Im getting sued for creating a high PR blog!

Yes.

High PR or not, you should stay away from domains that have company names in them.

And the title of this thread is misleading. You are not getting sued for creating a high PR blog. You are getting sued for infringing on a large corporation's trademark.

You can try arguing or negotiating with them all you want. It will do no good. Having had a few conversations with lawyers about trademark law, my understanding is that they pretty much have to take action against you. If a trademark owner does not enforce their trademark rights, they risk losing them.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139647].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Hi all,
I just want to say that I got a cease and desist letter from Kodak company for buying the domain name kodaktransforms.com, a pr 6 domain name, and populating it with similar news articles they had on it before and then linking to my money site. Now they are requesting that I transfer the domain name to them (without any mention even of compensating me for the amount i purchased it for) or else further actions will be placed against me.

... and they should compensate you for infringing on their trademark why?

Now I have a couple of points to make.
So, they think I am using their good name to recommend my money site to viewers of the blog so that associations would be made between their name and my site. That would be trademark infringement and i accept that, but I'm not trying to use their name to do anything. I am interested in the Pagerank of the domain. So could I argue that I'm not legally doing anything wrong since I am only after the pagerank power, and it may be fishy tactic in Google's eyes, I am LEGALLY not doing anything wrong according to US government. [/quote]

You are violating their trademark, and they could have just sued the pants off of you instead of offering you the opportunity to turn over the domain to them.

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Secondly,the company has the 90 days to renew their domain like everyone else. Shouldnt they be aware that if they release it someone else will pick it up? I bought the name in an auction fair and square from Namejet.

They most likely did not release it. I would imagine that some other infringer released it, but it doesn't matter. It is their trademark. They own it and no one else can use it unless they're creating a site about Kodak bears or some very different use of Kodak.

Originally Posted by jliang1980

I am fully prepared to take off any news articles containing their name,
and write a disclaimer that my site and opinions expressed has no affiliations with Kodak. I'd like rather to keep the domain. What should I do?

If you're smart, you'll turn it over, as requested.

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Everyone whos ever owned a high PR blog please help?!
Guys like Mike Anthony please help!
Does this mean that I should not buy up HIGH pr domains containing any company names in the url, else I get sued for domain squatting? But that would rule out a LOT of domains?

Thanks guys

You got it. You should not infringe on trademarks.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139675].message }}

Elle Holder 10 years ago

Next time you buy/register a domain name, try actually reading the terms and conditions before accepting them. It's quite clear that you are not to infringe on trademark when buying a domain.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139702].message }}
- jliang1980 10 years ago
  
  ???? That I read terms before buying????
  But the very fact that I'm buying that domain containig their name
  and reusing it would be trademark infringement.
  So I am committing trademark infringement just in the act of buying
  and its perfectly ok for Namejet to sell it to me? I dont get this.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139717].message }}

Danny Shaw

10 years ago

I would build a similar website but without the trademark and use a 301 redirect to keep the link juice from the purchased domain. Do not just hand it over because a multi national tries to play hard ball. Just point out to them the site has been removed from search index and will not be used in the future. Problem solved.

[ 6 ] Thanks
5 replies

Signature

**5 DAY FREE TRIAL** - The ultimate social media bot (FB, Instagram, Pinterest & G+).........
Grab it >> HERE

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139704].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Danny Shaw

I would build a similar website but without the trademark and use a 301 redirect to keep the link juice from the purchased domain. Do not just hand it over because a multi national tries to play hard ball. Just point out to them the site has been removed from search index and will not be used in the future. Problem solved.

That ship has sailed, the domain is already on their radar.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139712].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Anyhow Thanks guys,
I just want to mention that you have to admit alot of high pr domains, like pr 5 or 6 and above contains acronyms or nonprofits, companies, festivals, campaign or product names that just don't exist anymore. What should I do in cases like those?

I think this is worthwhile discussion since this pertains to many pr 5 and above domains you can buy. I certainly don't want to be in this position again so lets have an open discussion.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139770].message }}

derekwong28

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Anyhow Thanks guys,
I just want to mention that you have to admit alot of high pr domains, like pr 5 or 6 and above contains acronyms or nonprofits, companies, festivals, campaign or product names that just don't exist anymore. What should I do in cases like those?

I think this is worthwhile discussion since this pertains to many pr 5 and above domains you can buy. I certainly don't want to be in this position again so lets have an open discussion.

Perhaps you have bought a PR6 much cheaper than you should because others were avoiding it. I saw a Godaddy auction for something like macromedia-flash.com and nobody would dare put a bid on it.

In general, I would say stay away from large multi-nationals as they have the resources to get you.

Thanks

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155455].message }}

Kevin Maguire

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Danny Shaw

I would build a similar website but without the trademark and use a 301 redirect to keep the link juice from the purchased domain. Do not just hand it over because a multi national tries to play hard ball. Just point out to them the site has been removed from search index and will not be used in the future. Problem solved.

This advice ^^^

There are many ways to avoid this conflict for future purchases. Positioning such domains and content outside trademark jurisdiction would be an obvious one. Placing yourself outside of it would be better.

But you live and learn, so for this one I would say the 301 is the easy option. It baffles me why in the first place you went ahead and used their trademark inside the content without associating the trademark to them.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139795].message }}

CorporatePuppet 10 years ago

It doesn't matter if you use the trademark in the content or not. The trademark is in the domain name.

You're not getting sued right now, you just got a cease and desist letter. But you will be sued soon enough if you follow some of the advice in this thread.

You can't legally keep the domain at this point.

Chris
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139840].message }}
- jliang1980 10 years ago
  
  Jesus Christ,
  then copyrighted domains shouldnt be for sale on Namejet.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139864].message }}
  
  LastWarrior 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by jliang1980
  
  Jesus Christ,
  then copyrighted domains shouldnt be for sale on Namejet.
  
  Jesus Christ is Awesome!
  
  I understand your plight and believe if you knew it's wrong, you wouldn't have went for the domain. I'm not one you should ask what to do, but if it were me, I'd do like you and ask for advice on what to do. Then I'd most likely KEEP the domain, tell Kodak the situation and tell them you have money and time invested in the domain. THEN understand you will lose in a court fight, so offer them the opportunity to buy it "cheap", since you won it at an auction.
  
  If you don't like this idea, put it up back for auction and get rid of the headache.
  
  LW
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141413].message }}
jliang1980 10 years ago

What do you mean positioning myself outside trademark jurisdiction?
You can physically? I reside in Canada, but I guess in this case Kodak has
trademarks internationally.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139845].message }}

paulgl

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Danny Shaw

... Do not just hand it over because a multi national tries to play hard ball...

I have no idea why people want to just play dead and give up their property.

There has to be some action and decision, and you have the right to stand
up for yourself.

