Ok, Seriously - A Law Suit? Are they having a giggle?!

[Simon Nicholls]

Hi All,

I've just had an email from a lawyers office in the USA, stating that my domain NeverGetYourselfLost.net is in violation with some law. Apparently, it's nearly the same as Hertz's "Neverlost" trademark . . .?!?!

Are they having a laugh? Or am I seriously in the wrong? My domain sounds nothing like the above trademark, nor do I sell any Hertz products! It's an eBay site!

Below is a copy of the file they sent me, I've replied to them saying if they want the domain, then they can buy it off of me for a price that I seem right!



LAW OFFICES
HOWARD, PHILLIPS & ANDERSEN


C

E-Mail:

September 30, 2008



VIA EMAIL () AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL

Simon Nicholls

UNITED KINGDOM

RE: NEVERGETYOURSELFLOST.NET — Infringement and Dilution of Hertz
Trademarks

Dear Mr. Nicholls:

This law firm represents The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) on intellectual property and
trademark enforcement matters. Hertz takes policing and enforcement of its intellectual property
rights seriously.

Hertz is a worldwide corporation, specializing in the leasing and renting of automotive
vehicles. NEVERLOST® is a duly registered trademark that belongs to Hertz. Hertz first began
using NEVERLOST® in 1995 and has been using the mark continuously since that time as the
name for Hertz’s in-vehicle navigation system, which uses state-of-the-art GPS technology and
digital mapping to provide driving directions and other information to automobile drivers.
NEVERLOST® is a famous and distinctive trademark that is used by Hertz worldwide and is
associated by consumers exclusively with Hertz and Hertz’s navigation system. The domain
name for Hertz’s official website is neverlost.com.

Your recent registration of the domain name nevergetyourselflost.net, a domain name that
is confusingly similar to Hertz’s world famous NEVERLOST® trademark, and use of the
domain name to operate a commercial website advertising GPS-related goods and services,
violates Hertz’s trademark rights. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”)
provides for statutory damages of up to $100,000.00 per domain name when a famous trademark
is incorporated in a domain name without authorization from the trademark owner. See 15
U.S.C. § 1117(d). Hertz has obtained injunctions and judgments against those who have used its
trademarks in Internet domain names without authorization. See, e.g., The Hertz Corp. v. Names
for Sale, Civ. No. 00-734-A (E.D.Va. Aug. 10, 2000) (permanently enjoining defendant’s use of
Simon Nicholls
September 30, 2008
Page 2



neverlost.com, hertzneverlost.com, and hertzmagellan.com and ordering transfer to Hertz).
Under the ACPA, moreover, a United States court has the power to enter orders concerning
domain names that incorporate famous trademarks that have been registered in violation of the
ACPA without the registrant’s presence or participation.

Hertz, accordingly, asks that you make no further use of the domain name and transfer
your registration to Hertz. If you have not done so by October 10, 2008, we will infer that you
are unwilling to resolve this matter voluntarily and will advise Hertz of its remedies.

Cancellation of the registration will not resolve this matter. If you attempt to cancel the
registration, Hertz will have no choice other than to immediately file suit for violation of the
ACPA. If suit is necessary, we will advise Hertz to seek to recover from you all costs and
expenses incurred by Hertz in recovering the domain name from any subsequent registrant, as
well as actual and statutory damages.

This letter is without prejudice to the rights of Hertz, all of which are expressly reserved.

Very truly yours,






Any help of advice would be appreciated!

[Simon Nicholls]

Found this link after doing a google search about these people.

Howard, Phillips & Andersen

[AgileHosting]

Hire thyself a solicitor.

Bailey

[Simon Nicholls]

But do I really need to? Do they have a case?

The website never even has any visitors! I've not marketed it at all.
As far as I'm concerned the domain is not infringing any slogans?!

[Asher]

Man... that's scary... I don't know what to say to something like that
but keep us updated! Hope it settles down quickly >_<

[Simon Nicholls]

The thing I'm really confused about is that Neverlost® (Better put the ® in!) and nevergetyourselflost.net are two completely different phrases! I can understand if I had neverlost.net or whatever, but there are 2 extra words!

If it was really that much of an issue, why didn't Hertz buy all of the domains that they think will violate any terms!

If they are going to sue me, then I have no choice but to transfer the domain over. However I've replied that if they want it, they can buy it off of me!

