|
|
|
We are in an interesting situation. We have had a domain name and used it
actively since 1998. Today, we received a letter from a firm representing the
owner of the service mark which matches are domain. They want the domain
transfered to them. Checking the Trademark Office records, they filed for the
service mark in 2001 and received it in 2003.
Do they have any rights to the domain that matches their service mark where
the domain registration records clearly show that we've had it since 1998
(i.e. 3 years before they even filed for a service mark on the words that
match out domain name)?
Any thoughts on this? Or, even better, previous case law?
Thanks!
- John...
|
| |
| |
Tell them your date of first use pre-dates theirs, then tell them to
pound sand.
Mez
I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advice.
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy wrote:
We are in an interesting situation. We have had a domain name and used it
actively since 1998. Today, we received a letter from a firm representing
the owner of the service mark which matches are domain. They want the
domain transfered to them. Checking the Trademark Office records, they
filed for the service mark in 2001 and received it in 2003.
Do they have any rights to the domain that matches their service mark
where the domain registration records clearly show that we've had it since
1998 (i.e. 3 years before they even filed for a service mark on the words
that match out domain name)?
Any thoughts on this? Or, even better, previous case law?
Thanks!
- John...
Since you have proof of use well before they registered it, I'd say their
case wouldn't hold up in court.
As you know, "windows" is a registered trademark of M$.
Would you believe there are currently 8,500+ domain names using "windows" in
the name?
Jeep>>4,000+
plumbing>>6,700+
As with a trademark, a service mark does not give carte blanche total rights
to the name including a domain name.
Unless that mark is unique and distinctive.
Have you searched the mark at www.uspto.gov to see how many others are using
it as well?
Do they claim exclusive rights?
Then you could also file a complaint with the pto stating that your domain
name was already in use before the application was filed.
If it comes down to a court battle, they have to show just cause that you
are infringing.
I'd send them a real nice letter saying, "Thanks. We'll discuss this matter
in court and I ain't the one who's gonna lose.".
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:12:01 GMT, The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> wrote:
Do they have any rights to the domain that matches their service mark
John, they have rights but only in the IC class they filed in. That
can restrict your use of your domain name to not using that IC class
but it does not give them any rights to the domain name.
Certainly, they can attempt to scare you into releasing the name to
them and they can even cause you some real problems in the area.
Here is a some background on that problem:
http://save.unicom.com/weblog.html#20020204
Similarly, you could obtain legal representation and prepare a
response to their allegations. I retained a lawyer under those
circumstances and responded that any documents they filed accusing me
of domain name hijacking/trademark infringement would libel my good
name and my honorable reputation and cause me considerable grief and
harm.
You can also just wait and see if they are stupid enough and have the
money to burn pursuing the issue. If they file against you in federal
court, it will cost you money, even though they have no chance of
winning a judgment. That could also include their filing under the
WIPO domain name resolution procedure,
http://arbiter.wipo.int/center/index.html .
Rusty Mase
|
| |
| |
On 20 Dec 2004 13:25:57 -0800, Messalina <messalinana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tell them your date of first use pre-dates theirs, then tell them to
pound sand.
Mez
I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advice.
Your correct in pointing out that first usage is important, but the
only dates provided in the original post are registration dates. I'd
check the registration to see what first usage date the trademark holder
claims.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
Your correct in pointing out that first usage is important, but the
only dates provided in the original post are registration dates. I'd
check the registration to see what first usage date the trademark holder
claims.
They have listed first use and first use in commerce as 01-Jun-1988. Then
filed in 2001 and registered in 2003.
We have been using the same name since around 1985. Our domain was registered
in 1998.
They have other marks registered that are their logo design with the words in
question underneath. These are from 1996. However, a specific disclaimer is
given that "no claim is made to the exclusive rights to use (the words) apart
from the mark as shown." So, when they did the logos, the text by itself was
specifically excluded. They then did just the text/words in 2001/2003 -- and
then decided that they wanted our matching domain name.
