I think this has done before, but I will just say this....If a name is for sale for a premium price and it is a Premium......legally, the leasee (domain name holder) is responsible for any potential TM issues.
So if it is unregistered, then it is the registrar/manager of extension holding the sales reins that is legally liable. If someone registers it, then they accept the legal liabilities of any issues.
That is just my memory of business law. I would bet that that is also part of the registration agreement...
Its worth looking at uspto and the madrid protocal , although I normally just have a quick look at the uspto and make a decisioneven put a thread up in the legal issues part of namepros once .... got some replies..
There are hundreds of TM premiums. Here are a couple of potential landmines from the first three pages of their so-called premium list:.
Just as with .com, .net, etc, the registrant bears the responsibility of due diligence before buying (leasing) a .TV domain...
You don't see registrars refunding fees to registrants who lose their domains in UDRPs, lawsuits, etc.
With that said, a .TV domain holder may, especially in instances in when the parties agree the infringement wasn't purely intentional, be able to obtain a settlement in which the TM complainant compensates the domain holder the pro-rated amount of the annual registration fee upon taking ownership.
On a related topic ... personally, I feel the biggest threat to .TV domain holders is the variable pricing, which could potentially change unpredictably in the future; Tuvalu ultimately calls the shots and can change the rules any time for any reason - it's happened before in other ccTLDs, including .TM and even .US.
Yes, this is a problem that is largely ignored and perhaps the primary reason that DM & Verisign are so willing to negotiate lower renewals fees in exchange for large upfront payments.
Could it be they see the writing on the wall?..
Sorry, but I don't see how somebody challenging a generic dictionary word like Charter is gonna win a TM lawsuit...
While the word is certainly an abstract trademark, the combination with the dot tv extension brings the entire domain name itself squarely into the realm of that abstract trademark (IMO). Charter Communications is a huge cable TV provider in the US. What are you going to do, make a reality TV show about chartered airplanes or cruise ships? Chartering the sea bed? Charter is just not that versatile or common of a word. It's barely used in spoken English. I think Charter Communications could probably take this name from anyone with ease and DM is just raising the "protect your TM" tax for Charter by listing it as a premium. That in itself should be challengeable behaviour, IMO.
Just my 2 cents. IANAL.