[RyanLeisure]

They expect you to just transfer it to them? Haha, what a bunch of jokers. That sounds pretty shady to me. I'd look into some legal advice and find out if they have a leg to stand on. You might be able to make out with a decent buyout of this thing if they really want it.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

If they are going to sue me, then I have no choice but to transfer the domain over. However I've replied that if they want it, they can buy it off of me!

That was a bad move. That only helps reinforce their claim that you are a cybersquatter.

Had you not done that, you might have had a better chance. NeverLost and NeverGetYourselfLost don't seem to be confusingly similar to me. NeverLost is memorable, whereas NeverGetYourselfLost isn't as much so. I can't imagine people confusing the two.

Of course, your best bet is to discuss it with an IP attorney.

[Thomas Dean]

I think it's a good idea to remove their email address from your post.

[Gary McCaffrey]

Think they might go after these guys too?

Neverlost - Home

[Simon Nicholls]

Unfortunatly I can't afford any kind of attorney. If they want the domain, then they can have it. It cost me $10 and hasn't made me any money whatsoever!

But I'm just confused, it has no link to the trademark at all.
I can think of so many sites that could potentially violate a law!

[AgileHosting]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

But do I really need to? Do they have a case?

The website never even has any visitors! I've not marketed it at all.
As far as I'm concerned the domain is not infringing any slogans?!

It doesn't matter whether they have a case, or what your opinion is. Telling them "as far as I'm concerned the domain is not infringing any slogans" is not going to make this go away. Rather it will just cause them to escalate.

Welcome to the world of 'legal bullying' ... fun stuff, huh!

The most efficient and most fair way of dealing with this is by consulting with a solicitor. He or she can offer you a professional opinion of whether or not your domain name may be infringing; whether they may have a case; what your options are; and what they will cost.

It may be cheapest and easiest to just surrender the domain name to them.

By the same token if your site is related to online auctions and has nothing to do with rental cars, and you can show that your domain name is pertinent to the site content (online auctions) thereby giving it its own stand-alone claim ....... well then maybe it's worth fighting for.

But no, this is not a joke, and you can get in way over your head really fast.

These kinds of lawyers, this is all they do. They troll the internet far and wide, looking for anything remotely related to their clients' keywords or concepts, and they go after it. Every minute they spend is billable to the corporation. So think about it - it's to the lawyer's advantage to go after every remote possibility, because doing so brings in more fees from the client.

The majority of small operators are going to just roll over and surrender their site, domain, whatever, because it costs too much to defend against such a claim. The corp's lawyers know that. That's what makes this technique so successful.

Anybody can sue you for anything at any time. This is the time, right now, to get this issue nipped in the bud, before it turns into a true lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive. Negotiation at the C&D stage is cheap. To make sure that you get the most fair deal possible, get a solicitor.

Bailey

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

Found this link after doing a google search about these people.

Howard, Phillips & Andersen

I'm not sure who is "having a giggle" here, but I doubt it's Hertz.

The supposed link to the law firm lands on a "VW Sucks A$$" forum, and the link in your sig is dead.

A court may look at such behavior, and determine that you did indeed try to cash in on Hertz' trademark.

Whether they have a case or not, they have deep enough pockets to make things miserable for you. Best case is they offer you something for the domain. Whatever it is, I would take it.

And if you want to keep any credibility here, change those links...

[Simon Nicholls]

John,

Unfortunatly, I did not know when I posted the link to the forum that it would shorten like that.

As for the sig, it's not my site anymore - I've not posted here for a while and need to update it!

I'm emailing them now, saying that I'll transfer the domain to them. It's not worth the hassle.

Simon.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

I'm not sure who is "having a giggle" here, but I doubt it's Hertz.

The supposed link to the law firm lands on a "VW Sucks A$$" forum, and the link in your sig is dead.

That forum comes up in Google as #2 on a search for "Howard, Phillips & Andersen" and the discussions there are all about this firm. The title of the page in that forum is "Howard, Phillips & Andersen" so when he put in the link, WF automatically changes it to the title of the webpage.

[mr2monster]

I'd call their bluff... sounds scammy to me.

[KarlWarren]

While you're at it... I'd keep an eye out for a letter Bernie Ecclestone.
Formula1 is also a trademark

I doubt they'd go after you though... lol.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

John,

Unfortunatly, I did not know when I posted the link to the forum that it would shorten like that.

As for the sig, it's not my site anymore - I've not posted here for a while and need to update it!

