Trademark Breach?

[terryd]

I just received a registered letter today from findasite.com (I'm in NZ) stating that I am infringing on their trademark. They say the have a federally registered trademark on LAWYERS-ON-LINE and I have a site which I created 4 years ago called (state)-Lawyers-Online.com, they say it is a confusingly similar derivation of Lawyers-On-Line.

They say I should cease and desist using this domain and transfer it to them immediately.

Now this site means nothing to me as I built it 4 years ago and just left it basically but I hate the thought that I'm just being bullied around.

Now, if I'm correct they are saying that anyone who uses any state in the US followed by Lawyers-Online is in breach of trademark???

They have attached a photocopy of a US Patent and Trademark office form with the principal register of Lawyers-On-Line and they have also CC a copy to usulaw.com

I'm thinking it's legit but thought I would check here to see if anyone has been in a similar circumstance.

[BIG Mike]

I think you may want to run it by a lawyer to see what your options are.

[Kirk Ward]

I'm not a lwayer, and I'm not giving legal advice.

What I'm suggesting is that if you want to bite back, then you contact an assertive attorney and ask them if the term "Lawyers On Line" can be considered too generic and possibly indefensible.

Many terms are given trademarks that are not defensible in that they are too broad and are in common use as a generic term or description. Even a halfway moderately qualified intellectual property rights lawyer could advise you on this.

If it is too broad, or is a term that is in common use, then their trademark may be contested and might possibly be dismissed. In other word, since I don't know the correct legal term, if it's too generic, they could lose their trademark if someone contests their usage before the patent office.

Also, if your usage predates theirs, they got crap, and they wasted a lot of money.

Kirk

[Ilya Feynberg]

Originally Posted by Kirk Ward

Also, if your usage predates theirs, they got crap, and they wasted a lot of money.

Kirk

VERY much agree with all advice...but especially this piece. Check for the date that they registered the name, and the domain etc...if you did it before....they can go F**k themselves...

Of course I'm NOT giving any legal advice

[Ilya Feynberg]

By the way I ran a quick search for you. Here you go: Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

AND....

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...yersonline.com


Looks like like you might be out of luck on beating them to it....BUT like already stated check with a lawyer to see if you can fight the fact that it is indeed too generic of a term and can't exactly be approached in the same way.

[terryd]

It's not really worth in money terms to fight this thing so I may just have to give it away.

Just really pisses me off that you can trademark something so broad. I notice they have mortgagesonline as well which I guess means they would come after anyone who did the same thing with mortgages.

If it was a site that was making money then it might be worth consulting a lawyer but as it's not really making much I think it would be best to let it go.

Thanks for the advice anyway!

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by terryd

Now, if I'm correct they are saying that anyone who uses any state in the US followed by Lawyers-Online is in breach of trademark???

OF COURSE NOT! It means that anything that has Lawyers-Online in it is a breach of trademark.

Your domain name is COM, so you ARE subject to the UDRP! That finishes right there, but New Zealand is subject to the trademark ALSO.

Frankly, I HATE people that skirt the law. TECHNICALLY common terms can't be trademarked. But there HAVE been cases won on them anyway.

You should have checked the trademarks first. A site that was ACTIVE by the current user PRIOR to the filing of the trademark may win on that case.

But consult a lawyer. I would NOT ignore it if I were you.

Steve

[terryd]

Originally Posted by seasoned

OF COURSE NOT! It means that anything that has Lawyers-Online in it is a breach of trademark.

Your domain name is COM, so you ARE subject to the UDRP! That finishes right there, but New Zealand is subject to the trademark ALSO.

Frankly, I HATE people that skirt the law. TECHNICALLY common terms can't be trademarked. But there HAVE been cases won on them anyway.

You should have checked the trademarks first. A site that was ACTIVE by the current user PRIOR to the filing of the trademark may win on that case.

But consult a lawyer. I would NOT ignore it if I were you.

Steve

Wow.......would never have imagined such a broad term could be trademarked!

