3 ms·

>Are you in the same industry and compete with each other? If so, there might be an issue ... > as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar pr

by tomxor 5y ago

>Are you in the same industry and compete with each other? If so, there might be an issue ... > as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product Sounds like they are, but that the issue is in the reverse, they are trying to steal the authors market and product directly by using their name. This is very aggressive, not to mention wrong.

Buttons840 5y ago
Hope to read a follow up post one day about how the end result of this letter is the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains.
- tomxor 5y ago
  > the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains. That may not be punishment enough to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender. In an ideal world the result would cost the directors the right to start a business for a long period of time. I don't see that as too severe in any light - This is pretty close to fraud: trying to undercut market forces by dishonestly claiming rights to the name of a business with 7 years more history. Their only defence to malicious intent would be ignorance of the author's business existence prior to theirs - which is completely unbelievable considering that's the first and most obvious fact that will be used to settle the issue. Their lawyers would have to claim complete incompetence.
  - z3t4 5y ago
    Its unlikely that their lawyers are completely incompetent. For example King trademarked candy then sent a CaD letter to the makers of the original candy game that they had ripped off - and got away with it. Unless there are more to the story i think the op can just ignore the letter. And step up the SEO so that the other business will have a hard time competing. There will always be people that try shortcuts to success by committing fraud. And there will always be suckers that will get fooled. The tactic is often to scare - don't fall for it.
- donmcronald 5y ago
  It's really too bad it's so expensive to pursue issues like this. If the .net company has more money than the OP they could even end up with the .com even though no one would consider it fair. I think it would cost a lot of money to invalidate a trademark, especially if the company that owns it has deep pockets and even a UDRP complaint can cost in the range of $5k from what I've read. I think that's why so many mediocre .coms sell in the $2-4k range. It's cheaper to pay the domain/trademark squatters for the guarantee of getting what you want than it is to (maybe) prove their registration was in bad faith.
  - bhartzer 5y ago
    To defend a UDRP it’s about $10,000 plus filings fees. Typical filing fee is $1500. That’s why I recommend getting domain name protection ahead of time for all your domain names. $10-20 a month can save you from having to pay big legal fees.
paxys 5y ago
There's really no way to say that with the limited amount of info in the post. There can be two legit businesses in the same space with similar names. This is incredibly common in tech.
grammarnazzzi 5y ago
> If anything I would have thought they should be the ones changing their name, ... No doubt that they did think of that. Instead they decided on intimidation as an opening strategy. > ... as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product So they are guilty of what they are accusing you of. You could: 1) threaten to counter sue and settle for a price, or 2) sell them your .com They've no doubt anticipated these responses as well and are prepared to negotiate. They simply decided to open the negotiations at $0
- grammarnazzzi 5y ago
  Imagine the conversation they had 2 years ago when they registered their .net domain. Maybe 2 years ago, they were deciding on their corporate identity: maybe ABC, DEF, or GHI, ... They decided on ABC even though they knew ABC.com wasn't available. THEY KNEW IT, so they took ABC.net instead. They could have made you an offer at that time, but maybe they weren't ready because their business wasn't profitable yet. No point in putting money into something isn't proven valuable yet, right? So they kicked that can down the road; delayed that decision to buy your domain. So, now they want it, and they're engaging you now. They know they have no more claim on it than they did 2 years go.

by tomxor 5y ago

Buttons840 5y ago

Hope to read a follow up post one day about how the end result of this letter is the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains.

tomxor 5y ago
> the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains. That may not be punishment enough to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender. In an ideal world the result would cost the directors the right to start a business for a long period of time. I don't see that as too severe in any light - This is pretty close to fraud: trying to undercut market forces by dishonestly claiming rights to the name of a business with 7 years more history. Their only defence to malicious intent would be ignorance of the author's business existence prior to theirs - which is completely unbelievable considering that's the first and most obvious fact that will be used to settle the issue. Their lawyers would have to claim complete incompetence.
- z3t4 5y ago
  Its unlikely that their lawyers are completely incompetent. For example King trademarked candy then sent a CaD letter to the makers of the original candy game that they had ripped off - and got away with it. Unless there are more to the story i think the op can just ignore the letter. And step up the SEO so that the other business will have a hard time competing. There will always be people that try shortcuts to success by committing fraud. And there will always be suckers that will get fooled. The tactic is often to scare - don't fall for it.
donmcronald 5y ago
It's really too bad it's so expensive to pursue issues like this. If the .net company has more money than the OP they could even end up with the .com even though no one would consider it fair. I think it would cost a lot of money to invalidate a trademark, especially if the company that owns it has deep pockets and even a UDRP complaint can cost in the range of $5k from what I've read. I think that's why so many mediocre .coms sell in the $2-4k range. It's cheaper to pay the domain/trademark squatters for the guarantee of getting what you want than it is to (maybe) prove their registration was in bad faith.
- bhartzer 5y ago
  To defend a UDRP it’s about $10,000 plus filings fees. Typical filing fee is $1500. That’s why I recommend getting domain name protection ahead of time for all your domain names. $10-20 a month can save you from having to pay big legal fees.

paxys 5y ago

There's really no way to say that with the limited amount of info in the post. There can be two legit businesses in the same space with similar names. This is incredibly common in tech.

grammarnazzzi 5y ago

> If anything I would have thought they should be the ones changing their name, ... No doubt that they did think of that. Instead they decided on intimidation as an opening strategy. > ... as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product So they are guilty of what they are accusing you of. You could: 1) threaten to counter sue and settle for a price, or 2) sell them your .com They've no doubt anticipated these responses as well and are prepared to negotiate. They simply decided to open the negotiations at $0

grammarnazzzi 5y ago
Imagine the conversation they had 2 years ago when they registered their .net domain. Maybe 2 years ago, they were deciding on their corporate identity: maybe ABC, DEF, or GHI, ... They decided on ABC even though they knew ABC.com wasn't available. THEY KNEW IT, so they took ABC.net instead. They could have made you an offer at that time, but maybe they weren't ready because their business wasn't profitable yet. No point in putting money into something isn't proven valuable yet, right? So they kicked that can down the road; delayed that decision to buy your domain. So, now they want it, and they're engaging you now. They know they have no more claim on it than they did 2 years go.