I'm emailing them now, saying that I'll transfer the domain to them. It's not worth the hassle.

Simon.

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

That forum comes up in Google as #2 on a search for "Howard, Phillips & Andersen" and the discussions there are all about this firm. The title of the page in that forum is "Howard, Phillips & Andersen" so when he put in the link, WF automatically changes it to the title of the webpage.

Excuse me a moment while I wipe the egg from my face...

I jumped to a conclusion, and I apologize. I saw a post about a possible lawsuit regarding a GPS trademark, about a site auctioning GPS related items. A link that looked like it led to a law firm led to an automotive forum with a provocative domain name, and the sig link (also auto related) came up as a dead link.

Since the glove don't fit, I must acquit...

Simon, sorry I doubted you.

Dan, thanks for showing me were I went wrong.

[Simon Nicholls]

I see Mr Ecclestone at my work on a weekly basis, he won't be a problem! ;-)

I just hope all this will go away! At the moment, I'm getting a little tired of getting into trouble!

Anyone got $100,000 they can give me?!

[Dan C. Rinnert]

There are at least 8 other TLDs, including .COM, available for nevergetyourselflost. Somebody at Hertz should hurry up and register all those. It will save them a bundle on future legal expenses.

[Simon Nicholls]

Exactly!

If it was really that important to them, why didn't they buy them all up?!

I had never even heard of their GPS range before tonight, I never even knew they did GPS systems!

[Gene Pimentel]

This happens all the time in the domain industry. This is NOT a scam or hoax. The worst thing you can do is ask them to buy it from you. That only provides evidence that you are trying to make money on their (supposed) trademark. Here's the kicker: They have to prove that you registered the domain in "bad faith". In other words, to capitalize on their trademark. A few questions to ask yourself: Did they own the trademark before you registered the domain? Are you using it in any way that could perceivable confuse a visitor that you are associated with the trademark owner? If both questions are "no", you're likely safe. I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It's just my experience in dealing in the domain trade for 5+ years. In many cases, it's a scare tactic.

[Jack Humphrey]

They're just bullying you. They have to prove that not only does the name of your domain confuse the market, but that you are in a competitive market. Neither applies.

[Simon Nicholls]

Well I've already said that I am willing to transfer the domain over, but have asked if there is any financial gain for me.

To answer your questions, they did own the trademark before me, I registered the domain last month. To answer the 2nd question, of course I didn't!

Simon.

[Simon Nicholls]

Jack,

They maybe bullying me, but I don't have the money to go to court if they do decide to sue me!

Simon.

[AgileHosting]

Originally Posted by KarlWarren

Formula1 is also a trademark

I doubt they'd go after you though... lol.

Agreed. F1 (and open-wheel in general) has been wringing their hands trying to figure out HOW to cash in on a piece of the pie that NASCAR has somehow found, but open-wheel hasn't.

And it's really a shame, because open-wheel racing is outstanding quality racing. But they need all the visibility they can get ......... and they know it.

Bailey

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Gene Pimentel

This happens all the time in the domain industry. This is NOT a scam or hoax. The worst thing you can do is ask them to buy it from you. Here's the kicker: They have to prove that you registered the domain in "bad faith". In other words, to capitalize on their trademark. A few questions to ask yourself: Did they own the trademark before you registered the domain? Are you using it in any way that could perceivable confuse a visitor that you are associated with the trademark owner? If bot questions are "no", you're likely safe. I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It's just my experience in dealing in the domain trade for 5+ years.

It's too late for Simon now, but if anyone else ever encounters a similar situation, a good resource is the EFF.

Here's a link from their site with some useful information:
Trademark: Domain Names - Internet Law Treatise

Notably, this seems to confirm what you (i.e., GP) has said. The ACPA was designed to create "a civil action against cybersquatters, where the cybersquatter had a bad faith intent to profit from the registration of a domain name, and the domain name is either a trademark or identical or confusingly similar to a famous or distinctive mark." Emphasis mine.

Following that definition is this line: "A belief that use of the domain name was a fair use will defeat the required bad faith."

I'm no lawyer either but, based on that information, in my non-lawyerly opinion, I think Simon could have won this one. He admits to not even knowing Hertz had GPS offerings (I didn't either; I've never heard of NeverLost before today), so that would seem to suggest that he did not register the name in bad faith or to profit by Hertz's use of their mark or to divert consumers from their site to his.