Thanks for the advice...don't want to spend money on consulting a lawyer especially seeing as it the site means so little to me............just erks me especially when I had no desire to infringe on anybody or anyone, it was just a simple adsense site!

[sbucciarel]

You are in breach of their trademark ... and they can file a UDRP or even a lawsuit if they choose to. I would simply hand the domain over to them graciously.

[Orator]

This is a simple strategic choice.

Is this property worth investing the resources needed to defend it? Judging by your postings I doubt it, and I think your more annoyed at their bullying then anything. If it's not generating you any money, I suggest just handing it over.

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by terryd

Wow.......would never have imagined such a broad term could be trademarked!

Technically it IS against the law, but that applies to PATENTS to! In fact the USPTO(U.S. Patent Trademark Office) http://uspto.gov/ files US trademarks AND patents. But cases are STILL won. Look at amazons case for one click ordering. As for trademarks, amazon books vs. amazon.com DID make it to court, and the attorney said they WOULD have had a case. They filed LONG after amazon was FAMOUS though, and lost on those grounds.

Companies USED to misspell names, or use something crazy, or an odd sequence to trademark, but NOW it seems they use ANYTHING. 8-(

Originally Posted by terryd

Thanks for the advice...don't want to spend money on consulting a lawyer especially seeing as it the site means so little to me............just erks me especially when I had no desire to infringe on anybody or anyone, it was just a simple adsense site!

Yeah, I know what you mean. Still, without trademarks, it could be WORSE!

BTW look at THIS! http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com...certiorari.pdf It is interesting that that patent is turned down because it is not for an EXACT need, or EXACT device. Frankly, I would have turned it down based on prior art and being non novel. After all, there ARE models for doing exactly THIS. I'm sure they even use that exact formula when conditions change abruptly. In other cases, it is driven by the market, but this app even seems to do THAT in the same way.

Steve

[davezan]

Originally Posted by seasoned

TECHNICALLY common terms can't be trademarked.

Common terms used in their common or descriptive meanings anyway, IIRC.
Otherwise they can still become trademarks if used distinctively instead.

[SageSound]

This is NOT a LEGAL FORUM!

It amazes me why people post legal questions here.

Do they seriously expect that the advice they'll get is legitimate?

As a case in point, how many folks noticed that the OP is in New Zealand, while the company who sent him a C+D letter is in another country?

Can anybody here say what the legal arrangements are between NZ and USA? And what legal authorities exist in this situation, besides possible a dispute with ICANN?

<sigh>

This place has become the de facto "Universal Help Desk" for virtually every software and IM product on the market, as well as a "General Legal Help Desk", "Trademark Help Desk", "Copyright Help Desk", "Business Law Help Desk", and any number of other things.

The amazing thing is that whenever I've ever tried to ask here what kinds of legal problems people run into, I get ZERO replies!

I think Allen should set up a separate area on this site ONLY for Legal questions, then charge some lawyers a nice fee to access it. I do NOT think that most people are being served by having the General Population chiming in on stuff most don't know much about. Well, some of us DO, but we can't say or we'll get shot (or sued).

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by SageSound

This is NOT a LEGAL FORUM!

It amazes me why people post legal questions here.

Do they seriously expect that the advice they'll get is legitimate?

As a case in point, how many folks noticed that the OP is in New Zealand, while the company who sent him a C+D letter is in another country?

Can anybody here say what the legal arrangements are between NZ and USA? And what legal authorities exist in this situation, besides possible a dispute with ICANN?

<sigh>

This place has become the de facto "Universal Help Desk" for virtually every software and IM product on the market, as well as a "General Legal Help Desk", "Trademark Help Desk", "Copyright Help Desk", "Business Law Help Desk", and any number of other things.

Yeah SageSound,

But it get's traffic here, and it makes Allen money, and if anyone listens to the advice here, then they need to remember it is all worth what they paid for it.

Kirk

[Michael Oksa]

Originally Posted by SageSound

This is NOT a LEGAL FORUM!

It amazes me why people post legal questions here.