Basically, this is a situation where they are the "national" ones representing
a specific trade show area -- and we are for a particular state. In other
words, let's say it is related to playing cards for the sake of example, and
we both put on a show every year related to it. In the example, our domain
would be "cardsexpo.com". THEY do a national "Cards Expo" every year -- and
we do a regional "Texas Cards Expo" every year -- and have been for around 20
years. They then obtained a service mark on "Cards Expo" and then decided
that they wanted cardsexpo.com, which we had 5 years before their service mark.
That is the situation at hand -- in case that helps explain things a bit more.
Thanks to all the advice/tips/thoughts so far, everyone!
- John...
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> writes:
In the example, our domain
would be "cardsexpo.com". THEY do a national "Cards Expo" every year -- and
we do a regional "Texas Cards Expo" every year -- and have been for around 20
years. They then obtained a service mark on "Cards Expo" and then decided
that they wanted cardsexpo.com, which we had 5 years before their service mark.
In this (hypothetical) cases, if you and they are looking for a win-win
solution, the parties can put their respective web sites at
http://texas.cardsexpo.com/ and http://us.cardsexpo.com/, with
http://www.cardsexpo.com/ containing links to both. You get an easy
resolution of the dispute, and the benefit of more web site traffic.
--
Rahul
|
| |
| |
Rusty Mase wrote:
John, they have rights but only in the IC class they filed in. That
can restrict your use of your domain name to not using that IC class
but it does not give them any rights to the domain name.
Sorry to be ignorant here -- I don't know what an "IC class" is. Can you fill
me in? We ARE in the same industry.
Certainly, they can attempt to scare you into releasing the name to
them and they can even cause you some real problems in the area.
Here is a some background on that problem:
http://save.unicom.com/weblog.html#20020204
Thanks for the link -- a very good read. Although, in the end, it looks like
Chip won based more on a jurisdiction problem than anything else. Why did
UNICOM never refile properly and then argue the same trademark issues? I'd be
curious what would have become of it -- since I see it as similar to this
situation (i.e. domain registered well before the trademark was issued).
You can also just wait and see if they are stupid enough and have the
money to burn pursuing the issue.
The firm that connected us is a large one that appears to be well established
in some previous domain dispute cases.
If they file against you in federal
court, it will cost you money, even though they have no chance of
winning a judgment. That could also include their filing under the
WIPO domain name resolution procedure,
http://arbiter.wipo.int/center/index.html .
The letter states that if we are "unwilling to cooperate" (meaning transfer
the domain registration to them), then they are "prepared to avail itself of
the UDRP of ICANN for its remedy, based upon the federal registration of the
mark."
I find that a bit odd -- since I don't see that we could be considered in
violation of ANY of the requirements listed in the UDRP that they would need
to have any kind of an argument against us.
Thanks for your time and thoughts!
- John...
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:01:15 GMT, The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> wrote:
Sorry to be ignorant here -- I don't know what an "IC class" is. Can you fill
me in? We ARE in the same industry.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/international.htm which
broadly defines these classes. You therefore need to carefully review
the "Goods and Services" defined in their trademark. If the services
your company offers is included in that definition then I would think
you need to find good legal advice quickly.
http://save.unicom.com/weblog.html#20020204
Thanks for the link -- a very good read. Although, in the end, it looks like
Chip won based more on a jurisdiction problem than anything else. Why did
UNICOM never refile properly and then argue the same trademark issues? I'd be
curious what would have become of it -- since I see it as similar to this
situation (i.e. domain registered well before the trademark was issued).
It is my opinion they decided to pick a fight with him on their turf,
California, using the strategy that he could not afford to contest
the case there and they would get a summary judgment. When that did
not work, they decided not to pick a fight with him on his turf,
Texas, where the legal costs would have been reversed.
The firm that connected us is a large one that appears to be well established
in some previous domain dispute cases.
The size of the firm and how well it is established is not that
important as the rules are the same for anyone. I would suspect that
if they are going to this expense up-front then you need to set up
your own legal counter attack, and that will take a trademark or IP
attorney.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/center/index.html .
The letter states that if we are "unwilling to cooperate" (meaning transfer
the domain registration to them), then they are "prepared to avail itself of
the UDRP of ICANN for its remedy, based upon the federal registration of the
mark."