Why not offer to sell it to them, as many others have, and made some good cash.

2 ways the US can seize a dot com, but stealing content and trademark infringement
are not one of them.

If you don't want to follow US law, you don't have to. Lots of other countries
could care less. But the US has complete jurisdiction over .com, .org, .net, etc.

I myself would welcome a good fight. I would never give up my property just
because someone tried to scare me. They want it, come and get it the legal
way. I don't think many people understand how domains/websites are treated. Nobody
can just take them, except the US government for certain illegal activity.

Why do you think things like thepiratebay.se are so popular? And there's not a dang
thing anyone (especially in the United States) can do about it.

Just because a company claims some right in some legalese, does not actually give
them that right. Just because apple says you can't use apple, does not make
it law. Apple cannot write laws, nor enforce them. Just ask them about China...

I think too many people are under the impression that a company can come up
with its own laws and rights, then enforce them on their own. They can't.

Yeah, I know. I'll get slammed for all this.

Paul

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140005].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Like I said stealing content was a huge mistake.
I'll gladly take off any mention of Kodak in my blog.

So what are the 2 ways US government can seize a domain?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140014].message }}

Umpyman 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

So what are the 2 ways US government can seize a domain?

It's not a government issue. It's a private company trademark issue. They own the Kodak name and anything associated with it. They have for decades and will continue to do so. It's well within their right to sue you for infringing on their trademark. No different from making a camera called Super Kodak Light and trying to sell it online.

Originally Posted by paulgl

I have no idea why people want to just play dead and give up their property.

Because registering a domain name with someone else's trademarked company name in it is not your property.

Advice: Don't fight this, whether people on here say "fight the power, down with the man, First Amendment!" etc or not. They won't be paying your legal bills, and at the end of the day you'll lose. Kodak has lawyers on retainer who will win this case without even breaking a sweat. Probably legal interns who will do it for the experience. Your $260 is valuable, but your court costs fighting this (and losing, don't have any misconceptions) will far outweigh that.

Obey the C&D and move on. Live & learn.
- [ 5 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140073].message }}

Umpyman

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

I'll gladly take off any mention of Kodak in my blog.

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. The Kodak-related content on your site is probably what drew their attention in the first place, but removing that? That ship has sailed. You're on the radar for the URL, NOT the blog content.

Like I said earlier, unless your name is John Kodak and your site has nothing to do with photo-related stuff, you're infringing on a legal trademark.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140083].message }}

Kevin Maguire

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Umpyman

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. The Kodak-related content on your site is probably what drew their attention in the first place, but removing that? That ship has sailed. You're on the radar for the URL, NOT the blog content.

Like I said earlier, unless your name is John Kodak and your site has nothing to do with photo-related stuff, you're infringing on a legal trademark.

FIGHT DAA POWWAAAA!!!!

Option 2

Move you
Your domain
Your Content

Outside of the trademark jurisdiction.

But it's most likely too late for all that.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140118].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

FIGHT DAA POWWAAAA!!!!

Option 2

Move you
Your domain
Your Content

Outside of the trademark jurisdiction.

But it's most likely too late for all that.

Flavor Flav's Fried Chicken restaurant went bankrupt when he was Fighting the Power.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140148].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Danny Shaw

I would build a similar website but without the trademark and use a 301 redirect to keep the link juice from the purchased domain. Do not just hand it over because a multi national tries to play hard ball. Just point out to them the site has been removed from search index and will not be used in the future. Problem solved.

Awful and I mean AWFUL advice.

I myself would welcome a good fight. I would never give up my property just
because someone tried to scare me. They want it, come and get it the legal
way.

I have no idea what you guys are smoking but I am glad I don't hang around to breath it much anymore. The idea that you can own and use a company's trademark because you bought a domain online is just insane.

Like someone said the court and attorney costs alone (which you will pay because you will lose) is going to run in the thousands even if you walk in with no lawyers yourself.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141191].message }}

MikeFriedman

10 years ago

Acronyms for nonprofit organizations are rarely, if ever, trademarked.

Anything that is trademarked, I would stay away from.

You might be able to work something out if this was some tiny company almost nobody had ever heard of. This is Kodak. They have trademark attorneys on retainer just sitting around with nothing to do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139794].message }}

jliang1980 10 years ago

What about discontinued products? A poliitical campaign that has ended?
A festival that has ended? Company gone out of business?
The name of a forum?....
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139810].message }}
- MikeFriedman 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by jliang1980
  
  What about discontinued products? A poliitical campaign that has ended?
  A festival that has ended? Company gone out of business?
  The name of a forum?....
  
  When was the last time a political campaign was trademarked?
  
  Festivals? Unless it is the world's largest fair or something like that, they usually are not trademarked either.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  SaaS SEO Consultant
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139824].message }}

tech84

10 years ago

looked at the site, the site indeed feels like its something associated with the brand. and after every post it has a link pointing to your money site or whatever giving the impression that the Kodak brand is endorsing that website that's why they really want to take it down.

But if that site was more of a personal site or something like a personal site that features your adventures using your Kodak camera or something, then you may have something on stand on there. but given the site now, its straight up trademark infringement.

your best bet is just to give up the domain and be thankful they gave you a cease and desist letter than a subpoena or something... lol

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139808].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by tech84

looked at the site, the site indeed feels like its something associated with the brand. and after every post it has a link pointing to your money site or whatever giving the impression that the Kodak brand is endorsing that website that's why they really want to take it down.

But if that site was more of a personal site or something like a personal site that features your adventures using your Kodak camera or something, then you may have something on stand on there. but given the site now, its straight up trademark infringement.

your best bet is just to give up the domain and be thankful they gave you a cease and desist letter than a subpoena or something... lol

Yeah, I know I was really really STUPID to rehash their old articles on the site. This was a case of me being really lazy and naive to just put that old content instead of writing a simple new article.

I dont want their name to promote ANY of my stuff. I just want the pr6 link juice. Anyhow I was lazy and naive. and like i said id be gladly to take off all "kodak" mentions in the website.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139897].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

I can't figure out why anyone would even consider using a trademark in a domain name considering there's millions of other domains available that aren't trademarked.

Looks like your trying to justify something everyone knows shouldn't even be messed with. It's like buying a stolen identity on the street & saying you thought it was ok since some other guy sold it to you. Judge Judy would never believe that.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139859].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I can't figure out why anyone would even consider using a trademark in a domain name considering there's millions of other domains available that aren't trademarked.

Looks like your trying to justify something everyone knows shouldn't even be messed with. It's like buying a stolen identity on the street & saying you thought it was ok since some other guy sold it to you. Judge Judy would never believe that.