Do they seriously expect that the advice they'll get is legitimate?

As a case in point, how many folks noticed that the OP is in New Zealand, while the company who sent him a C+D letter is in another country?

Can anybody here say what the legal arrangements are between NZ and USA? And what legal authorities exist in this situation, besides possible a dispute with ICANN?

<sigh>

This place has become the de facto "Universal Help Desk" for virtually every software and IM product on the market, as well as a "General Legal Help Desk", "Trademark Help Desk", "Copyright Help Desk", "Business Law Help Desk", and any number of other things.

The amazing thing is that whenever I've ever tried to ask here what kinds of legal problems people run into, I get ZERO replies!

I think Allen should set up a separate area on this site ONLY for Legal questions, then charge some lawyers a nice fee to access it. I do NOT think that most people are being served by having the General Population chiming in on stuff most don't know much about. Well, some of us DO, but we can't say or we'll get shot (or sued).

Most people here know that this is NOT a legal forum. A lot of times people are just looking for different ways to approach a potential problem.

Also, if you've looked at legal threads here, you will notice that they invariably contain several posts telling people to consult a qualified attorney.

As for Allen setting up a special section - well, that's not very good legal advice either. Wouldn't that make him liable for BAd legal advice? Right now he is not making ANY claim that any kind of legal advice is being given. Once he sets up a section devoted to legal ssues, he would be asking for a lot of trouble (and I'm sure he is quite aware of that fact).

The reason you probably don't get replies when soliciting OOPS! asking people about their legal issues is this: They aren't thinking about them when you ask. The only time most people think about it is when faced with a legal threat or concern of some kind.

To be fair....

Let's take a quick look at some of the replies to the original post in thos thread. (Emphasis added)

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

I think you may want to run it by a lawyer to see what your options are.

Originally Posted by Kirk Ward

I'm not a lwayer, and I'm not giving legal advice.

What I'm suggesting is that if you want to bite back, then you contact an assertive attorney and ask them if the term "Lawyers On Line" can be considered too generic and possibly indefensible.

Many terms are given trademarks that are not defensible in that they are too broad and are in common use as a generic term or description. Even a halfway moderately qualified intellectual property rights lawyer could advise you on this.

If it is too broad, or is a term that is in common use, then their trademark may be contested and might possibly be dismissed. In other word, since I don't know the correct legal term, if it's too generic, they could lose their trademark if someone contests their usage before the patent office.

Also, if your usage predates theirs, they got crap, and they wasted a lot of money.

Kirk

Originally Posted by seasoned

OF COURSE NOT! It means that anything that has Lawyers-Online in it is a breach of trademark.

Your domain name is COM, so you ARE subject to the UDRP! That finishes right there, but New Zealand is subject to the trademark ALSO.

Frankly, I HATE people that skirt the law. TECHNICALLY common terms can't be trademarked. But there HAVE been cases won on them anyway.

You should have checked the trademarks first. A site that was ACTIVE by the current user PRIOR to the filing of the trademark may win on that case.

But consult a lawyer. I would NOT ignore it if I were you.

Steve

Just sayin'



All the best,
Michael

[Kay King]

Terry -

I would think the only important part here is that this site is not important to you and seems to be more a set and forget domain.

You have to choose your battles and this one doesn't seem worth fighting but IANAL (or I'd be richer).

kay

[SageSound]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

As for Allen setting up a special section - well, that's not very good legal advice either.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned quite a bit about various parts of the laws over the years. The suggestion was not "legal advice", merely another way that Allen can earn some money by charging REAL LAWYERS to access that area and contact people who post questions there. And it moves the legal questions out of the main flow of traffic.

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

Wouldn't that make him liable for BAd legal advice? Right now he is not making ANY claim that any kind of legal advice is being given. Once he sets up a section devoted to legal ssues, he would be asking for a lot of trouble (and I'm sure he is quite aware of that fact).

