A dispute would have cost them $1,500 minimum, not sure how generic the domain was, but I would have agreed with some of his points, had a few of my own and asked for more $..
So I made $88 for 12 keystrokes , no big loss...
I would have told him $1,490 for the name and lunch is on me..
If you have a generic name and it's not a TM then is it illegal to offer your mobi version of it to an owner of the same name in a different extension?..
It was generic. Was only worth something to the person I sold it to..
You give yourself a bad name jackass!..
If it was truly generic, then I would have told him to kiss my rosy red ass. They would have no more right to it than anyone else...
If it's generic, doesn't infringe on an existing TM and would be of value to the buyer then you have let them corner you and simply made a bad decision.
If there was no violation or bad faith involved then it comes down to a simple business deal where you got shafted - simple as that.
There is no jackass involved or anything of that nature, well,...there was an attorney there nonetheless, the company played it smart, you got cornered and backed down. If owning a domain and offering it for sale (without violating any laws) is called cybersquatting, then 99% of all domainers are squatters...
Well, that wasnt too smart, why would say something like that to your buyer is beyond me, thats like the worse thing you could say, it proves your a squatter.....
Money has not been exchanged yet and neither has the domain..
But I'm not dishonest and I've never welshed on a deal so I guess it's a good learning experience...
Yeah , No need in hurting your rep over a few more dollars..
That is the out of context version of what I said. I had mentioned that I got the domain as a package deal with another one that I wanted and I had no use for it.(all of witch is true) I told him either he could buy it from me or I was going to auction it off. I explained that I was just giving him first try at it before I put it up for auction...
I would have told them to WIPO me, make em pay $1500 and just lose the domain or they were bluffing and would offer more. Thats just me though...
Not knowing the name it is hard to say how to handle this but assuming there was a valid claim to the name I would probably have offered it for sale at a price less than their WIPO and attorneys costs to take it from you. If they are going to spend a few grand to take it, why not just spend a grand to just buy it? The result is the same for them and they saved time and money in the process...
Unfortunately, you offering the domain to the company is an automatic demonstration of showing "bad faith"... Automatic lose.
You did the right thing..
It's ironic I am going through the same situation. Awaiting a response from a lawyer on a generic word mobi. The company is very large and well known and own .com, .net, .org versions. The name is not trademarked since it's generic.
I told them my vision in developing it but they had a chance to buy it before I start.
I don't agree with the statement that offering the domain to a company is an automatic demonstration of showing "bad faith". I think it's fair, and typical intelligent marketing.
I didn't like the tone of the letter they sent you. It sounded like they were cornering you and had none of your interest in their mind. If I get a similar response or lowball offer, I will simply keep it and develop it. If they give me that kind of tone, I will tell them I am offering it to another company or competitor. This is a free world. We will see who wants it more. The little guys should not be stepped on...
There's a few lessons here for the newbies..
Stop being so impatient to offload names & approach endusers..
You'll only get decent paydays when they approach you..
Particularly as at the moment we would have to explain dotmobi, functionality, branding etc.
It's hard enough selling a com sometimes, or any other come to that..
Hold tight. If you have any concerns about your names & that you may be reverse hijacked, do as I have done..
Pay the extra $1 for privacy. Get them with a safe registrar. ie. not godaddy for example who will shaft you , if even one person complains about your domain.
They freeze the domain, then fine/bill you etc.
Then put up a holding page, saying , 'under construction' or 'coming soon'..
Takes 1 minute & if you've got reseller hosting, which you should all have with a big portfolio, costs nothing..
Auction a few in a big marketplace, develop a few & hold the rest for when things really kick off..
Just my opinion. Be wary of reverse hijacking, they're just waiting for someone naive to approach them sometimes...
Without wanting to sound rude, I'm not sure it really matters what you think, this is in fact how cybersquatting works - generic or otherwise..
It also, wrongly in my opinion, can be seen as showing bad faith if a lawyer/company contacts you and asks if your domain domain and you reply that it is...
Bizarre rules concerning cybersquatting - I recommend anyone approaching end users to sell domains to brush up on what you should and should not do.. And do please bear in mind that Ive given a "potential scenario" argument above, not a literal definition of every possible eventuality.