Because its an aged high PR domain! It is a pr6 that I bought for around $260!
At the time I was naive about trademarks. I don't want their name to endorse anything, I just wanted the pr6 juice.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139877].message }}

MikeFriedman

10 years ago

Well, on the plus side, sort of, I don't think it is anything close to a PR 6. I would have to look at the links deeper, but it's lost most of its best links.

I think you bought a bit of a dud.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139909].message }}

chris_87 10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I think you bought a bit of a dud.

It does appear to have lost its best links; however, if the OP was able to keep this domain wouldn't it have some value? For example:

PR 4
PR 3
PR 3
PR 2
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140034].message }}
- MikeFriedman 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by chris_87
  
  It does appear to have lost its best links; however, if the OP was able to keep this domain wouldn't it have some value? For example:
  
  PR 4
  PR 3
  PR 3
  PR 2
  
  Those links are worthless. The PR 4 and second PR 3 link both belong to Kodak. They'll be gone soon. The first PR 3 link is on a page with about 150 other links. The PR 2 link is on a page with about 40 other links.
  
  The site is likely a PR 2, maybe a PR 3 at best.
  
  None of that matters though.
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  SaaS SEO Consultant
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140066].message }}

Umpyman

10 years ago

Congrats on the most Upworthy-style forum topic title I've seen in a while.

(a) You're not being sued, and (b) it has nothing to do with the PR rank of your blog. It's trademark infringement, plain as day.

You can't blame the registrar or wherever you bought it from. Companies won't police sellers of expired/dead/unused domains as they can't watch everywhere, but they WILL go after people who buy/register their name and use it for something even remotely similar to their products. Kodak can't police every kodakagfjshgsmsd.com or kodakaggtwbsbfh.com out there, but if someone starts/buys/populates kodaktransforms.com and puts anything even close to Kodak-type products/service/articles there and they see it, you're toast.

Be thankful you only received a C&D letter. Give it up and move on to something else. Unwinnable battle. Kodak owns that name, period. If your name was John Kodak and your site had nothing to do with photography, you'd have a leg to stand on. But here? Nope.

And the bear is a Kodiak, not Kodak, so don't go that route...

-U

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139953].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Your not endorsing Kodak while you have a Kodak domain?

I'm 83% sure court cost would be more expensive than $260.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139965].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Your not endorsing Kodak while you have a Kodak domain?

I'm 83% sure court cost would be more expensive than $260.

Seriously is it that hard to believe my intentions were not to endorse Kodak.
I want the pr6 juice. The site showed up on expireddomains.com, it looked aged, had high pr, good DA, so I went for it.. Is it that unbelievable??

Me putting articles about Kodak there was a stupid, i cant defend that.
But it was laziness to keep the same content, I could as easily written content about "Acme Widgets" and put it up there with a link to my site I dont care.
Like I said I wanted the pr6.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139984].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Seriously is it that hard to believe my intentions were not to endorse Kodak.
I want the pr6 juice. The site showed up on expireddomains.com, it looked aged, had high pr, good DA, so I went for it.. Is it that unbelievable??

Me putting articles about Kodak there was a stupid, i cant defend that.
But it was laziness to keep the same content, I could as easily written content about "Acme Widgets" and put it up there with a link to my site I dont care.
Like I said I wanted the pr6.

Nobody cares what your intentions are with the domain. The only one you have to convince is Kodak & I doubt that's going to happen considering what's posted in this thread.

Your failing to see things from the Kodak position.

If you have control of their branded domain then whatever you post on that site looks like Kodak is ok with it (potential lawsuit), including a 301 If traffic originated from the Kodak domain.

No offense but my advice is stop buying domains before you get yourself in trouble because I don't think you understand trademarks.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140013].message }}

Kevin Maguire

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Seriously is it that hard to believe my intentions were not to endorse Kodak.
I want the pr6 juice. The site showed up on expireddomains.com, it looked aged, had high pr, good DA, so I went for it.. Is it that unbelievable??

Me putting articles about Kodak there was a stupid, i cant defend that.
But it was laziness to keep the same content, I could as easily written content about "Acme Widgets" and put it up there with a link to my site I dont care.
Like I said I wanted the pr6.

Well on a brighter note you can rest assured you are not losing a PR6 domain.

If it's kodaktransforms.com the PR is most likely a fake PR as that domain used to 301 into kodak.com. Probably showing kodak.coms PR in the toolbar.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

The current links don't justify good PR either. The dud aint worth fighting for.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140025].message }}

SEODollz

10 years ago

You could always put pictures of Kodak bears in drag on it.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140111].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SEODollz

You could always put pictures of Kodak bears in drag on it.

You always want to play dress up.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141219].message }}

propositionjoe

10 years ago

So...if i own a fridge company called Kodak Fridges i can buy that domain name ?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141391].message }}

propositionjoe

10 years ago

Originally Posted by propositionjoe

So...if i own a fridge company called Kodak Fridges i can buy that domain name ?

So Alexa (alexa.com) and Alexa Café , both registered trademarks, can sue alexatransforms.com ?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142762].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by propositionjoe

So Alexa (alexa.com) and Alexa Café , both registered trademarks, can sue alexatransforms.com ?

Names are registered as trademarks in different categories. No one owns a trade name that encompasses all categories. That's why you could own a domain name about Amazon Birds, and Kodak Balloons, etc. without getting into trouble with it as long as it wasn't being used as a ruse to trade off of the trademark

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142775].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Names are registered as trademarks in different categories. No one owns a trade name that encompasses all categories. That's why you could own a domain name about Amazon Birds, and Kodak Balloons, etc. without getting into trouble with it as long as it wasn't being used as a ruse to trade off of the trademark

Ok so um.. If i got rid of all Kodak mentions in my kodaktransforms.com site,
make it a site about health or something with no word of Kodak in it , link it up to my health site( I have a lot of other types of money sites I manage for my employer) or something instead of the art site now, then that would be OK?
Just curious.

Like I said not interested in using Kodak's name to endorse my products at all,
stupid it happened that way.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142803].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Ok so um.. If i got rid of all Kodak mentions in my kodaktransforms.com site,
make it a site about health or something with no word of Kodak in it , link it up to my health site( I have a lot of other types of money sites I manage for my employer) or something instead of the art site now, then that would be OK?
Just curious.

Like I said not interested in using Kodak's name to endorse my products at all,
stupid it happened that way.

You probably could have done that initially. Now that Kodak has requested the domain and you are in their radar, my opinion is that it is best for you to give them this domain and just learn from this going forward. I know that's a high price to pay for a domain, but lawsuits are a lot higher.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142809].message }}

Umpyman

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You probably could have done that initially. Now that Kodak has requested the domain and you are in their radar, my opinion is that it is best for you to give them this domain and just learn from this going forward. I know that's a high price to pay for a domain, but lawsuits are a lot higher.