[valerieSONORA]

This sounds like a case of bullying. Like if I want a domain, just get lawyer to write a scary letter so the person will give it to me just to avoid any hassle.

If there are 8 other nevergetyourselflost domain names that are not registered, they don't have a leg to stand on. Point that out to them. Since neverlost and nevergetyourselflost isn't even close, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Everyone is saying, get a lawyer, yeah that would be best, but the guy said he can't afford a lawyer. So get yourself a lawyer advice won't work unless there is a lawyer willing to take the case free.

Personally, I would either 1) offer to sell it to them at a very profitable price or 2) tell them about all the other unregistered domains, the fact that the domain isn't close to the registered trademark, but if they still feel like throwing away thousands of dollars on a frivolous case, go ahead.

Even if they sue, it will cost them a minimum of several thousands of dollars. The likely scenario is an annoyed judge would throw it out of court. The worst case scenario is you lose the domain which was a whopping $10. Even if you lost, you came out ahead financially. That domain will do nothing for them and they spent thousands of dollars to get it.

[Simon Nicholls]

Some very kind words there Annoyedgirl!

Thank you very much, I've taken your advice onboard.

Just out of interest, what price would you call "Highly Profitable"?

Simon.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

Personally, I would either 1) offer to sell it to them at a very profitable price...

In which case, you've lost your case because you've just proved "bad faith" for them.

Even if they sue, it will cost them a minimum of several thousands of dollars. The likely scenario is an annoyed judge would throw it out of court. The worst case scenario is you lose the domain which was a whopping $10. Even if you lost, you came out ahead financially. That domain will do nothing for them and they spent thousands of dollars to get it.

I'm sure that Hertz has several thousands of dollars to spend.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

Even if they sue, it will cost them a minimum of several thousands of dollars. The likely scenario is an annoyed judge would throw it out of court. The worst case scenario is you lose the domain which was a whopping $10. Even if you lost, you came out ahead financially. That domain will do nothing for them and they spent thousands of dollars to get it.

You may be right about a reasonable judge throwing it out. Two problems - there are too many unreasonable judges, and the letter indicates that the firm starting the row have already chosen a venue to pursue this. If it were me, I would definitely choose a venue I'm sure will be favorable.

And if he straight-up lost, he could be on the hook for those thousands of dollars in legal fees, in addition to any damages awarded - and the $10 registration fee.

I think he's made the right decision, bypassing the urge to tilt at windmills for a domain that isn't commercially important to him.

[valerieSONORA]

Sounds like letting the bullys win. So if someone has deep pockets they can do whatever they want? Not in my world. I don't care if they are effing billionaires. Who cares how much money they have? Let them go for it. If people give up this quickly, I'm going to start writing such letters and get a bunch of great domains myself. "Here take the domain, just please, please, don't sue, whatever you do, please!"

[Bill Farnham]

I'm not a lawyer...don't even play one on the internet, so this is NOT legal advice, just food for thought.

That Trademark "Neverlost", as far as Hertz is concerned only applies to:
International Class: 039

"vehicle rental services containing an on-board navigation system as a feature thereof"
--------------------

In light of that, the same "Neverlost" is also a valid Trademark for the company GEA Neverlost HB out of Sweden which holds that Trademark for:

International Class: 008

Hand operated tools and implements, namely, carving knives for household use, multiple function folding pocket tools, and folding knives; cutlery; side arms, namely, hunting knives; razors.
--------------------

Again, this is not legal advice, but Trademarks are for protecting companies from confusion in the same marketplace. Unless the look, the colors, design, and feel are the same, you can have the same Trademark 'name' used in different industries.

They are not universal in nature such that one industry can prevent another industry from using certain names. This holds true unless the name is a 'made-up' name using a combination of letters never considered as a word prior to the Trademark. The word "never" and the word "lost" have been around for a long time and don't hold special status even combining them as "neverlost".

This doesn't mean that a company can't go after you for Trademark infringement if they want to protect thier name. I would guess that if a brush company invented a bristle brush with very small soft bristles and wanted to use the name "Microsoft" as the sole name for that product they would be in for a very expensive legal battle.

If your purpose is distinctly different from Hertz's, i.e. you've invented a hat with a strobe light on it, as an example, Hertz has no valid claim to that domain, or even your wanting to use the Trademark "Neverlost" with unique artwork.

Now whether or not you choose to spend the money to fight this notice is up to you.