Rule of thumb, if youre contacted, your domain "might be for sale"..
Which all the more shows that a Broker service is needed. One that addresses and handles domains below the range of vodka.com. Someone that does the research, has a cheap way for Who-Is protection, can arrange for escrow and so forth.
The whole cybersquatting deal is ridiculous at best, in most other industries it's simply called "doing business".
Just my .02 euros, though..
Hmm, I'm not too convinced that a lawyer wrote that.....
Not the smartest move IMO. Check your facts before emailing anyone...
It can't be bad faith. Assuming the name was generic, and if the company in question had no prior trademark rights to the name, (which would very likely be proven through a WIPO case, if the name was generic)..... Then offering the name to the company is just smart marketing.
Generic names offer the benefit of direct navigation and better SEO for a company that could benefit from the keyword(s) in the name.
99% of the names I've sold were generic and 3 of them were to companies. Also, I think companies are who domainers should primarily target. Who wants to sell to resellers all the time? I can understand if there are some similarities to a given name that could cause some confusion to the public at large when it comes to a brand, but again, if I had potatochips.com, the first company I would hit would be FritoLay, and I wouldn't feel the least bit "bad" about it. Just because they make potato chips doesn't mean they have rights to the domain.
I think the lawyers letter is a bunch of horse$&#@. They were clearly just trying to call the poor guys bluff and scare him into caving.
That said, we don't actually know what the domain was.. so whether they had any rights to the domain or not remains a question. But again, if it was generic, I stand by what I say.
I know someone will say.. "APPLE" is trademarked and it's generic or something similar, but the truth is that if someone besides the APPLE Corporation owned Apple.com and they were to put a website on it selling red delicious apples, there is nothing Steve Jobs or anyone else "should" be able to do about it. If they were to win on something like that, it should cause every domainer to stand up and take attention...
Does that not look like the worst ever lawyers letter to everyone else ?
"under ICANN rules you can sell to cover expenses" .... WHAT THE FUNK ? And then he goes and offers a profit.
"I will file with ICANN" ... fat lot of good that'd do him - that's no lawyer writing this piece of crap.
I don't know if you've done the deal or not, but if you have - you been had. It looks like the tea boy wrote this.
If you haven't - ask him what ICANN rule is he talking about, and what he expects to achieve by 'filing' with them...
The domain name is mobilesource.mobi..
The owner of mobilesource.com has a brother that is a lawyer..
He said his brother would call me today to arrange for the payment/domain name transfer but I was never contacted. I would say technically that means that the deal is off. Even if he calls me tomorrow.
He is a lawyer,I called his lawfirm to talk to him after he sent me his contact info...
Is it this company;.
Mobilesource Corp. CORPORATION FLORIDA 3500 NW 2nd Ave., Suite 603 Boca Raton FLORIDA 33431.
Because if it is, they do appear to have a TM - if so take the cash, no matter how crap a lawyer his bro is.....
I still stand by what I said.
Badger, the only problem I have with you statement is the word "automatic". It seems harsh and presumptuous. If this is the definition of cybersquatting then forgive me. If this is your opinion, then it is why I had an issue with it...
Is this really my best move at this point?..
I would ask for a snail mail letter or fax from him with his letterhead on it just to verify that he is a lawyer and then call that number and inquire personally. I believe you are getting scammed by someone who wants your domain name, plain and simple. I unfortunatley have been sent 1000's of letters and emails from lawyers over the past 3 years (insurance related not domain) and your letter does not seem real. It didnt even have a disclosure at the bottom like so...
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee.
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or.
Omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply back to us.
Immediately letting us know that you are not the intended recipient and delete the email from all.
Areas of your email program.
Anyways, just my 2 cynical cents, Gary...
You're just lucky they aren't hauling your arse into arbitration or asking for damaging under ACPA. Give up the domain and be happy you are getting any money. In the future, read up on the legal issues/disputes area of the forum before you make any other impetuous decisions.
Make sure you get a release from them as well (in writing)...
He sent it to me in .pdf. It has the firms letterhead and all the company information. I removed all that information before posting.He is indeed a lawyer..