THIS. You're toast now. Move on. Again, don't listen to others here with the awful advice of fighting Kodak on this. They won't be paying your legal bills. Only so far indignation and righteousness will go, and you will lose. This isn't SmithTransforms, or AlexaTransforms (nice try, other poster - Alexa could easily be something unrelated), it's one of the world's most recognizable brand names.

Even doing that non-Kodak content from the start, if someone somewhere within Kodak stumbled across your site, unless it has something Kodak term related (like I said, if your name was John Kodak, for example), they'd still be after you. It would have been a blatant use of the Kodak name to generate interest, with nothing on the site about Kodak. It's deceptive at best, even if you didn't intend it to be (though wanting juice because of a trademarked name shows a lot of intent to use the power & draw of their name, sorry to say).

-U

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142947].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Names are registered as trademarks in different categories. No one owns a trade name that encompasses all categories. That's why you could own a domain name about Amazon Birds, and Kodak Balloons, etc. without getting into trouble with it as long as it wasn't being used as a ruse to trade off of the trademark

I could be wrong but I think the word Kodak was created by the Kodak business. I wouldn't use that word for any domain, not even a partial EMD or sub-domain.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142839].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I could be wrong but I think the word Kodak was created by the Kodak business. I wouldn't use that word for any domain, not even a partial EMD or sub-domain.

But they are only registered in certain categories. Example, here's one live Trademark they have.

Computer printers; Ink jet printers; Photo printers.

Here's another:

Ink, namely, inkjet printer ink and inks used in the graphic arts industry and image/document reproduction and printing industry namely, dry inks, copying inks, printing inks, coatings, pigments and dispersion for the use in the graphic arts industry; [typographic inks;] pigmented inks; dye-based inks; cure inks; ultra-violet fluorescing inks; infrared inks; [backprinting inks]; lightfast dye inks; [dye, namely, dye used in the graphic arts industry and image/document reproduction and printing industry namely, ultra-violet dyes, paper dyes, thermal dyes, transparency dyes, filter dyes, filled dye ink cartridges,] filled inkjet cartridges.

And here's another
PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINTS, ENLARGEMENTS AND TRANSPARENCIES, PERIODICALS, PAMPHLETS, BROCHURES, AND LEAFLETS; BOOKS; AND GREETING CARDS. F

But I would be very wary of registering the name Kodak in a different category. When I do the search, there are NO other registered owners, which is highly unusual.

When I do a search for Amazon, there are other registered Amazon trademarks. Here's the list of LIVE ones, both Amazon and other people using Amazon.

1 86151546 AMAZON CURSE TUCANOS BBQ SAUCE TSDR LIVE
2 86239537 AMAZON FIRE TSDR LIVE
3 86239533 AMAZON FIRE TSDR LIVE
4 86239526 AMAZON FIRE TSDR LIVE
5 86241259 AMAZON CREEK TSDR LIVE
6 86137995 AMAZONIA TSDR LIVE
7 86151548 AMAZON CURSE TSDR LIVE
8 86214452 BIRM HERBAL DIETARY SUPPLEMENT CONCENTRATED A PROMISE OF LIFE FROM... THE AMAZON RAINFOREST TSDR LIVE
9 86214401 BIRM HERBAL DIETARY SUPPLEMENT A PROMISE OF LIFE FROM... THE AMAZON RAINFOREST TSDR LIVE
10 86105229 EMPRESS OF THE AMAZON TSDR LIVE
11 86105226 EMPRESS OF THE AMAZON TSDR LIVE
12 86180068 AMAZON QUEST TSDR LIVE
13 86153630 AMAZON CURSE TUCANOS BBQ SAUCE TSDR LIVE
14 86199905 AMAZON GOLDEN TREASURES TSDR LIVE
15 86115797 AMAZON TSDR LIVE
16 86086404 AMAZON BASICS TSDR LIVE
17 86059762 AMAZONMANDY TSDR LIVE
18 86057229 AMAZON DON TSDR LIVE
19 86190977 AMAZON TSDR LIVE
20 86110590 TERRA THE AMAZON WYVERN TSDR LIVE
21 86156521 AMAZON BASICS TSDR LIVE
22 86153631 AMAZON CURSE TSDR LIVE
23 86074635 AMAZON HOSE & RUBBER COMPANY TSDR LIVE
24 86086380 AMAZON BASICS TSDR LIVE
25 86086382 AMAZON BASICS TSDR LIVE
26 86075828 AMAZON.COM TSDR LIVE
27 85972541 AMAZON WARRIOR TSDR LIVE
28 85941618 AMAZON GOLD TSDR LIVE
29 85563032 4336065 AMAZON ESCAPE TSDR LIVE
30 85974460 4519275 AMAZON FEVER TSDR LIVE
31 85459329 AMAZON FLOW TSDR LIVE
32 85777280 A TSDR LIVE
33 85115212 GRACIE AMAZON TSDR LIVE
34 85899215 AMAZON ODYSSEY TSDR LIVE
35 85429279 BELEM, BRASIL AMAZON BEER TSDR LIVE
36 85435365 AMAZON SILK TSDR LIVE
37 85545218 AMAZON SUPERFOODS CO. TSDR LIVE
38 85545207 AMAZON SUPERFOODS TSDR LIVE
39 85435357 AMAZON SILK TSDR LIVE
40 85931070 ISLE OF THE AMAZONS TSDR LIVE
41 85859148 LA ESTRELLA AMAZONICA TSDR LIVE
42 85714900 AMAZON FORTUNE TSDR LIVE
43 85841009 AMAZON COINS TSDR LIVE
44 85582439 AMAZONSUPPLY TSDR LIVE
45 85860217 4499397 AMAZON LAB126 TSDR LIVE
46 85954342 AMAZON STORYTELLER TSDR LIVE
47 85777279 A TSDR LIVE
48 85694314 AMAZON CHIEF TSDR LIVE
49 85974218 AMAZON TSDR LIVE
50 85729104 AMAZON MIST
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142858].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

I just now looked at the link profile & all those higher PR links are owned by Kodak or Kodak subsidiaries (Eastman). Most are already gone. The best followed live link I see is a PR4 from Kodak.

Looks like you bought a strong PR3 for $260.

Ironically one of the links is from law.emory.edu (what are the odds).

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140128].message }}

Dokemion

10 years ago

Sing it... Let it go.. Let it go... Turn your back and slam the door!!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Contact me for any SEO Services you need I'm glad to be of your service.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140612].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Me putting articles about Kodak there was a stupid

The stupid ship sailed before that - and apparently quite a few people are are cruising with you.

You don't have a fact to rest on. You know that - and most here (even with the macho comments) know that, too.