As a side note, I noticed the law firm of record for Hertz representing the Trademark is not the same firm as who you got the letter from. This might not mean anything as Hertz may have changed law firms.

Don't know if this helps...

KJ

[Simon Nicholls]

Interesting Joe, so basically your saying that they can't claim copyright to my domain as it could mean a different thing to their trademark?

[Gene Pimentel]

Many different companies can have the same TradeMark (not copyright) as long as it is being used in different industries.

[Kim Standerline]

You probably don't need to transfer it, just tell them you'll not use it at all (that's all they usually want)

I registered a name with ebay in it a couple of years ago and got the dreaded lawyers email lol

You could tell them you want what u paid for it, but is it worth it!

This is legal bullying, but unless your madly passionately in love with the name, just let it die. Otherwise its just not worth the hassle.

Kim

BTW, never ever take legal advice from a forum, liable to jump up and bite u in the ass

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

John,

Unfortunatly, I did not know when I posted the link to the forum that it would shorten like that.

As for the sig, it's not my site anymore - I've not posted here for a while and need to update it!

I'm emailing them now, saying that I'll transfer the domain to them. It's not worth the hassle.

Simon.

[AgileHosting]

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

Sounds like letting the bullys win. So if someone has deep pockets they can do whatever they want? Not in my world. I don't care if they are effing billionaires. Who cares how much money they have? Let them go for it. If people give up this quickly, I'm going to start writing such letters and get a bunch of great domains myself. "Here take the domain, just please, please, don't sue, whatever you do, please!"

Oh, so are you putting up the cash to fund his fight?

There is a line here that divides ideology and reality. The ideology says that we should never have to give up domain names that we believe we registered in good faith and with earnest intentions. The real world, however, is what determines how things actually work.

The sad truth is that ideology costs a bucketload of money (moreso when you don't have a lawyer to represent you) and much of the time, it doesn't prevail in the 3D world.

At some point a person has to decide where they are willing to simply cut their losses and move on. The threshold is different for everyone. I fought a lot of things on principle when I was younger; how that I am old and wise (ha ha) I pick and choose my battles. Do the bullies win sometimes? Yes. But is it equitable and/or sensible to always fight them? No.

Bailey

[Andrew Maule]

These guys are just trying to bully you out of your domain name, fight this, I'm pretty sure they are in the wrong.

[Kim Standerline]

Originally Posted by annoyedgirl

Sounds like letting the bullys win. So if someone has deep pockets they can do whatever they want? Not in my world. I don't care if they are effing billionaires. Who cares how much money they have? Let them go for it. If people give up this quickly, I'm going to start writing such letters and get a bunch of great domains myself. "Here take the domain, just please, please, don't sue, whatever you do, please!"

Annoyed girl,

If you have the money to spend fighting pointless court cases, then good for you.

However it's not cool to encourage people to try and battle huge corporations just for the sake of it.

The fact is, they have the money he doesn't, if the domain was bringing in a lot of income, then fair enough, but he's already said it isn't earning him anything.

It's sucks, but then so does a lot of other things in life

Much better things to battle about

Kim

[Simon Nicholls]

MrSleep,

Thanks for your comments, however as stated before - I can't afford to fight over a $10 domain name!

I've asked if any financial settlement is available, if not - I'll transfer the domain across and learn from this!

Simon.

[jensrsa]

Originally Posted by Gary McCaffrey

Think they might go after these guys too?

Neverlost - Home

Probably with less success as they do not sell GPS.

I was in a similar situation last year (in South Africa) but I think the general principle remains the same.

Neverlost and Nevergetyourselflost are "confusingly similar" because both involve GPS and the one is a trademark.

EzyDollar, I agree that you should see a lawyer but you will probably have to transfer the domain without compensation.

Maybe I'm just sceptical but honestly, you registered the domain to try and cash in on the Neverlost trademark, didn't you? Don't answer as everything you say may be used against you.

Jens

[Simon Nicholls]

Well let's put it this way, I never knew Hertz sold GPS systems!

[askloz]

No, they don't have a case, if they wanted to protect their arse, they would of registered other similar names, but yours sounds NOTHING like theirs and even if it did, they still have no case, trademarks don't cover this, the trade mark only covers the actual name.

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

But do I really need to? Do they have a case?

The website never even has any visitors! I've not marketed it at all.
As far as I'm concerned the domain is not infringing any slogans?!

[Andrew Maule]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

MrSleep,

Thanks for your comments, however as stated before - I can't afford to fight over a $10 domain name!

