prior to obtaining the domain name registration and there was no indication that he was seeking to trade on the good will of the well-known singer. >Because the evidence shows a deliberate attempt by Respondent to trade on Complainant's fame for commercial purposes, we find that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. She got the domain because he couldn't bring up a single non-Madonna-the-Singer reason for plopping $20,000 down to buy the domain.

adventured 8y ago

Madonna Ciccone famously thefted the Madonna.com domain away from Dan Parisi on the ridiculous basis that she somehow magically had a deserving claim on the domain due to her trademark of "Madonna" related to "entertainment services and related goods." https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d200...

jakejarvis 8y ago
Yikes. Like I said, domains are still far from fail-safe. The Madonna theft was almost 20 years ago, when trademarks seem to have reigned supreme in court, so hopefully more judges are better informed today and know this is unacceptable and not how the internet operates anymore... ...but I am often told I'm too optimistic.
ABCLAW 8y ago
>The only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain. That purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. Trademark Law. >[...] In the Sting decision there was evidence that the Respondent had made bona fide use of the name Sting prior to obtaining the domain name registration and there was no indication that he was seeking to trade on the good will of the well-known singer. >Because the evidence shows a deliberate attempt by Respondent to trade on Complainant's fame for commercial purposes, we find that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. She got the domain because he couldn't bring up a single non-Madonna-the-Singer reason for plopping $20,000 down to buy the domain.