I find that a bit odd -- since I don't see that we could be considered in
violation of ANY of the requirements listed in the UDRP that they would need
to have any kind of an argument against us.
UDRP will still cost you money, just not as much as answering to a
federal court action (my guess). I merely read about the results of
these arbitrations and the results seem logical in almost all cases.
So if they threaten to haul you into UDRP then they must have some
faith in their threats or feel as if you might not go to the expense
of responding.
Thanks for your time and thoughts!
My thoughts here are that you will need legal advice in this matter.
I do know that the personal hassle Chip went through on this was
possibly worse than the monetary cost. What you have is a group that
"covets" your domain name and probably have convinced themselves that
they deserve it - thus denigrating you to some low-life that stole
their rightful property. People like that can be dangerous and you
should behave accordingly.
Rusty Mase
|
| |
| |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> writes:
In this (hypothetical) cases, if you and they are looking for a win-win
solution, the parties can put their respective web sites at
http://texas.cardsexpo.com/ and http://us.cardsexpo.com/, with
http://www.cardsexpo.com/ containing links to both. You get an easy
resolution of the dispute, and the benefit of more web site traffic.
I tend to disagree that that would likely be an agreeable situation to them
(or us, for that matter). Plus, who would own the domain in the end?
In my opinion, we own the domain and have full rights to it. I don't see that
the fact that they want to try to force us to give it to them is a good reason
to come up with a compromise whereby they get to use the domain (or force us
to change the main page) to better suit them.
But, I appreciate the suggestion. Thanks.
- John...
|
| |
| |
Rusty Mase wrote:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/international.htm which
broadly defines these classes. You therefore need to carefully review
the "Goods and Services" defined in their trademark. If the services
your company offers is included in that definition then I would think
you need to find good legal advice quickly.
Yes, we definitely are in the same field and, therefore, the same class. We
do the same sort of things.
See my post above in reply to Isaac for more details -- I gave a better
example there to try to make it more clear. In quick summary, they offer
"sales shows" on a national level -- and we are more state-specific.
It is my opinion they decided to pick a fight with him on their turf,
California, using the strategy that he could not afford to contest
the case there and they would get a summary judgment. When that did
not work, they decided not to pick a fight with him on his turf,
Texas, where the legal costs would have been reversed.
Ah -- that makes some sense. Although, I'm still a bit surprised that they
didn't decide to follow up.
The size of the firm and how well it is established is not that
important as the rules are the same for anyone. I would suspect that
if they are going to this expense up-front then you need to set up
your own legal counter attack, and that will take a trademark or IP
attorney.
Yes, the issue is that we simply can't afford it. We are not a large company
and do not make a great deal of money. The site advertises a statewide
show/expo and we are simply not likely in a financial position to hire proper
counsel.
I realize that the size of the firm does not matter -- I just mentioned it for
the same reason that you noted: if they were willing to expense them up-front
to do this, then they likely have some cash to put behind it -- even if we are
in the right.
UDRP will still cost you money, just not as much as answering to a
federal court action (my guess). I merely read about the results of
these arbitrations and the results seem logical in almost all cases.
So if they threaten to haul you into UDRP then they must have some
faith in their threats or feel as if you might not go to the expense
of responding.
Well, I just don't see it. The UDRP is pretty specific -- the quick summary
indicates that it requires the trademark holder to establish:
1) that he has a legally recognized trademark in a name that is identical or
confusingly similar to the domain name;
Ok -- we'll give them that one.
(2) that the current registrant of the domain name has no legitimate rights in
the name;
I don't see them establishing that we have no legitimate rights -- since we
have been actively using it for many years now and use it for a legitimate
organization.
(3) that there has been some evidence of bad faith or abuse.
This one seems impossible to establish. There has been no bad faith or abuse.
The domain was registered properly -- before they had a service mark even.
We have never offered it for sale or anything else to indicate "cyber-squatting."
In other words, I just don't see how they can have any faith in winning a UDRP
situation.
So -- maybe it was the idea that we just couldn't afford to...
