Slashdot Mirror
Is a Domain Name an Automatic Trademark?
TheWorkingStiff writes "I registered a descriptive domain name (something like "thesimpledog.com") and started a blog on it. About a month later I get a threatening letter from a link farmer who owns "simpledog.com" The owner of simpledog.com is claiming that he owns the trademark to the words simpledog even though he has no real business or rights by that name other than a static page with some text and Adsense slapped on it. There is no product, service or brand whatsoever. Does simply registering a two or three word domain give you instant trademark rights to those words even though you've never done anything with them? Should I give up my domain to a link farmer who is trying to bully me, or does he have a valid right to any phrase he registers that isn't already trademarked?"
Question: Is a Domain Name an Automatic Trademark?
Answer: Ask a lawyer not Slashdot.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
No. You cannot have a trademark just by virtue of owning a domain name. A "trademark" is one's distinctive mark within a trade, and since this person has no product, there is no trade. Trademark laws exist to protect consumers from purchasing or using one product when they meant to purchase or use another. You would have a problem if you tried to imitate the other site. Obviously, this isn't the case, so you're in the clear.
The troll is just being a troll. Don't give in.
Since when do you have to register in order to have a valid trademark. If he's trading under that mark then he has an arguable case for having a trademark (TM) as opposed to a Registered Trademark (R).
P.S. Please don't post further misleading advice under the esteemed Anonymous Coward label. You'll bring it into disrepute.
It wouldn't matter if he did have a trademark.
It would cover his area of business, not an unrelated blog. There is no way that somebody would find the sites "confusingly similar."
The guy's just trying to introduce a second revenue stream from his link farm. If anything, I think your site would increase traffic to his site, when people type it wrong.
I'm gonna need a spec.
I'm registering www.tehsimpledog.com as well as www.thesimpledog.net.
Evil laughter.
First of all, have you looked up his trademark at uspto.gov to make sure he has one. The USPTO is really leary to give a trademark on something that ends in .com now-a-days.
.com is supposed to be a US thing it would be subject to US law first.
It would also be interesting to see what catagory he filed under.
You can file a trademark in any one of several categories (about 23). So you too could have a trademark on the same word and it would not conflict (eg. Ford Florists and the Ford Motor Company both have a trademark on Ford, but since the name use would not cause market confusion, they are both ok).
If the category is bogus (some technology one might be ok for him to use) you might be able to get the USPTO to force him to prove the use of his trademark in commerce.
Also if you were using the trademark before he filed, you should be ok by law, but anecdotal evidence shows that you will still lose your domain.
On a related point trademarks can be filed in more than one country, so what country trumps what country if there is a conflict? (I guess since
I have seen no discussion on this.
I am not a lawyer do not take this as legal advice. It's not. It's the ramblings of someone who holds a few trademarks himself.
Tell that to this guy: http://nissan.com/
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
How To Draw a Simple Dog
Easy Tricks To Teach Your Simple Dog
Free Doghouse Plans Online for Simpletons
The page simpledog.com is one of those totally automated junk advertising pages, obviously with a picture of a dog.
Now you know this, you won't be at all curious about going there.
A shitty database-made spammy advert webpage won't give you any weight in a trademark dispute.
Honestly, I'd just asking him for the USPTO serial/registration number for his trademark (and obviously search the uspto web site to verify it). If he has one, he's shown he actually cares about it, plus he's got all the paperwork he needs to dispute your domain with ICANN. Do you really want to spend time and money fighting at that point?
But of course he doesn't have one, so just asking will show him you're not just going to hand over a domain because you got a nasty email, which is what he's expecting. If he tries to quickly file the papers, he'll discover that just owning a domain name is not enough to even file for a trademark, much less get one. He'll have to find other uses of it (prior to yours) to complete the paperwork, and if his site is just a link farm it's questionable whether even his web site would qualify.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Have you been out to www.whitehouse.com lately? They've turned into a clearinghouse for the '08 candidates, both Rep & Dem.
No, really, they have.
They're even running political polls. Granted the last one, from the 8th of October, was "Should George W. Bush be impeached?" and the current one is "Does The Media Favor One Party Over Another In It's Reporting?", but the days of being NSFW seem to be over.
At least until cadidates have been picked. : )
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
simpledog.com isn't even a real website or business operating anything dog related. It is yet another one of those fake, front-end search sites.
If I were you, I would just ignore them or send them a "get lost" type letter. Or better yet, send them a letter that LOOKS like a real response, but is titled "legal response to your letter (legalresponses.com)" and then lists:
Click here for legal aid
Click here for legal forms
Click here for responses
Click here for more info about letters
Click here for improve your writing skills
Click here for related searches about legalresponses
(c) 2007 legalresponses.com . . . about us
He does not own nor can he own a trademark unless it is registered. Secondly, you cannot own a trademark to words that are too simple, such as ABC Computer. I think SimpleDog would come into this category of simple names. It's just too common. There was kid named Mike Rowe who was a software developer. He registered the domains MikeRoweSoft.com and MikeRoweSoft.net. Microsoft threatened and sued and lost. They finally did what they should have in the first place. They bought the names from this highschool kid.