Why? One could easily make a claim that every one of the business ideas and strategies posted here constitute a form of "legal advice" as there's an implication that they're actually "legal", as in "legitimate", and that people who employ them won't be getting led into foul territory.

Merely opening a specific section where legal QUESTIONS get posted isn't going to expose him to any more liability than he is now with the same questions being posted in the main forum. I mean, why would it?

(The idea is for people to post their legal questions there; then lawyers who have paid for access can contact the people and deal with them directly. Which I suppose could be done now. I would not recommend that the lawyers interact with posters there unless they wanted to do so for very generic topics -- of which this might be one.)

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

The reason you probably don't get replies when soliciting OOPS! asking people about their legal issues is this: They aren't thinking about them when you ask. The only time most people think about it is when faced with a legal threat or concern of some kind.

I'd say you're partly right. But it's not that simple.

I've got a friend who got a letter a few weeks ago on behalf of the IRS entitled "Notice of Lien or Levy" (NOLL). He also was notified of an inquiry sent to the place he worked in preparation for a garnishment of his wages pursuant to the same NOLL.

You'd think he might consider THAT a "legal issue", right? Did he contact a lawyer? NO! He called four scum-sucking carpet-bagging "credit repair" outfits who want to charge him anywhere from $500 to $2500 to file what amounts to an "Offer in Compromise" (OIC). Of course, they didn't call it that, because that would expose their fraud.

If he'd bothered to call a REAL lawyer, or even a CPA, they'd tell him that the IRS won't accept OIC's unless you owe at least $10k or $15k or something like that. The amount they're claiming he owes is way under that, so an OIC is not really an option.

Either way, he could always pick up the phone and call the IRS to set up a payment plan, which he doesn't seem too eager to do. The alternative is to ignore it and wait for a judgement to be issued. THEN his hands are tied TIGHT!

But, it's worse than that. Any decent tax lawyer knows that over 95% of the "NOLL" notices are never perfected in a court of law, are never preceeded by the legal steps the IRS's own regulations require, and are merely a TRICK employed to get innocent taxpayers to "default" on a technically fraudulent demand letter.

And, in fact, these notices are not even being sent out by the IRS, but by private law firms employed to collect additional taxes on behalf of the IRS. So they are technically not required to follow the same laws as the IRS.

Alas, the average person doesn't know any of this.

Trademark laws are laws nonetheless.

Anybody can file a C+D notice for ANYTHING at ANY TIME. As long as they make a fairly legitimate claim and include some verbage that sets deadlines and states defaults, most of the time they'll win their (non-existent) case if the party they pester defaults -- which is likely about 99% of the time.

Why? Because people don't realize that issues that deal with the LAW are, well, "legal issues". If they did, they wouldn't be posting stuff in forums like this. They'd be on the horn to a lawyer post haste!

Most federal and state statutes nominally give you 30 days to respond to demand letters. Tick tock, tick tock. If you snooze, you lose. It's that simple.

If you are sent a document that resembles something that might cause you to lose your rights or remedies over some claim, no matter how bogus you might think it is, then you need to talk to a lawyer. Sooner rather than later.

Because if a lawyer sent you that letter, you can bet it's designed to get you to default. If you do, they win. Even if their claims are totally bogus!

(People in this forum KNOW about the power of hiring a top-notch copywriter to write sales letters, right? Well, don't you think that LAWYERS know a few things about how to word the stuff they send out?)

I read about a study done a year or so ago that found something like 75% or more of the collection letters sent out by collection agencies (owned and/or operated by lawyers) are "non-conformal" with legal statutes. In other words, they constitute a "statutory violation" of most credit-related laws. Yet the prosecution of these "statutory violations" is only a fraction of a percent! Rather than call a lawyer, people ask their friends, post in forums, dilly-dally around, and before you know it, DING! Time's up! They just defaulted, and now they owe the money whether the original claim was legitimate or not.

SUMMARY: I'm suggesting that Allen set up a board here where people can post legal questions, so that their situations can be isolated and more easily found by REAL LAWYERS who can contact them and help keep their butts out of a sling. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE in most legal matters!