You bought a domain with a registered trademark in it - you used articles about that trademarked company to get attention/rank....and you are posting excuses like "who - me? - do something wrong?".

Save your excuses (and your money) for court - you'll end up there sooner or later at the rate you're going.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9140917].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The stupid ship sailed before that - and apparently quite a few people are are cruising with you.

You don't have a fact to rest on. You know that - and most here (even with the macho comments) know that, too.

You bought a domain with a registered trademark in it - you used articles about that trademarked company to get attention/rank....and you are posting excuses like "who - me? - do something wrong?".

Save your excuses (and your money) for court - you'll end up there sooner or later at the rate you're going.

Yeah ok i wanted the pr 6 juice. I did stupid and wrong, but i didnt care about the Kodak name. The very fact that it is a PR6 site means a lot to me.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141050].message }}

MikeFriedman 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

The very fact that it is a PR6 site means a lot to me.

Like a few of us have told you already, it is not a PR 6. PR 2 or 3 at best.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141142].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Hi all,

Everyone whose ever owned a high PR blog please help?!
Guys like Mike Anthony please help!

Sorry my man. Nobody can help you. They have you cold. Its their trademarked name

Does this mean that I should not buy up HIGH pr domains containing any company names in the url, else I get sued for domain squatting? But that would rule out a LOT of domains?"

It means you stay away from any name that is potential trademarked and thats not that many. Joescafe.com may be a company name but its not likely to be trademarked. Disney Microsoft, adobe STAY AWAY.

If a company name is involved at all I wouldn't spend big bucks on it unless I know I am in the clear to use . Plus in your case given it seems to be a domain they promoted and used that got the links I don't think they are gong to forget about this one.

You are not being sued yet. Its might be painful but its best for you to just comply

How much did you spend by the way? EDIT: Missed the rest of the conversation

Yeah thats a dud not worth $260 and frankly its good news because had you bought a real PR6 it would have been closer to a thousand or more. Before you buy any more domains you need to learn how to analyze them.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141179].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Sorry my man. Nobody can help you. They have you cold. Its their trademarked name

It means you stay away from any name that is potential trademarked and thats not that many. Joescafe.com may be a company name but its not likely to be trademarked. Disney Microsoft, adobe STAY AWAY.

If a company name is involved at all I wouldn't spend big bucks on it unless I know I am in the clear to use . Plus in your case given it seems to be a domain they promoted and used that got the links I don't think they are gong to forget about this one.

You are not being sued yet. Its might be painful but its best for you to just comply

How much did you spend by the way? EDIT: Missed the rest of the conversation

Yeah thats a dud not worth $260 and frankly its good news because had you bought a real PR6 it would have been closer to a thousand or more. Before you buy any more domains you need to learn how to analyze them.

Thanks for the advice. I analyse thoroughly before i buy. I saw alot of PR6 and PR5 links to the site, but they were Kodak links so I was stupid to not make the conclusion Kodak would just take the links off to the site. But yeah now that it lost most of its good links, I have no reason to keep it. To tell you truth, I noticed really nice jumps in SERPs after linking this site to money site, but now that most good links gone, I am right back in SERPS as before I purchased the Kodak site.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142401].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

I analyse thoroughly before i buy.

You didn't research the link profile or you would have seen all the Kodak hosted links, most of those links are already dropped.

I don't know If the dropped links happened before or after you bought the domain but looking at the link profile & judging whether the links will stick after buying the domain is part of domain buying research.

Right now, today, you pretty much bought a PR3. If you don't believe that, load up your link profile in SEOspyglass & look at the dropped backlinks. Sort by highest PR in spyglass, those links are gone.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142449].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

You didn't research the link profile or you would have seen all the Kodak hosted links, most of those links are already dropped.

I don't know If the dropped links happened before or after you bought the domain but looking at the link profile & judging whether the links will stick after buying the domain is part of domain buying research.

Right now, today, you pretty much bought a PR3. If you don't believe that, load up your link profile in SEOspyglass & look at the dropped backlinks. Sort by highest PR in spyglass, those links are gone.

Like I said I said I know about the dropped links and now I have no reason
to keep the domain. Dropped links happened after i bought.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142510].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Like I said I said I know about the dropped links and now I have no reason
to keep the domain. Dropped links happened after i bought.

That will always happen with an expired or dropped domain, even if the PR is not fake.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142513].message }}
- yukon Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by sbucciarel
  
  That will always happen with an expired or dropped domain, even if the PR is not fake.
  
  That won't always happen, that's the whole point of buying expired domains (live links, legit PR). I can find dropped domains all day long that still have live backlinks with legit PR. Checking link profiles & fake PR is part of doing the research before buying a domain.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142548].message }}

PBScott

10 years ago

If it were me, I would 301 it to another site, and ignore their e-mails etc.

Cease and desist is not the same thing as a court order. Anyone can send anyone a cease and desist, it has no legal weight behind it, it is just a warning.

Thanks

Signature

If you don't look at this => Really Funny Shirts <= you missed something in life

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141433].message }}

@i

10 years ago

i would suggest trying to milk it for as much as you can, transfer the domain into another domain name registra or something, one that doesnt care (not godaddy, they dont care about customer support but they care when it comes to dmca, copyright, trademark etc..)

anyway, then host the site in germany or somewhere with sketchy laws and then just spam the site with kodak products from all types of affiliate programs and try and earn as much money as possible then if it gets really bad then do all the suggestions listed above

!!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141483].message }}

nettiapina

10 years ago

Originally Posted by @i

anyway, then host the site in germany or somewhere with sketchy laws and then just spam the site with kodak products from all types of affiliate programs and try and earn as much money as possible then if it gets really bad then do all the suggestions listed above

!!

This is the poorest advice in the thread so far. It seems that they already have the individual behind the fake site in their sights. They're not threatening to sue the domain or the content so it doesn't matter where it is. Moving yourself to Europe might just mean that they're suing you in Europe - the trademark principles are not that different.

If they can reasonably expect that the DMCA notice has been delivered they can just keep going. You're not a small kid trying to argue that dog ate your homework. This is an international corporation with a team of lawyers. They're relentless and tenacious.

I guess you could try to apologize and tell them that you've taken the site down, and see if they accept that. Seems like a stretch if they're explicitly asking to hand them the domain.

You've probably seen domains containing "wordpress". A real eye opener for me was to realize that they're also all infringing on a trademark. WordPress Foundation just doesn't send DMCA notices - at least not at the moment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141827].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by nettiapina

This is the poorest advice in the thread so far. It seems that they already have the individual behind the fake site in their sights. They're not threatening to sue the domain or the content so it doesn't matter where it is. Moving yourself to Europe might just mean that they're suing you in Europe - the trademark principles are not that different.