.net before McDonald's Hamburgers did. McDonald's sued and lost and finally bought the name from Mr. McDDonald.
There was also a man named McDonald who was also a software developer. You guessed it. He registered McDonalds.com and
Here's an article: http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/?m=20040306
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Michelle Grosse did not violate the law when she used the *name of Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc* in her domain name for a Web site she created to complain about the Canton, MI nursery.
Not true on the MickeyD's domain.
That was a reporter for Wired magazine Joshua Quittner, who, back in the early days of the net (1994), noticed that McDonalds had not registered McDonalds.com. So he himself registered it, contacted the company, and documented the whole thing, prior to giving the domain to McDonalds.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
As others have said, you have to use the name in a trade or business in order to claim it as a trademark, although you do not have to register it with the USPTO; registering the trademark does provide you with some additional legal advantages.
The Groklaw page has a number of useful links that provide more in-depth information.
You're technically correct but only that. The argument doesn't apply to the real world in which we have legal systems and laws, trademarks, fair use, etc.
Likewise a business name is just a bit of marketing that happens to be helpful to humans for branding puroses, conceptually not different to a person name for identification.
Also technically correct, but cannot stand on its own in the real world.
WARNING: IANAL. And you really should talk to one. Nevertheless...
I had a somewhat similar experience a few years ago. A domain that I registered and was using for personal projects attracted the attention of lawyers from Shieldmark, who asserted that I'd registered it in bad faith, and demanded that I turn over ownership of my domain to their client or face an arbitration proceeding according to the rules of ICANN's UDRP process. In Belgium.
In the interest of fairness, I should say that their client did have registered trademarks on the phrase that made up my domain name. On the other hand, their trademark specifically addressed the realm of agricultural products, and... well, let's just say I'm not in the agriculture business.
I sent them a polite letter back saying that while their client had my sympathies, I had registered the domain in good faith, was actively using it, and that if they initialed a UDRP against me, they'd lose. And that was the last I heard of it.
The situation here is different: this guy apparently has no claim on this domain other than the fact that your domain sounds kinda like one of the many he owns. Given that, I'd first talk to a lawyer, then do what I did: write a polite letter suggesting he pound sand.
.. is just someone trying to get hits on simpledog.com. He's playing us all for fools.
:wq
They're just diversifying which whores get on their site.
Actually, you need to RTFO (O=opinion). The Ninth Circuit opinion, which Nissan Computers links to in his long tale of woe, said that Nissan Computers could keep its nissan.com website and continue to use its trademarked name of Nissan Computers. However, what it could not do was continue to solicit ads from automobile-related companies, because those ads could cause confusion among people searching for Nissan cars.
While a person CAN be held to have a valid trademark just by usage, if you're not in the same jurisdiction, or not offering the same product or service, you can ignore him.
The "not offering same product or service" is easy to understand - if there is little likelihood that a consumer would be confused between your "product" and his non-existent "product", then you also have a valid right to the same trademark. Lexus Peas was sued for infringing ont he Lexus brand, and the judge held that there was no chance of confusion in consumers minds between a can of peas and a car.
The "same jurisdiction" is also easy to understand - if he wants to "do something about it", he'll have to sue you in your jurisdiction, and that costs $$$, and a link pharmer simply won't spend the money.
Also, you can put a disclaimer at the bottom (without a link back) saying your blog has no relationship to the link pharmer, explaining the pharming business, etc. This way, you might become the cononical reference on the net for that particular url.
Obviously, your blog is taking traffic away. Why not point us to the landing page so everyone else can choose one link to "reverse-pharm" with a blog with some content using the same name.
Kevin Smith on Prince
I did speak to a lawyer initially who specialized in this sort of thing and he said, "Sure, you'd win in a UDRP case..." Then I thought about it some more and I realized that most lawyers only take cases they *think* they would win. It wouldn't be a guarantee... and I'd hate to have a 6 month old blog with traffic and readers suddenly get ripped awy from me. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way for people who are being bullied to file any sort of counter complaint in matters like these.
The real domains in question are my site (which is down for the moment) http://www.thesimplemillionaire.com/ and his site which is the same, but without the word "the." He couldn't furnish anything saying he had used the site for any more than a link farm, though he did say that he had some magazines sent to the name "simplemillionaire." Nice. I've had magazines sent to my cat, but that doesn't make them taxpayers (hmm...)
The threats from the owner of simplemillionaire.com also detailed how he was going to sue me to pay for HIS legal expenses. Again, I don't know how kosher that sort of threat is. This guy owns a company called SimpleVentures or something which seems to specialize in buying domains and selling them... apparently in a greasy way. His original email to me immediately suggested that I pay him a "licensing fee" for my domain name because it was similar to his. He boasted of selling the domain CapitalManager.com to the Hartford Insurance Group.
All this for a stupid personal blog that was only about three weeks old.
Bottom line: I didn't want to risk spending my next three months fighting with the jerk and dropping a couple grand in legal fees. But I'm keeping the domain name for the moment... You know, just in case...
Yes, I was using GoDaddy... Sue me. Wait, don't.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/