(I'm actually advocating for a solution that gets people like the OP better help faster. Personally speaking, I think these topics have no business being posted here, but my opinion is not going to stop people from posting them. So the next-best thing is to try to do something to funnel them into a more productive direction.)

I can't imagine that simply moving threads of a legal nature to a separate discussion board will create any liabilities for anybody. But if Allen thinks it's a good idea, I'm sure he'll talk to his lawyer first.

-David
(Not A Lawyer)

[acedalright]

I would have thought a letter from a US lawyer, would mean nothing if you are in NZ. If they didn't buy the domain when they had the chance, why should they be able to try now.

From what I know NZ is nowhere near as litigious a country and such legal matters can be shocking in a country that generally doesn't sue.

I just can't see what they can do to you?

[Michael Oksa]

Originally Posted by acedalright

I would have thought a letter from a US lawyer, would mean nothing if you are in NZ. If they didn't buy the domain when they had the chance, why should they be able to try now.

From what I know NZ is nowhere near as litigious a country and such legal matters can be shocking in a country that generally doesn't sue.

I just can't see what they can do to you?

This is exactly why the OP should ask a qualified legal professional. You are offering nothing but theory; theory that could cost dearly if it's followed.

Using your logic, if a trademarked company doesn't buy every single conceivable domain name, then they don't have a case? So... let's say Coca-Cola buys

cocacola . com
coca-cola . com
drinkcoke . com
drinkcocacola . com
drink-coca-cola . com
usacocacola . com
wisconsinlovescocacola . com

but someone else buys...

i-love-coca-cola . com

Now, my understanding is that Coca-Cola can absolutely go after them. Just because the corporation didn't buy that domain name doesn't mean it's open to everyone else.

Also, there is such a thing as INTERNATIONAL law. But based on some of the advice in this thread, it's easy to see that even a basic grasp of local law is lacking.

The only advice that should be followed is to consult an attorney.

All the best,
Michael

[davezan]

Originally Posted by SageSound

Can anybody here say what the legal arrangements are between NZ and USA? And what legal authorities exist in this situation, besides possible a dispute with ICANN?

International Trade Mark Treaties | Trade Marks | Intellectual Property Policy

He he, just offering one answer. But no one's disputing that one should seek a
licensed legal expert with real-world experience.

It can't be helped that some still prefer to ask an online forum.

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by SageSound

This is NOT a LEGAL FORUM!

It amazes me why people post legal questions here.

Do they seriously expect that the advice they'll get is legitimate?

As a case in point, how many folks noticed that the OP is in New Zealand, while the company who sent him a C+D letter is in another country?

Can anybody here say what the legal arrangements are between NZ and USA? And what legal authorities exist in this situation, besides possible a dispute with ICANN?

<sigh>

This place has become the de facto "Universal Help Desk" for virtually every software and IM product on the market, as well as a "General Legal Help Desk", "Trademark Help Desk", "Copyright Help Desk", "Business Law Help Desk", and any number of other things.

The amazing thing is that whenever I've ever tried to ask here what kinds of legal problems people run into, I get ZERO replies!

I think Allen should set up a separate area on this site ONLY for Legal questions, then charge some lawyers a nice fee to access it. I do NOT think that most people are being served by having the General Population chiming in on stuff most don't know much about. Well, some of us DO, but we can't say or we'll get shot (or sued).

I noticed he was in NewZealand, and even said it. I ALSO said why IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Well, NZ IS required to honor American Trademarks, and the name IS purchased from an AMERICAN company, subject to AMERICAN LAW, with a CLEARLY written contract!

GRANTED I am not a lawyer, but there IS plenty of case law behind this. AND, the plantiff might NOT take action. There are a few cases where they MIGHT lose. If they take action, and you don't respond, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that you WILL lose the name.

Steve

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by SageSound

I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned quite a bit about various parts of the laws over the years. The suggestion was not "legal advice", merely another way that Allen can earn some money by charging REAL LAWYERS to access that area and contact people who post questions there. And it moves the legal questions out of the main flow of traffic.

