Your quote is unrelated to your intended usage. That's saying that ConsumerReports and other organizations that compare products or write stories on specific products (basically any news organization) do not have to worry about infringing on a company's trademark simply by writing about them.
If you register a trademarked name and use it in the sense that you want to, then you are infringing on their trademark. Even more so, you said you want to sell products AND write news, so you are essentially confusing the public about whether or not you are the company.
I wouldn't register the domain...
The thing is I've already registered the domain some time ago and that's why I'm asking here.
My domain contains the name of a trademarked product, but I'm unsure because the .org and .net domain is also taken and for sale at sedo.
Will they first ask me to delete the domain or will they directly claim a specific $ amount as a compensation?..
I don't know what the company will do, but no matter what, do not offer it for sale to the company...
That right there sinks you, nothing else would be too relevant and would be considered a ploy to try to establish good faith, when in fact it is a commercial venture. Unless you have expressed written permission to sell their products, you have no right to do so...
Even if you do have permission to sell their products, it's highly unlikely you would have permission to use their TM in commerce. Even with resellers and affiliate programs, companies make it clear as day in the TOS that you are not authorized to use their TM in the domain name.....
I agree with all previous posters about tm's I dont own any and think it hurts domainers especially on the parking end, but this post brought up to my mind of something I thought years ago, I do beleive there are a small percentage of tm holders especially manufacturers of certain products that really can care less who markets there products as long as there are thousands of retail sellers hence an increase in there bottom line in sales, so yes I would get permission first, and sure wouldnt want to find out the hard way in a lawsuit that you were wrong. A few companies are bypassing udrp in favor of lawsuits, and unless the domaining community doesnt start policing it's own I think judges and general public(jurrors) will have an unfavorable view of domainers and hence a tainted jury(opinion) before trials even start. There are some major domain forums that allow TM names to be bought and sold and management turns the other way..
Thanks for your opinions, I'll do some more research now and then decide what to do.
I wonder why SEDO does not reject trademarked domains; I saw a list of sedo infringments and that list is pretty long O.o..
Due to the massive amount of listings, it's too costly to screen them all. A trademarked term can appear in a domain name, yet it may be used in such a way that it does not infringe upon that trademark.
Because they're making far too much money off of parking revenue from TM'd domains to care. They'll change their stance when required by law..
The domain names at issue are <used-caterpillars.com>, <used-caterpillar.com>, <usedcaterpillars.com>, and <caterpillarsused.com>, registered with BulkRegister.com.
The remaining domain names at issue are <b2bcaterpillars.com> and <used-cats.com>, registered with Network Solutions.
<...> The domain names are merely descriptive of Respondents business (selling used Caterpillar equipment) and thus not confusingly similar. See The Kittinger Co. v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107 (eResolution May 8, 2000) (finding that <kittingercollector.com> is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark of the Complainant because the use of Complainant's trademark in this domain is purely nominative, the domain name as a whole is descriptive of the Respondent's business, and the domain name is unlikely to cause confusion with Complainant's business).
Respondents website and domain names do not cause confusion with Complainants marks and business, given Respondents disclaimer and links to Complainants official websites that are present on Respondents website. See Al-Anon Family Group Headquarters Inc. v. Reid, D2000-0232 (WIPO June 5, 2000) (refusing to find bad faith where Respondent conspicuously informs viewers that his site is not affiliated with Complainant and alternatively finding that such a disclaimer is evidence of good faith on the part of Respondent which precludes any determination that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website); See Caterpillar Inc. v Off Road Equip., FA 95497 (Nat. Arb.
10, 2000) (finding no bad faith where Respondent, using the domain name to sell new and used Caterpillar parts through the domain name <catparts.com>, placed a disclaimer on the website indicating no relationship with Complainants business).
The panel directs that the domain name <b2bcaterpillars.com> by agreement be transferred to Complainant. Complainants request to transfer the remaining domain names in question, <used-caterpillars.com>, <used-caterpillar.com>, <used caterpillars.com>, <caterpillarsused.com> and <used-cats.com> is denied...