If they can reasonably expect that the DMCA notice has been delivered they can just keep going. You're not a small kid trying to argue that dog ate your homework. This is an international corporation with a team of lawyers. They're relentless and tenacious.

I guess you could try to apologize and tell them that you've taken the site down, and see if they accept that. Seems like a stretch if they're explicitly asking to hand them the domain.

You've probably seen domains containing "wordpress". A real eye opener for me was to realize that they're also all infringing on a trademark. WordPress Foundation just doesn't send DMCA notices - at least not at the moment.

I did not make up a fake domain. This was a real site of theirs that they let go of, hence the PR6. I thought it was good to go since they let it expire and I bought it on Namejet.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142396].message }}

nettiapina

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

I did not make up a fake domain. This was a real site of theirs that they let go of, hence the PR6. I thought it was good to go since they let it expire and I bought it on Namejet.

I do understand the concept, but I've got no idea what "make up a fake domain" is supposed to mean. You've admitted copying their old content which is what I was referring to ("fake site"). Copyright infringement is separate issue from trademark violation, but it doesn't improve your legal standing.

And I agree with others, the front page is nowhere near PR6. I've seen similar scores from PR2-3. You can stop repeating "PR6" now. If Namejet is your typical auction site they probably severely limit their liability, and don't much police for these kinds of violations. This should've been part of your own due diligence.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142764].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by nettiapina

I do understand the concept, but I've got no idea what "make up a fake domain" is supposed to mean. You've admitted copying their old content which is what I was referring to ("fake site"). Copyright infringement is separate issue from trademark violation, but it doesn't improve your legal standing.

And I agree with others, the front page is nowhere near PR6. I've seen similar scores from PR2-3. You can stop repeating "PR6" now. If Namejet is your typical auction site they probably severely limit their liability, and don't much police for this kind of violations. This should've been part of your own due diligence.

Yeah it used to be PR6 because it had PR5 and 6 linked to it from Kodak.com's own site, but now of course they're dropped. I should have thought it out clearly but i didn't. Yeah its ok i admit I made a mistake and am moving on.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142795].message }}

ahlexis

10 years ago

Originally Posted by @i

i would suggest trying to milk it for as much as you can, transfer the domain into another domain name registra or something, one that doesnt care (not godaddy, they dont care about customer support but they care when it comes to dmca, copyright, trademark etc..)

anyway, then host the site in germany or somewhere with sketchy laws and then just spam the site with kodak products from all types of affiliate programs and try and earn as much money as possible then if it gets really bad then do all the suggestions listed above

!!

Well, you can FORGET ABOUT GERMANY!

Kodak Printers, Printer Ink, Digital Printing Solutions, Document Scanners, Picture KODAK.DE is in English from where I sit in Texas, and yes, it has their logo at the upper left corner.

So good luck with that.

But for the person suggesting this, what makes you think a multinational company such as Kodak or Microsoft or others will not have trademarks filed around the world? Just because Microsoft and Apple struggle with fighting infringements in some countries such as China does not mean that they only file for rights in a single country.

Seriously. They're giving the domain holder a BREAK by not just starting the lawsuit without notice. There is no reason for this other than they likely have other more pressing matters to deal with and don't feel like filing the court papers and paying the money to fight you in a stronger way.

But if you think that using this domain even IF your name was John Kodak is a good idea, my suggestion to you is you Google the name "Uzi Nissan" and see what you could possibly be in for!

Mr. Nissan registered the domain name Nissan.com and it was his computer business domain name. (My guess is the domain name Uzi.com was unavailable!)

At any rate, along came Nissan the car manufacturer with C & D letter. He told them "No." They told him they'd sue.

He said "It's my name, I was born with it over 25 years ago and you didn't use the name Nissan back then because your car used to be called Datsun so bug off."

They filed suit. He told his customers about it, and they liked him enough that they started a legal defense fund. But it was ugly. And costly to fight.

And he won . . . eventually.

Actually, if you go to Nissan.com you can see a link to the description of what happened that will likely tell it better.

This probably cost them multiple car sales. I know for a fact it cost them at least one because until I heard about it I was actually considering buying a new Nissan, but after seeing how they bullied this small business owner I decided I'd never even think about buying a Nissan as long as I live. And I'm not likely the only one.

But that's anecdotal and they probably don't care.

There are some things that are not worth fighting over because it causes stress. Stress causes high blood pressure, and sometimes heart attacks. Heart attacks are a leading cause of death.

Are you sure it's worth risking dying over a domain that you don't have a legitimate claim to?

Life is too short.

Comply and move on.

Quickly!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147168].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

I've already told them ill hand it back to them and asked for meagre refund of the cost of domain for $263 USD and if they dont want to then its absolutely fine.

That tells me you didn't listen to any of the good advice in this thread.

Can't sue me for asking like that right?

Yes, they can if they are tired of reasoning with you...or might claim you are cyber squatting. Large companies have lawyers full time to handle stuff like this...do you?
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149060].message }}
- Mike Anthony 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  That tells me you didn't listen to any of the good advice in this thread.
  
  I see this happen quite a bit. Somebody buys a WSO, or goes to a blog or gets some free ten minute video on how to build a network. They all tell them how easy and simple it is.. Then they go out and buy junk and either can't believe the money is gone or figure there must be something they can do to reverse the loss.
  
  Whats missing is that money IS gone. As many have pointed out the domain is not worth much even without the trademark issue. Domain purchases are final. Learn how to analyze domains and links BEFORE you buy.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149184].message }}

ventureprofits

10 years ago

Sell it back.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want ASM 2014? contact me

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141580].message }}

omgfirstmillion 10 years ago

Buying trademark domains is just playing with fire, if I was you I would do exactly what Kodak was asking me.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141792].message }}

domainscience

10 years ago

This is exactly what the domain business does not need.
Just apologize and give it back to them.

Thanks

Signature

CandlePrize.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141909].message }}

online only

10 years ago

Dump the domain, move on.
Lesson learned.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142320].message }}

Cecil Dee

10 years ago

No brand names in URLs. Anything less and you're on shaky ground as you've discovered the hard way. Better to get url about photography in general and make posts about Kodak or something like that. They will screw you if you don't comply, I'm certain.