My thoughts here are that you will need legal advice in this matter.
I do know that the personal hassle Chip went through on this was
possibly worse than the monetary cost. What you have is a group that
"covets" your domain name and probably have convinced themselves that
they deserve it - thus denigrating you to some low-life that stole
their rightful property. People like that can be dangerous and you
should behave accordingly.
Agreed. :( We'll have to see how it goes. We're currently going through
some archives to try to find items to help prove that we were using the words
in commerce before their stated date of 1988. We know that we were -- as far
back as the 70s -- it is just a matter of trying to prove that.
Maybe a better route would be to contest the service mark at the USPTO level?
Or, at least, make them aware that we have previous work (when we have it
gathered soon) that predates their "in commerce" date?
- John...
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> wrote:
They have listed first use and first use in commerce as 01-Jun-1988. Then
filed in 2001 and registered in 2003.
We have been using the same name since around 1985. Our domain was registered
in 1998.
They have other marks registered that are their logo design with the words in
question underneath. These are from 1996. However, a specific disclaimer is
given that "no claim is made to the exclusive rights to use (the words) apart
from the mark as shown." So, when they did the logos, the text by itself was
specifically excluded. They then did just the text/words in 2001/2003 -- and
then decided that they wanted our matching domain name.
This is far too involved and murk for a newsgroup discussion. You need
a good lawyer.
|
| |
| |
Your correct in pointing out that first usage is important, but the
only dates provided in the original post are registration dates. I'd
check the registration to see what first usage date the trademark
holder
claims.
Thats not true, Isaac. If there is someone engaging in common law use
of the mark prior to another's registration date, the registrant can't
retroactively claim sole rights to the mark.
Mez
I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice
|
| |
| |
Emma Anne wrote:
This is far too involved and murk for a newsgroup discussion. You need
a good lawyer.
As I said, I was simply interested in thoughts, tips, and such from the public
to make sure I wasn't completely missing anything.
Almost anything in this group actually falls into the category of "you may
still need a lawyer" -- but I still have interest in the opinions of others.
That being said -- as I also said -- we simply can't afford a lawyer for this.
If it comes down to it, we'll either need to try to represent ourselves or,
if we can't, then we'll have to fold. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.
- John...
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> writes:
That being said -- as I also said -- we simply can't afford a lawyer
for this. If it comes down to it, we'll either need to try to
represent ourselves or, if we can't, then we'll have to fold. It's
wrong, but that's the way it is.
You would rather fold, a win-lose solution, than consider my win-win
solution?
--
Rahul
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> wrote:
Emma Anne wrote:
As I said, I was simply interested in thoughts, tips, and such from the public
to make sure I wasn't completely missing anything.
Understood, and I am not a person who cuts off every legal conversation
with "get a lawyer." But you've got several overlapping time frames and
different types of uses, and it is just impossible to tell.
Almost anything in this group actually falls into the category of "you may
still need a lawyer" -- but I still have interest in the opinions of others.
That being said -- as I also said -- we simply can't afford a lawyer for this.
If it comes down to it, we'll either need to try to represent ourselves or,
if we can't, then we'll have to fold. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.
I believe that if you are not a cybersquatter (and from your story you
aren't) you can reimbursed for reasonable costs associated with the
change. Out of pocket expenses, accrued good will, that kind of thing.
(not legal advice)
|
| |
| |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
The Gypsy <john@TheGypsy.com> writes:
You would rather fold, a win-lose solution, than consider my win-win
solution?
He's obviously an ignorant person ... and a coward.
Typical 'murrrikan.
|
| |
| |
This is not the first time a larger well-funded company has overlooked
that a smaller company was using a mark before they filed for it.
I dug this out of wikipedia's entry on NBC:
"On New Year's Day, 1976, the time had come to update NBC's visual
identity, and a stylized N was introduced, consisting of two
trapezoids. The design was bold, bright and contemporary. In February
1976, NBC was sued by the Nebraska ETV network for trademark
infringement since the new NBC logo was virtually identical to the ETV
logo. An out-of-court settlement was reached in which NBC gave ETV new
equipment and a mobile color unit (valued over $800,000) in exchange
for allowing NBC to retain their logo. In addition, NBC paid $55,000 to
ETV to cover the cost of designing and implementing a new logo."
