Slashdot Mirror

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/842094. htm

1) If your trademark application post-dates their domain registration, you will absolutely lose.
 
2) Even with the cheapest arbitrators, a UDRP filing costs $1300. Why would you pay that when a few hundred more guarantees you get the domain? Remember, filer pays.
 
3) Trademark applications (in the US and most of civilization) require proof of use to register. You won't even have the registration to throw around unless you're already using the name. Obviously, from the article, the submitter is not already using it.
 
4) There is no longer an "instant win" in UDRP. The arbitrators are no longer clueless, they actually are crafting careful law to avoid crap like the suggestion above.

IAAL. The dispute was brought to the right venue, the National Arbitration Forum (which is one of the domain name dispute fora available to alleged victims of cybersqatting--this keeps most stuff like this out of US courts and keeps taxpayer dollars from being spent on it). According to the decision, the arbitrators took statements and evidence, and, wonder of wonders, the initial registrant of HillaryClinton.com didn't even bother to respond to the complaint. In that case, all they have to go on is the statements of the complainant, which is what they used to make their findings. Finally, the arbitrators used the correct criteria to make the decision. Cut and dry and correct.

Anyone need a lawyer?

IAAL. The dispute was brought to the right venue, the National Arbitration Forum (which is one of the domain name dispute fora available to alleged victims of cybersqatting--this keeps most stuff like this out of US courts and keeps taxpayer dollars from being spent on it). According to the decision, the arbitrators took statements and evidence, and, wonder of wonders, the initial registrant of HillaryClinton.com didn't even bother to respond to the complaint. In that case, all they have to go on is the statements of the complainant, which is what they used to make their findings. Finally, the arbitrators used the correct criteria to make the decision. Cut and dry and correct.

Anyone need a lawyer?

The truly amazing thing here is that there was one retired judge who actually dissented, even though the guy had froogles.com for two years beforehand!

Fie on google.com for even bringing this up. They've lost whatever credibility they used to have with me, and are just another huge corporation run by a bunch of greedy blood-suckers.

Does the National Arbitration Forum publish its decisions and provide a synopsis of what the thinking was that led to their decision?

What's going to happen to these others?

To the best of my knowledge, Googhole has already lost a similar case. I don't feel bad. I see it more as a store calling themsleves "Wallmart" and looking exactly like Walmart. It's not parody, it's a simple rip-off.

According to the USPTO website, the Strawberry Shortcake mark is owned by "Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc." Those Characters From Cleveland appears to license their marks to American Greetings or is a subsidiary. I haven't found a page that explicitly mentions their relationship. (Note: I think USPTO query links 'expire.' You can always search again using TESS.

According to this link, it looks like American Greetings, Those Characters From Cleveland, and Rinda Vas have previously gone after alleged violations of their marks. (In the linked page, the case appears to be a reasonable attack against a domain squatter.)

This is completely contradictory to what the UDRP has done for Hong Kong-based company "Ultimate Search, Inc."

Case 1: Poetry site.
Case 2: PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Case 3: WBW
Case 4: Home of the Underdogs.

And you'd better believe there are lots more cases in which these cybersquatters have taken over sites without retribution.

From the decisions I've read, a lot depends on whether the chosen judge Gets It. Here's an example that represents the worst case of a clueless arbiter. It was ruled by Mr. Michael Ophir that bodacious-tatas.com should be transfered to the Tata Group in India.

Here's the rationale, using the standard criteria:
(i) your domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

i) TATA exists as a string within the domain name, thus, confusingly similar
ii) If (i), then the TATA Group has a legitimate interest in the domain, therefore the respondent does not
iii) If (ii), then it is used in bad faith. Plus, it's porn!

Judicial bootstrapping! Most judgments aren't that bad, but there are more examples like that (absolutporno.com, et. al.). It seems that porn sites are treated as a lower class.

A friend of mine asked me if I was a bit obsessive about the etoys vs etoy issue.

