Are there cases like this that we know of that resolved in the defendant winning the case?..
I wouldn't plan on fighting this one unless you want to wait it out until Bodog is shut down...
There are many sites out there that "support" existing sites. be it with repairs, services, parts, accessories...you get the drill. there are books upon books out there titled for example, ebaytips, ebayrules, how I beat ebay. are they violating laws by using ebay in their title?.
This is similar I would take it. assuming your site was in some way adding to the experience of dealing with that brand.
Is it illegal for example for example to own and run ipodlounge.com? they are big and apple has never complained. at least I dont think I heard of anything...
Other people's behavior is no indication of whether something is illegal or not..
You just have to take some time to understand these things a bit.
I'll give you a hint: if you look closely at the domain name's current site while.
It's still up, can you see anything there that benefits the trademark holder?.
Then put yourself in the trademark holder's shoes: would you appreciate it if.
Someone does something like that, you don't benefit from it at all, and it's just.
Showing competing products?.
I got a bottle of aspirin here if this thing's giving you a headache...
Bodog is one of few places still honoring US citizens in their gambling mania.
Where is ICANN located anyway..
FYI everyone, there's no chance I won't give the name up to them. It honestly was making very little money anyways, so they can have it! I just thought it was interesting that I FINALLY got a C&D, almost 3 years into this biz, after I've had some worse TM infringing names and have even sold MySpace.cc for $1,000, and by a company that's pretty much operating illegally anyways (not that I'm against online gambling being legal in the US, but if it's not, why are sites still allowing US players to do it when other sites like BetOnSports are being broken up and charged by the govt? Even if they were operating off of US soil, look at what's happened to Neteller!.
Anyways, I don't intentionally go after TMs and didn't realize they had one at the time I got the name. At the time I got MySpace.cc, I don't think MySpace had been trademarked either, but I'm sure that one's a dangerous one too...
FYI, I wasn't questioning whether the domain was TM infringing or not, I KNOW it is. At the time I reg'd it, I didn't know they had a TM, but at the point of finding out, there's not a whole hell of a lot to do...
Congrats on joining the C&D club. As you say...the wise move is to comply and move on. As I see it's a parked page..always the target of C&D's imho. Goodluck sir...
I'm not sure whether being facetious in the midst of going above and beyond fully complying with their request in an expeditious manner will open up a can of worms, but if so, GRRRREAT!.
"Dear Bodog Legal Department:.
I will not only give you the authorization code for BodogBonus.com and unlock it, but I will also give you the authorization codes for all other potentially trademark infringing domain names I currently own and unlock those as well. They are as follows:.
*names with auth codes*.
Now that I have done above and beyond what you have asked and in far less than 48 hours, since you ARE the legal department of Bodog Entertainment Group, I would like to further understand the legality of Bodog continuing to take sports and poker bets from U.S. citizens despite the illegality of gambling online in the U.S., as the government so aptly reminded us with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act and the indictment of several executives of the former sportsbetting site BetOnSports.com and closure of that site. Im sure the members of the U.S. Congress and Senate as well as the President of the U.S., who all backed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, would like to understand as well. Especially since Neteller has recently been charged for money laundering with relation to internet gambling Americans despite Neteller being based out of the Isle of Man, I hope for your sake that your site is operating legally. Given your aptitude to quoting U.S.
Gambling money. Good luck with the continued operation of your site!.
I'll be very surprised if I actually get a response back, but we'll see. I've always wondered how these sites can skirt the law, and maybe I'll find out from the horse's mouth! The ironic thing is that one of the tiny businesses I'm a partner in has just created a strong partnership with an attorney that has received a presidential pardon from Dubya in the past. I'm not sure how close his ties are still to the president, but it would be ironic if I COULD find out what he thinks, lol...
Know whats funny, I'm watching " L Word " now and one of the women had on a black t-shirt with the name/url on it lol...
Congrats, my first C&D came a few years ago from eBay but I didnt hand the name over to them, they tried to tell me that I couldnt use the domain because it contained the word " Bay "..
Wow...how hard did they fight to try and get it? A friend of mine got bullied out of a name by GoDaddy because it was a reseller account and had "Daddy" in the name. Ultimately they actually bought the name from him...
We went back and forth for about 1 week, 5 or so emails, the domain was BoatBay.com.
I was hoping they would make an offer but instead they stopped replying to my emails, I sold the name about 6 months later for peanuts, looks like it's parked now...
Sorry, I should've mentioned my post was actually meant for pixelbugnyc.
Tippy's case is different because it's only the word "bay", which isn't exactly.
What eBay is known for...
NT- it is admirable to offer the other domains, and I do understand why you would send a response like that, but was it neccessary? Important lesson here, even if you comply with a C+D, they can still take you to court for cybersquatting and violation of the Lanham (please research the penalties), unless it is written somewhere that all legal matters are resolved. IE- they promise not to pursue anymore action against you. Even though the possibility is very remote, if for some reason they are made angry and feel someone may cuase trouble, they could (in theory) make that person life miserable.
Moral of the story, if you get caught and you know you are wrong, don't stir up more trouble...
Tell them that Bo is Bo Jackson and you are a fan of his.
BoDogBonus.com...not a thing wrong with it. Stay the course...oops, not a good phrase.
This is your first, eh?.
EBay thinks they own those letters of the alphabet E-B-A-Y. The have sent me letters and emails demanding that I surrender MaineBays.com. They insisted that I infringed on their trademark and copyrights.
My wife and I had been planning an extended kayaking trip along the coast of Maine. This was to be our online photo site.
I sent their legal team an email and a letter. In that communication, I explained to them what the intent was for the domain.