Thanks

Signature

WarriorForum's Most Dangerously Powerful Affiliate Marketing Ca$H Cow Ahead ====>WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142868].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Everyone else can do whatever they want but If I have to put much thought into a domain name, forget it, I'm moving on to something with a generic name. I don't see the point in even considering something that could potentially cause problems. Make your own brand & be done with it.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142869].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Everyone else can do whatever they want but If I have to put much thought into a domain name, forget it, I'm moving on to something with a generic name. I don't see the point in even considering something that could potentially cause problems. Make your own brand & be done with it.

i only used this domain as part of high pr network strategy. I have a unique name. Anyhoo, it caused all this trouble but itll soon be over.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143181].message }}

twilightofidols

10 years ago

Honestly the domain isn't worth the trouble you're going to get over it. Offer to sell it back to them see if you can at the very least recoup the costs you spent. I wouldn't keel over if I were you, but at the same time I wouldn't try to take on a big dog like this because it would be a waste of energy for a domain that probably isn't as powerful as you think it to be.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143465].message }}

AmanD

10 years ago

Offer to give up the domain and move on. It's not worth the trouble.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143485].message }}

imsirigiri

10 years ago

May be the person who sold it or let his hands off it, was being sued or got a same letter from Kodak.

Thanks

Signature

Need a Technical Support VA on an Hourly Basis? || Need AdSense Microniche Sites Research and Development? PM me.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143552].message }}

sweezeter

10 years ago

This is another classic story of why people that don't know what they are doing with a building a network shouldn't create one.

These stories with the constant posts about their networks being deindexed should be enough to warrant a warning for others considering it.

Unfortunately it's not as easy as it seems and often people that don't do the research take on the risk like this OP did.

Give up the domain and forget you spent any money on it. There's a reason you got the PR6 at a bargain because the rest of us knew better.

My recommendation is to find a reliable service and use that. Less liability on your end and overall less risk.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9144246].message }}

st0nec0ld

10 years ago

Reading the terms and conditions is the biggest lie ever ahaha I admire people who actually read those...

Thanks

Signature

12BET | Live Casino Malaysia

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9144329].message }}

nettiapina

10 years ago

It's true that trademarks only apply to certain categories. Sometimes you see stories of the biggest corporations trying to bully legitimate businesses or other entities who have similar names. Unfortunately it can be costly to defend yourself unless you'll lawyer can get them to drop the case.

This discussion doesn't really help OP in any way. Well, not at this point at least.

Thanks

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9144524].message }}

jinx1221

10 years ago

Here's a thread that might help, about UDRP:

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...g-ranking.html

p.s. Ronrule seems to know what he's talking about.. I thought different before reading his arguments about UDRP

Thanks

Signature

The Ultimate Private Network Management,
Visualization and Automation Tool

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9146089].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Anyhoo,
It should be said that I'm Canadian.
But they have trademarks filed in Canada too of course i looked up in trademark database. So I would just be sued for trademark law by a Canadian lawyer they hire?
Sorry I dont know anything about law And there's this Anti Cybersquatting Law
that can be applied to Canadians too i see in my research. Anyone else know much
about Canadian internet laws?

Doesn't matter. I've already told them ill hand it back to them and asked for meagre refund of the cost of domain for $263 USD and if they dont want to then its absolutely fine. Can't sue me for asking like that right? Cool. Keep you updated.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147125].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Doesn't matter. I've already told them ill hand it back to them and asked for meagre refund of the cost of domain for $263 USD and if they don't want to then its absolutely fine. Can't sue me for asking like that right? .

No they could just sue you for trademark infringement which they already have you on. I'd sure like to hear how that conversation would go from an accounting standpoint -

"He wants us to pay him $263 for trademark infringement"

You forget there are real people at Kodak. On a bad day that would be enough righ there to just sue you. I know I would and I just didn't get enough sleep last night .

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149156].message }}

MikeFriedman

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Doesn't matter. I've already told them ill hand it back to them and asked for meagre refund of the cost of domain for $263 USD and if they dont want to then its absolutely fine. Can't sue me for asking like that right? Cool. Keep you updated.

You do realize it will cost them $0 to sue you, right? You will lose and have to pay for all their court costs. Why in the world would they pay you $263?

You should send them another message right away and tell them that you were given some awful advice by a bunch of idiots on an internet marketing forum. Apologize for the insult of asking for $263 and beg for their forgiveness.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149190].message }}

tech84

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Doesn't matter. I've already told them ill hand it back to them and asked for meagre refund of the cost of domain for $263 USD and if they dont want to then its absolutely fine. Can't sue me for asking like that right? Cool. Keep you updated.

well you can try that if you ask really nicely and explain to them the situation, in some cases, on a good day, where the lawyers/owners just got some sort of bonus or had a great day........ that might work.

But in your case I doubt they will do that because the trademark infringement has already been established.

just wait for their answer and hope its not a bill for legal costs.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149359].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by tech84

well you can try that if you ask really nicely and explain to them the situation, in some cases, on a good day, where the lawyers/owners just got some sort of bonus or had a great day........ that might work.

But in your case I doubt they will do that because the trademark infringement has already been established.

just wait for their answer and hope its not a bill for legal costs.

Well in my case I pretty much screwed myself over because I rehashed articles on their old site and linked to an arts related site. Seriously I wanted the PR6 that it had back then and thought BONus its arts related link.. i didnt think about trademark infringement . I would've been as happy using the site to about fishing, but as it stands it looks alot like trademark infringement

However, in the interest of helping others, In canada the Canadian Trade-marks Act states that:
Generally speaking, a trade-mark owner must show that you used their trade-mark or a confusing trade-mark in Canada. Merely showing that you registered a domain name that was similar to their trade-mark may not be enough. Section 6 of the Trade-marks Act sets out a list of factors that a court will consider in deciding whether two trade-marks are confusing:

The inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known - generic or descriptive trade-marks may receive less protection, unless they have become widely known through extensive use or through a long period of use.
The length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use - the longer a trade-mark has been in use, the more protection it may receive.
The nature of the wares, services or business - confusion may be less likely when expensive wares are involved because consumers may be expected to undertake a careful inquiry as to what they are purchasing
The nature of the trade - if the wares are sold through similar channels of trade (e.g. convenience stores, bike stores), then the likelihood of confusion may be higher.
The degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them - this factor compares the trade-marks side-by-side with greater similarity leading to a greater likelihood of confusion.
Courts are required to consider each of the factors above, along with all the surrounding circumstances. As one example of where two identical trade-marks may not be confusing, you might use the trade-mark ACME in association with a website that sells tools to construction companies. In this circumstance, your trade-mark is unlikely to be confused with ACME used by another company in association with chocolate bars.

Also the UDRP is an international internet body governing domain registration disputes which can only order transfer or cancellation of domain and not award damages. It says:

Under the UDRP, a trade-mark owner must show all of the following three things:

your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

So if you can prove you had legitimate interests in respect of domain name and you did not register in bad faith you may be ok. The UDRP opinion guide is
here : UDRP Opinon Guide . Please read Bad faith and Interests section for more info.