I've asked if any financial settlement is available, if not - I'll transfer the domain across and learn from this!

Simon.

I'm not sure I would "ask" them anything. I'd demand they pay me for the domain. I know it sounds a little ballsy considering they are threatening you, but given the circumstances (tons of other "similar" domains like this...) they might just need to be slapped around, and they aren't going to "fine" you any more for getting in their face about it. Good luck, stick it to them, you can do it without a lawyer.

[Melody]

In the same vein - there was a recent WSO for custom store sites with major NFL/MLB sorts teams names in the title and using team logos on the site.....I've been curious to see how long it would take for the NFL legal teams to send out the letters.......they are usually quite aggressive and quite nasty about it - but I didn't see anyone voice any concerns in the WSO.

It was certainly more of an obvious use of a trademarked name than this one was!

[jensrsa]

BTW, domain names and trade marks can be a great business opportunity. Here's and email a client of mine received recently. His domain is imbokodo.com

Asia Network is the company of internet services that the domain registration is one of the major online style of our service range. Now we have something need to confirm with you. We hope you to cooperate with us. On 2008-09-22, we received an application from one person named “Kall Fisher” who wants to apply the following domain names and internet brand:

1. Domain Name
imbokodo.asia imbokodo.hk imbokodo.in imbokodo.cn
2. Internet Brand

imbokodo

According to our investigation, we found that domain names have relevance to your company’s name and trademark, so we send this email for you to confirm it. We are dealing with this affair in these days, so we wish to get the confirmation and the assent of your company. If Karl Fischer doesn’t belong to your company and you don’t authorize him to register these domains, Pls contact with me asap in order to prevent some guy from abusing your trademarks and the company names.
...

obviously hoping to sell him these domains

Jens

[Sean Donahoe]

Originally Posted by Ezy Dollar

MrSleep,

Thanks for your comments, however as stated before - I can't afford to fight over a $10 domain name!

I've asked if any financial settlement is available, if not - I'll transfer the domain across and learn from this!

Simon.

Having had to deal with people like this in my industry and having gone to court for clients I can only say let it go and here is why:

1. The domain is only 2 months old and will have little traction in the search engi8nes.

2. it has made little income so has no intrinsic financial worth.

3. It is easy enough to buy a new domain and rebrand the website so you do not waste your time investment in developing the website

4. This is legal bullying but having resources to fight these idiots (and they are idiots) will cost much more that turning off the domain and re-registering a new one.

5. If you offer to sell it to them (even at a profit) you look like you are a domain squatter even if the name is nowhere near the actual trademark name. This will give them more reason to pressure you. Disabling it will not infringe on anything.

6. By law, any trademark holder has to protect their trademark or risk loosing it. So rightly or wrongly, Hertz is doing what is required to maintain their international trademark. No point in fighting that fight, just more hassle than its worth.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents from experience, common sense and having fought some large companies on both sides of this equation.

Hope it helps

[jensrsa]

EzyDollar, I came across this UK law site the other day - Internet & E-commerce Law: Weblaw . They have a free assesment at Free initial domain name dispute assessment: Weblaw

Jens

[Bill Farnham]

Sean is correct. On many levels here. Just move the content to another domain name.

Hertz does have an obligation to protect its Trademark so the easy way out is to just strip the content and turn over the domain.

Again not legal advice, just commenting on others comments.

KJ

[Kim Standerline]

The voice of comon sense

Originally Posted by Sean Donahoe

Having had to deal with people like this in my industry and having gone to court for clients I can only say let it go and here is why:

1. The domain is only 2 months old and will have little traction in the search engi8nes.

2. it has made little income so has no intrinsic financial worth.

3. It is easy enough to buy a new domain and rebrand the website so you do not waste your time investment in developing the website

4. This is legal bullying but having resources to fight these idiots (and they are idiots) will cost much more that turning off the domain and re-registering a new one.

5. If you offer to sell it to them (even at a profit) you look like you are a domain squatter even if the name is nowhere near the actual trademark name. This will give them more reason to pressure you. Disabling it will not infringe on anything.

6. By law, any trademark holder has to protect their trademark or risk loosing it. So rightly or wrongly, Hertz is doing what is required to maintain their international trademark. No point in fighting that fight, just more hassle than its worth.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents from experience, common sense and having fought some large companies on both sides of this equation.

Hope it helps