But we are NOT simply talking about "law" here! In fact, did you know you are NOT really supposed to SUE first?

Originally Posted by SageSound

Why? One could easily make a claim that every one of the business ideas and strategies posted here constitute a form of "legal advice" as there's an implication that they're actually "legal", as in "legitimate", and that people who employ them won't be getting led into foul territory.

Merely opening a specific section where legal QUESTIONS get posted isn't going to expose him to any more liability than he is now with the same questions being posted in the main forum. I mean, why would it?

(The idea is for people to post their legal questions there; then lawyers who have paid for access can contact the people and deal with them directly. Which I suppose could be done now. I would not recommend that the lawyers interact with posters there unless they wanted to do so for very generic topics -- of which this might be one.)

I'd say you're partly right. But it's not that simple.

OK, you are REALLY getting off crack. It is like arguing that you can NOT die in a car crash because you DON'T have a contract! CRAZY!

Originally Posted by SageSound

I've got a friend who got a letter a few weeks ago on behalf of the IRS entitled "Notice of Lien or Levy" (NOLL). He also was notified of an inquiry sent to the place he worked in preparation for a garnishment of his wages pursuant to the same NOLL.

You'd think he might consider THAT a "legal issue", right? Did he contact a lawyer? NO! He called four scum-sucking carpet-bagging "credit repair" outfits who want to charge him anywhere from $500 to $2500 to file what amounts to an "Offer in Compromise" (OIC). Of course, they didn't call it that, because that would expose their fraud.

If he'd bothered to call a REAL lawyer, or even a CPA, they'd tell him that the IRS won't accept OIC's unless you owe at least $10k or $15k or something like that. The amount they're claiming he owes is way under that, so an OIC is not really an option.

Either way, he could always pick up the phone and call the IRS to set up a payment plan, which he doesn't seem too eager to do. The alternative is to ignore it and wait for a judgement to be issued. THEN his hands are tied TIGHT!

But, it's worse than that. Any decent tax lawyer knows that over 95% of the "NOLL" notices are never perfected in a court of law, are never preceeded by the legal steps the IRS's own regulations require, and are merely a TRICK employed to get innocent taxpayers to "default" on a technically fraudulent demand letter.

And, in fact, these notices are not even being sent out by the IRS, but by private law firms employed to collect additional taxes on behalf of the IRS. So they are technically not required to follow the same laws as the IRS.

Alas, the average person doesn't know any of this.

NON SEQUITOR!!

Originally Posted by SageSound

Trademark laws are laws nonetheless.

Yep, BUT...

Originally Posted by SageSound

Anybody can file a C+D notice for ANYTHING at ANY TIME. As long as they make a fairly legitimate claim and include some verbage that sets deadlines and states defaults, most of the time they'll win their (non-existent) case if the party they pester defaults -- which is likely about 99% of the time.

Why? Because people don't realize that issues that deal with the LAW are, well, "legal issues". If they did, they wouldn't be posting stuff in forums like this. They'd be on the horn to a lawyer post haste!

Most federal and state statutes nominally give you 30 days to respond to demand letters. Tick tock, tick tock. If you snooze, you lose. It's that simple.

If you are sent a document that resembles something that might cause you to lose your rights or remedies over some claim, no matter how bogus you might think it is, then you need to talk to a lawyer. Sooner rather than later.

Because if a lawyer sent you that letter, you can bet it's designed to get you to default. If you do, they win. Even if their claims are totally bogus!

(People in this forum KNOW about the power of hiring a top-notch copywriter to write sales letters, right? Well, don't you think that LAWYERS know a few things about how to word the stuff they send out?)

I read about a study done a year or so ago that found something like 75% or more of the collection letters sent out by collection agencies (owned and/or operated by lawyers) are "non-conformal" with legal statutes. In other words, they constitute a "statutory violation" of most credit-related laws. Yet the prosecution of these "statutory violations" is only a fraction of a percent! Rather than call a lawyer, people ask their friends, post in forums, dilly-dally around, and before you know it, DING! Time's up! They just defaulted, and now they owe the money whether the original claim was legitimate or not.