I did not do anything wrong by buying this domain name. I did not know it was the name of a TM company...
That argument gets you no where, especially once you contact the TM holder...
What damages? All I did was offer to give him the opportunity buy this domain name before I auctioned it off. WTF?..
Thread moved to the legal section.
No bots alowed in here..
If a company has a TM and you buy the domain name you can be sued for damages for buying it?? You can not contact him about the sale he has to contact you?? If you contact the company first that makes you guilty of some kind of extortion.
Bingo! Try doing a little research here: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm.
Possibly search engine crawling bots so that they cant submit your post to their search engine...
Well now I know, thanks Fonzie. Ill give it up tomorrow and be done with it...
It means that the domain name posted above will not be scanned by roving bots since this area requires registration. In the future, you would be well advised not to post the domain name in dispute, despite the requests of other forum members. If necessary, PM the name to trusted members rather than posting in public forums (or simply post in the legal forum).
Best of luck...
Oh crap! So now I have to worry about this thread being searchable?.
So can I be sued for posting his letter to me?Or talking about it?.
It says on the letter It says "If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ".
I am the intended recipient. What could someone do with this info?.
Is this something to be worried about?..
I wouldn't get too worried. This thread is now private, so unless the lawyer is a member of NP you have nothing to worry about. Also, those disclaimers are standard transmissions on most company memos (mine included). As to finalizing the sale/transfer of the domain, I agree with Fonzie: be sure to clarify and get in writing that you are released from all liabilities potentially associated with the domain. You can search for domain name contracts and will find some suitable examples of waivers sufficient to cover yourself...
Not necessarily. But like in the offline world, anything you say (or post in this.
Case) might be used against you, especially if the other party found this.
I'd say you did the right thing agreeing to sell that domain name to the other.
Party at the agreed price, even if you could've possibly fought for more. One.
Should certainly assess their risks and rewards and determine which is more....
Here's another "lesson" for some of you: sending C&Ds via email and PDF is an.
Almost routine thing for attorneys and lawfirms nowadays. There's no lawful.
Requirement for C&Ds to be sent via certified mail only or smoke screens, more.
So do they need to even send one to begin with...
The trouble is he did the equivalent of offering it TO Apple computer. offering a generic that has a TM is usually not a problem. Offering it to a TM holder is just asking for trouble. At that point you've proven one aspect of their case by showing you have knowledge of their use of the name or that they have a TM...
I dont know of a company who would send such a flimsy letter. Ive had the pleasure of seeing a real email and it was 3 pages long and pin pointed everything with accuracy...
Does anyone have a copy of a pro seller domain name release form? I looked on google and there is not any that look decent...
Not every company can afford a $500/hr lawyer lol.. I would ask him to phone you or something to verify he is indeed who he says.
Im of the opinion if you can do something right dont do it to start. If they cant afford a lawyer they cant afford an WIPO case or the domain..
I am glad this is a moved thread and didn't initially start out in the legals. I see alot of names of posters I have never seen before, but one thing they all have in common is they never botheed to research cybersquatting and the dos and don'ts (and if they did, they are oblivious to the actual meaning and consequences). Everyone who posted on the thread should research "tradmark" using the search box and read for a while.... please..
I agree with you completely But at the same time, the OP mentioned that the owner's brother is the lawyer, so even if they could afford it, maybe they thought, "why pay for something I can get for free?" Obviously his brother isn't the most professional lawyer in the world, but then again I would bet money that his brother usually doesn't handle TM issues in his law firm..
Many of the responses came BEFORE the domain name was mentioned and it clearly was shown that there is an existing TM. Many of us respond to a post upon the facts that the poster presents to us. If the poster fails to mention essential details such as a TM, the poster will receive responses that are not taking a TM in consideration, simple as that. Should the poster require additional research whether there is an existing TM then i'm sure that the board will respond accordingly.
I believe that we had enough TM related threads here for most people to be aware of the potential consequences of infringement. It doesn't change the fact, however, that some are willing to gamble, even though a domain violates applicable laws and try to make a dime by offering the domain below the costs of filing, attorney and time..
Whether thats morally acceptable, good business practices or may have repercussions in the aftermath, that is for everyone to decide as the situation arises...