But, I also mentioned that I would locate the heirs of the founder and namesake for CheasepeakeBay and the botanist who founded and named the native wildflower RoseBay, as well as the heirs to Otis Redding for the soulful rendition of "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay" and advise all of them to seek legal counsel to sue the hell out of ebay for depriving them of billions of dollars in royalties and using E-B-A-Y without their permission.
End of story...
Yes, it is completely unnecessary, and could have stirred up trouble. But hey, if they stir up trouble for me, I can stir up trouble for them, and I wonder who has more to lose: a lower-mid income individual or a multi-billion dollar company? I don't like how companies think they are above the law, more so the bigger they are.
It doesn't matter anyways, they sent their happy reply to me and completely ignored that part of my email - as I figured they would. Even if they tried to stir up trouble, being the wordly whiz that I am, I can point out that there was nothing but an amicable tone in my email to them. As the old saying goes, sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet...
If you kept the domain, but did not use it, and did not have it pointed to anything- can they still take it? if you are doing nothing to confuse the public, how can they still take it away?..
If you do not point it to anything (as in not even a parked page) AND do not make public efforts to sell the domain, I don't think they would be able to prove bad faith. However, the domain would be pretty much worthless in that case. My problem was that it had a parked page. The funny thing is that it wound up being the only name I still had on NameDrive for some reason, and NameDrive optimized it HORRIBLY (its list of links had almost everything BUT gambling!), so I actually didn't make a penny off the name...
Not entirely true, if you have a TM domain and did nothing with it, the process would go like this....
They have TM... yes.
They have rights to a domain.... yes.
You have rights to the TM .... no.
Did you establish rights to the name.... no.
At this point, it would be viewed as bad faith since you are possibly stealing traffic meant to go to the TM holder. Winner TM holder.....
TM's are not only specific to an industry SIC code but you have to file in different countries where you intend on marketing your site, service. It is perfectly legal for two seperate companies to trademark the same word meaning if they are in different business. I had loanweb come after me 2 years ago for loanweb.biz saying I was infringing on their mark so I put up a site leasing domain names and then sent my response to them The result ended up with them purchasing the name from me for low XXXX.
There is a lot of fair use legislature out there case-in-point PaypalSucks.com. Companies will come after you and you can defend yourself if you are an individual. The issues come into play if you are a corporation as then you cannot defend yourself but need an attorney.
Just my 2 Cents...
UDRPs are NOT TM cases... You got lucky because the company didn't know better. By changing your site AFTER you were contacts, they should have view that as bad faith. You did not say what it was before they were contacted. Just because you got lucky does not mean it is the legal way...
Hmmm...I'm not so sure of this. I would have to research it further, but could it be that a C&D is a multi-action request/demand, where one action may satisfy the C&D without having to comply with multiple demands?.
To wit, a C&D is demanding that a domain name owner stop using the domain name in a way that infringes on a TM, and it usually also demands that the infringing domain name be relinquished to the TM holder...but what if both of these demands don't have to be fulfilled to alleviate the infringement...Then does the name still have to be turned over?.
For example, if someone owned and parked mcdonaldsdrivethru.com (which would appear to be an infringement)..but they also were in the process of building a site using that name, which was for a drive-thru laundry service owned by a guy named mcdonald. Would it still be an infringement as soon as the site went live...and showed zero connection with the fast food franchise? Wouldn't using the site (domain) as a legitimate, unrelated type of business satisfy the demand to stop using the domain name in a fashion that infringed?.
And if the domain is now used in a manner that is not an infringement, why would it have to be relinquished?.
This is just off the top of my head, without any research, so I might be overlooking something very obvious.....
Are there any lawyers on this site that would be interested in doing a live chat on namespros.com? I dont run the site, I'm just throwing it out there as an idea.
Two part post:::.
I also want someone's clear opinion on this. theres no way to best reference ebay without saying "ebay". so if I have a service that enhances the experience to bid online, and my domain is ebaydoctor.com am I violating any laws? the site wouldnt be an auction site or offer any opportunity to bid on anything, (just a fix it sitewhatever that means) so in reality it has nothing to do with bidding - is that legal?.
Wheres the best place to get affordable trademarks?..
Obviously you were in the wrong and I think you made the right decision, but this does lend to some interesting questions involving intellectual property rights in regards to illegal activities. If an activity is illegal in a specific country, should the TM holder be able to retain rights in that country? Do intellectual property rights trump the criminal laws? I guess given the Madrid Protocol (international nature of IP law) and the process WIPO uses (which isn't really according to law at all), one could conclude that they do. But it would definitely be an interesting UDRP case to follow if the Respondent made claims that a TM should not be held valid on the basis that their sole business is offering illegal material.
Actually, that isn't the case here though, because Bodog does provide "Play Poker", which is legal in the US, so technically, they have every right to their TM and to protect it. Congrats on the C&D though, hehe, I wouldn't mind getting one myself.
Online gambling in the US is not illegal. It's actually a very very grey area that can be argued from both sides, based on a law many years back that did a horrible job of clarifying anything. And to date, there haven't been any definitive rulings either way. So for all intents and purposes, from an end-user standpoint, it's not illegal. The new law only makes it illegal for banks and other financial institutes to allow people to fund their online gambling accounts, it does not make it illegal for people to gamble. In all of the cases where people have been arrested, I've heard of Neteller and an offshore poker site (can't remember which), it was because the owners of the site CAME to the US.
These people, for whatever stupid reason, knowing full well the legal implications of operating their enterprises, decided to tempt fate and come to the US. Once they stepped on US ground, they were then held accountable for their illegal activities, which are now enforcable under US law.....