Mez
|
| |
| |
On 21 Dec 2004 09:58:01 -0800, Messalina <messalinana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your correct in pointing out that first usage is important, but the
only dates provided in the original post are registration dates. I'd
check the registration to see what first usage date the trademark
holder
Thats not true, Isaac. If there is someone engaging in common law use
of the mark prior to another's registration date, the registrant can't
retroactively claim sole rights to the mark.
Mez
Be careful here. There are two types of registrations involved. The
poster has registered a domain name but has not registered a trademark and
apparently does not have one. Registering a domain name is not a trademark
usage and nor is it the same as federally registering a trademark.
A person who registers a domain name prior to the first use of a trademark
is not a cybersquatter and the trademark holder should not be able to
strong arm away the domain name. Someone who registers a domain name
containing a trademark and who does so between the first use and the
registration date of a trademark *might* be a squatter although in this
case that is not my impression.
Also it is important to note that domain disputes are not strictly
speaking trademark infringement. Some of factors that might result
in an identical trademark found not to infringe a senior mark are
not considered in a domain name cybersquatting case.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
My understanding is that his use pre-dates the date of first use stated
on the PTO database by a good deal. Early 70s vs. 1988. Is this is
the case he most likely has common law usage of the mark that pre-dates
the domain registration.
Sorry for jumping around from post to post.
I certainly wish people would just say what the mark in question is in
these questions. It is a matter of public record after all.
Mez
|
| |
| |
In article <slrncshm52.ca.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 09:58:01 -0800, Messalina <messalinana@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your correct in pointing out that first usage is important, but the
only dates provided in the original post are registration dates. I'd
check the registration to see what first usage date the trademark
Be careful here. There are two types of registrations involved. The
poster has registered a domain name but has not registered a trademark and
apparently does not have one. Registering a domain name is not a trademark
usage and nor is it the same as federally registering a trademark.
A person who registers a domain name prior to the first use of a trademark
is not a cybersquatter and the trademark holder should not be able to
strong arm away the domain name. Someone who registers a domain name
containing a trademark and who does so between the first use and the
registration date of a trademark *might* be a squatter although in this
case that is not my impression.
Also, if the domain registrant is operating a real web site under that
name, he's by definition *not* a cybersquatter. A cybersquatter is
someone who registers a domain name for the sole purpose of trying to
sell it, with no intention to use it for himself.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:10:51 -0500, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
In article <slrncshm52.ca.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
Also, if the domain registrant is operating a real web site under that
name, he's by definition *not* a cybersquatter. A cybersquatter is
someone who registers a domain name for the sole purpose of trying to
sell it, with no intention to use it for himself.
That might be your definition of squatting, but the statutory definition
still allows someone who uses the domain to be considered a squatter if
the registration of the name shows "bad faith".
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On 21 Dec 2004 20:42:42 -0800, Captain Sensible <soycapitansensible@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My understanding is that his use pre-dates the date of first use stated
on the PTO database by a good deal. Early 70s vs. 1988. Is this is
the case he most likely has common law usage of the mark that pre-dates
the domain registration.
Sorry for jumping around from post to post.
I certainly wish people would just say what the mark in question is in
these questions. It is a matter of public record after all.
I'd recommend not providing those kind of details here. While some of the
issues are public record, other are not.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
In article <slrncsil1s.15f.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:10:51 -0500, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
That might be your definition of squatting, but the statutory definition
still allows someone who uses the domain to be considered a squatter if
the registration of the name shows "bad faith".
If he's using the domain to host a real web site, how could it be
considered to be bad faith?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:10:51 -0500, Barry Margolin
<barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
That might be your definition of squatting, but the statutory
definition still allows someone who uses the domain to be considered a
squatter
if the registration of the name shows "bad faith".
You have no idea what that legal term means, do you?
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
You would rather fold, a win-lose solution, than consider my win-win
solution?