SUMMARY: I'm suggesting that Allen set up a board here where people can post legal questions, so that their situations can be isolated and more easily found by REAL LAWYERS who can contact them and help keep their butts out of a sling. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE in most legal matters!

(I'm actually advocating for a solution that gets people like the OP better help faster. Personally speaking, I think these topics have no business being posted here, but my opinion is not going to stop people from posting them. So the next-best thing is to try to do something to funnel them into a more productive direction.)

I can't imagine that simply moving threads of a legal nature to a separate discussion board will create any liabilities for anybody. But if Allen thinks it's a good idea, I'm sure he'll talk to his lawyer first.

-David
(Not A Lawyer)

Ok, enough of this. Let me tell you how this REALLY works!!!!!!!

1. A person sets up a SERVER in New Zealand!
2. He purchases a .com domain name from New Zealand. ONE PROBLEM!!!!!! ONE *****BIG***** problem. They can NOT get him a .com domain.
3. So they go to an INDIAN(in INDIA) registrar, and order the domain name. ONE BIG PROBLEM! They can NOT get him a .com domain name.
4. So they go to the ONE company ON THE PLANET that can get a .com domain name. It happens to be in the U.S.! One MORE problem.
5. THEY are merely LICENSED to provide the name, by ICANN.
6. And THEY subject you to the UDRP, Trademarks, and US law.

If a person sends you a C&D and you don't respond, they can send you to arbitration, or sue. If they have any case, and you don't defend it, THEY can win the domain name. NOBODY has to go to new zealand, and nothing in new zealand has to change. ICANN will merely tell verisign that the plaintiff owns the name.

Even the IRS has to go through more hassle, and takes longer to force collection of a debt. Whether by foreclosure, garnishment, bank account seizure, etc... the IRS takes longer.

In all the cases where I have heard of the plaintiff losing, it was because they didn't act, didn't have a legitimate case, or the defendant somehow had a better case.

I'm glad to see it looks like Mr. Nissan is acting a bit like a winner... Nissan Computer Corporation Earlier, you had to wonder. He had the name first, had it BEFORE the trademark, used it for a valid purpose, and had a legitimate reason to pick that name, it was his family name and the name he chose for his consulting company. STILL nissan motors(formerly datsun) tried to SUE him for the name. MAN what a fight, and it took a LONG time, even though he CLEARLY was in the right. But read up on HIS case. You'll see why peoplle have responded as they did. USUALLY it is quicker, and the one with the strongest case wins.

Steve

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by seasoned

Ok, enough of this. Let me tell you how this REALLY works!!!!!!!

1. A person sets up a SERVER in New Zealand!
2. He purchases a .com domain name from New Zealand. ONE PROBLEM!!!!!! ONE *****BIG***** problem. They can NOT get him a .com domain.
3. So they go to an INDIAN(in INDIA) registrar, and order the domain name. ONE BIG PROBLEM! They can NOT get him a .com domain name.
4. So they go to the ONE company ON THE PLANET that can get a .com domain name. It happens to be in the U.S.! One MORE problem.
5. THEY are merely LICENSED to provide the name, by ICANN.
6. And THEY subject you to the UDRP, Trademarks, and US law.

If a person sends you a C&D and you don't respond, they can send you to arbitration, or sue. If they have any case, and you don't defend it, THEY can win the domain name. NOBODY has to go to new zealand, and nothing in new zealand has to change. ICANN will merely tell verisign that the plaintiff owns the name.

Which brings up the point of Nexus.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I understand.

Nexus determines where the legal authority lies, and .com names are exclusive to the United States. They must be hosted on a server domiciled in the United States.

Which means the city, county and state where the server is located has Nexus. The OP will have to defend his name in that location. So, I believe it is not a matter of NZ law at all, but exclusively U.S.

Kirk
.