No.

Try not to take the following quote out of context, I am not advocating anybodys demise, I am making a point about your business practices.

Robert Heinlein wrote in the "Notebooks of Lazurus Long": "Don't ever scare a small man, he will kill you! "

You are scaring me. I build websites for a living.

I am betting my life and that of my family, on my ability to make a living communicating my clients needs and desires to the web.

To that end, over and above what I must know to build and promote my customers sites effectively, to keep fresh as new technologies arrive, as my skills improve, devoting more time to litigation than to creation is not an option.

Your 'offer of settlement' is at best a delaying tactic, giving etoys time to recap some shareholder value by getting you off the radar screen.

Well it's not going to work.

You are not the first company to try to use checkbook litigation to have it your way, but I am devoting my time and energy to make you the last. Unlike a lot people that fill your email box with their thoughts, I am spreading word of your actions across the web in every venue I can find and can get access.

A number of people are calling for the resignation of Toby Lenk. That is a call for the board of directors to make.

The internet is unlike snug little publications, old boy networks, or the evening news. The internet offers immediacy and community. The majority of links below[1] all were created in less than thirty days since the TRO was issued.

If the internet is going to develop, having a place for all, including lawyers and toy companies, allowing everyone the ability to grow and prosper, we must not be hostage to anyones checkbook.

• An Immediate withdrawal of your lawsuit
• A Public Apology to EToy on Your Website Front Page to run for 60 days and a link to it thereafter as long as you remain on the internet.
• Monetary Compensation to Etoy in the amount of at least $300,000.00 ($10,000 a day for each day the etoy site is down.
• In Cash or Certified FundsNo Checks or Stock!!
• A contribution equal to 200% of the Above figure for a Fund to the National Arbitration Forum for resolving Domain Name Disputes, for those name holders without deep pockets.

This is MY Opinion. This does not constitute an offer to settle, nor does it in any way represent the views of any other than myself. This may help however.

A friend of mine asked me if I was a bit obsessive about the etoys vs etoy issue.

No.

Try not to take the following quote out of context, I am not advocating anybodys demise, I am making a point about your business practices.

Robert Heinlein wrote in the "Notebooks of Lazurus Long": "Don't ever scare a small man, he will kill you! "

You are scaring me. I build websites for a living.

I am betting my life and that of my family, on my ability to make a living communicating my clients needs and desires to the web.

To that end, over and above what I must know to build and promote my customers sites effectively, to keep fresh as new technologies arrive, as my skills improve, devoting more time to litigation than to creation is not an option.

Your 'offer of settlement' is at best a delaying tactic, giving etoys time to recap some shareholder value by getting you off the radar screen.

Well it's not going to work.

You are not the first company to try to use checkbook litigation to have it your way, but I am devoting my time and energy to make you the last. Unlike a lot people that fill your email box with their thoughts, I am spreading word of your actions across the web in every venue I can find and can get access.

A number of people are calling for the resignation of Toby Lenk. That is a call for the board of directors to make.

The internet is unlike snug little publications, old boy networks, or the evening news. The internet offers immediacy and community. The majority of links below[1] all were created in less than thirty days since the TRO was issued.

If the internet is going to develop, having a place for all, including lawyers and toy companies, allowing everyone the ability to grow and prosper, we must not be hostage to anyones checkbook.

• An Immediate withdrawal of your lawsuit
• A Public Apology to EToy on Your Website Front Page to run for 60 days and a link to it thereafter as long as you remain on the internet.
• Monetary Compensation to Etoy in the amount of at least $300,000.00 ($10,000 a day for each day the etoy site is down.
• In Cash or Certified FundsNo Checks or Stock!!
• A contribution equal to 200% of the Above figure for a Fund to the National Arbitration Forum for resolving Domain Name Disputes, for those name holders without deep pockets.

This is MY Opinion. This does not constitute an offer to settle, nor does it in any way represent the views of any other than myself. This may help however.