Um, yes, actually. I would rather be forced to give up the domain -- than to
have to share it with them. I do not consider "sharing" the domain a
"win-win" situation.
And, none of this matters -- because I can tell you now that they would NOT be
acceptable to a situation where the main page is not theirs and just provides
links to the choices. What about when other states come in? Do we then need
to share it with dozens of others?
I thank you for your suggestion -- I simply do not think it a good solution
here. Again, yes, I would rather fight and lose the domain than to "share" it
with others. We own the domain -- I don't think it fair that they should be
able to force us to give it up or share it with them.
- John...
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
He's obviously an ignorant person ... and a coward.
Typical 'murrrikan.
What are you talking about? I'm a "coward" because I want to fight for my
rights and keep the domain? I don't see how giving in to them (at least
partially) and "sharing" a domain that I should have full rights to is being a
"coward."
- John...
|
| |
| |
Captain Sensible wrote:
My understanding is that his use pre-dates the date of first use stated
on the PTO database by a good deal. Early 70s vs. 1988. Is this is
the case he most likely has common law usage of the mark that pre-dates
the domain registration.
We believe that to be the case. The question is whether or not we can come up
with proof that our first use pre-dates the date that they have listed on
their service mark registration. Those are the records (advertising,
pictures, whatever) that we are searching for now.
I certainly wish people would just say what the mark in question is in
these questions. It is a matter of public record after all.
I just don't see exposing those details at this stage makes good sense. The
other side reading my thoughts on this at this point would probably not be a
good idea.
Once things are worked out, I will try to follow up with more exact details
for those interested.
- John...
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Isaac wrote:
You have no idea what that legal term means, do you?
Yes, he really does. Do you?
Mez
|
| |
| |
The Gypsy wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
What are you talking about? I'm a "coward" because I want to fight
for my rights and keep the domain? I don't see how giving in to them
(at least partially) and "sharing" a domain that I should have full
rights to is being a "coward."
Of course you don't see why ... which is, ipso facto, the reason
you are a spineless milquetoast.
They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
- John...
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:28:12 -0500, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
In article <slrncsil1s.15f.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
If he's using the domain to host a real web site, how could it be
considered to be bad faith?
Let me first say that I don't see evidence of bad faith in the facts
described by the OP.
In a hypothetical case...
Bad faith might be found if someone chose a domain name for the purpose
of diverting traffic from a trademark holder's web page. In a case where
there were facts suggesting this type of bad faith, the fact that someone
was using the domain to host a real web site certainly would not be
an argument against a finding of bad faith.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:23:08 -0700, S. O. Damocles <so@damocl.es> wrote:
Isaac wrote:
You have no idea what that legal term means, do you?
Actually I do. If you peek at the Anti-Cybersquatting statute, you'll
see that it includes descriptions of fact patterns that constitute
a prima facie case of bad faith. Besides that there is plenty of
case law on the subject.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
Actually I do. If you peek at the Anti-Cybersquatting statute, you'll
see that it includes descriptions of fact patterns that constitute
a prima facie case of bad faith. Besides that there is plenty of
case law on the subject.
Pay no mind, this guy is bat#@($ crazy.
Mez
I am not a psychiatrist, this is not medical advice :)
|
| |
| |
Gypsy, I don't know whether you are getting screwed or not. What I do know
is that you do yourself no good by saying what you just said. Take the
advice of the most recent poster on this thread and get a trademark lawyer.
And let her - or his - fingers do the talking.
The time for you to stop discussing this is now.
Rusty Mase wrote:
Yes, we definitely are in the same field and, therefore, the same class.
We
do the same sort of things.
See my post above in reply to Isaac for more details -- I gave a better
example there to try to make it more clear. In quick summary, they offer
"sales shows" on a national level -- and we are more state-specific.
Ah -- that makes some sense. Although, I'm still a bit surprised that
they
didn't decide to follow up.
Yes, the issue is that we simply can't afford it. We are not a large
company
and do not make a great deal of money. The site advertises a statewide
show/expo and we are simply not likely in a financial position to hire
proper
counsel.
I realize that the size of the firm does not matter -- I just mentioned it
for
the same reason t | | |