This information Im publishing is not really for my benefit but for others
who registered without bad faith or we're trademarked bullied by larger corporations should at least understand their rights.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149492].message }}

Gabby12 10 years ago

Listen to the advice given and move on. Say goodbye to the money and hope that's all you will lose. You are trying to justify something that cant happen.
- Thanks
Signature

SEO Content Writing
Quality Content Writing Service
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149672].message }}

Mike Anthony

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Well in my case I pretty much screwed myself over because I rehashed articles on their old site and linked to an arts related site.

Oh good night so you copyright infringed too - the old lets rip off the way back machine content technique - taught in some horrible build a network/how to do SEO Courses and blogs. Say it aint so bro

This information Im publishing is not really for my benefit but for others
who registered without bad faith or we're trademarked bullied by larger corporations should at least understand their rights.

Unfortunately you are still hanging on to the idea that companies protecting their trademarks are doing something wrong or bullying. I know the dollars hurt but it would have hurt anyway since the domain would not have given you good juice regardless. Take it a s a valuable lesson learned and you will do better moving on.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155184].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Oh good night so you copyright infringed too - the old lets rip off the way back machine content technique - taught in some horrible build a network/how to do SEO Courses and blogs. Say it aint so bro

Yeah stupid move. I write original content for all my other 9 or 10
high pr network blogs, but that day just decided to rephrase the old Kodak stories lol.

Unfortunately you are still hanging on to the idea that companies protecting their trademarks are doing something wrong or bullying. I know the dollars hurt but it would have hurt anyway since the domain would not have given you good juice regardless. Take it a s a valuable lesson learned and you will do better moving on.

I know my case is toast. But I'm just saying for others who registered trademark name in a category other than the trademark business primary category, if they had no bad faith like registering for domain squatting or using the trademark brand to endorse its products, and may have a legitimate claim to the name as it was their own business name in another category, Well those people have rights that all Im saying. They should take the time to read up on the laws that protect both sides the trademark owners and innocent registrants and consult a lawyer.

Yeah anyways I already transferred the domain to them, I thought they'd give me a courtesy letter to say the matter is closed, but Im still waiting.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155633].message }}

ronrule

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

...
However, in the interest of helping others, In canada the Canadian Trade-marks Act states that:
...
The inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known - generic or descriptive trade-marks may receive less protection, unless they have become widely known through extensive use or through a long period of use.

This section here pretty much sums it up - it wouldn't matter what you did with the domain after you bought it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9158143].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

This section here pretty much sums it up - it wouldn't matter what you did with the domain after you bought it.

... and I'm betting that Kodak will not fall under that clause. It isn't descriptive. Jello is descriptive.

and this act protects famous trademarks and specifically names Kodak as an example
Federal Trademark Dilution Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9158148].message }}

ronrule

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... and I'm betting that Kodak will not fall under that clause. It isn't descriptive. Jello is descriptive.

and this act protects famous trademarks and specifically names Kodak as an example
Federal Trademark Dilution Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not following, how is Jello more descriptive? Jello is a brand, gelatin is the product.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9159695].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

I'm not following, how is Jello more descriptive? Jello is a brand, gelatin is the product.

Because Jello has become a household word used for any gelatin dessert, not just the Jello brand.

As much as advertisers try to make their product name a household word, if they succeed too well, they'll lose their trademark.

So although the Band-Aid or Xerox or Jello folks want you to think of their product as the only one of its kind, if you actually start using the word as a generic term, they're sunk. If you call any bandage a "band-aid" or any flavored gelatin "jello," you're being both a loyal consumer and one who is contributing to the possible loss of the brand name you're supporting.

Trademark Battles

Everyone knows that Kleenex is one of those terms that people use generically even though it's a trademarked word. Same with Band-Aid, Jell-O, Q-tip - the list goes on and on. But did you know that some extremely common terms used to be trademarked but are now considered generic by courts because of their frequent use? Here are a few of those words.
10 Common Words That Used To Be Trademarked

1. Cellophane was originally trademarked by DuPont.
2. Crock-Pot is actually trademarked by Rival Industries, but crock pot and crockpot are used generically.
3. Dry Ice was trademarked by the Dry Ice Corporation of America in 1925.
4. Escalator was a trademark of the Otis Elevator company.
5. Heroin was trademarked by Friedrich Bayer & Co.
6. Kerosene has been around since 1852, when it was coined by Canadian Abraham Gesner.
7. Linoleum was invented by Frederick Walton who founded the Linoleum Manufacturing Company.
8. Touch-tone was used exclusively by AT&T.
9. Trampoline was originally trademarked by George Nissen.
10. Zipper, similarly, was trademarked by an individual - B.F. Goodrich.

The Quick 10: 10 Common Words That Used To Be Trademarked | Mental Floss

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9161897].message }}

Mike Anthony 10 years ago

Yep.....You actually can be too good with your branding. Go figure.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9162048].message }}

ronrule

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Hi all,
I just want to say that I got a cease and desist letter from Kodak company for buying the domain name kodaktransforms.com

I haven't read any other comments in the thread, but this is really all that matters. You're using their trademark without permission - the domain is theirs to take. End of conversation. It doesn't matter what you paid for it, what the PageRank is, how much traffic it gets, etc. Turn it over and move on. Or, be a dick and wait until they file the UDRP claim, which they will win, then sue you to recover the cost of filing the UDRP.

Thanks

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147136].message }}

Dmreed4311

10 years ago

Had you just bought the domain and not put all their content on it and just put your own original content on it I bet you would have been fine.

Thanks

Signature

Carpet Doctor
212 east Ross Ave.
Tampa Fl 33602
813-440-8335

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147166].message }}

jliang1980

10 years ago

Under the Anti-CyberSquatting Law This:
"If the mark owner is protected by US law (uses the mark in the US) then that mark owner can bring an ACPA action in a US court regardless of the domain holder's location. If the domain holder fails to show up in court, s/he may lose by default, in which case the US court will issue an order to the domain registrar or registry to cancel or transfer the domain registration to the mark owner."

OK So If fail to show up in US court, I lose by default and issued to transfer the domains.
But how can they get paid by suing me? It sounds Like i would have to have contacts and assets in US. THis:

If you are sued personally under ACPA, it can be cause for serious concern given the possibility of a court judgement being issued against you. You should immediately assess whether you have contacts or assets in the U.S. and contact CIPPIC or a lawyer as soon as possible.

Im just curious. I will apologize to Kodak.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149318].message }}

Elle Holder

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

Under the Anti-CyberSquatting Law This:
"If the mark owner is protected by US law (uses the mark in the US) then that mark owner can bring an ACPA action in a US court regardless of the domain holder's location. If the domain holder fails to show up in court, s/he may lose by default, in which case the US court will issue an order to the domain registrar or registry to cancel or transfer the domain registration to the mark owner."

OK So If fail to show up in US court, I lose by default and issued to transfer the domains.
But how can they get paid by suing me? It sounds Like i would have to have contacts and assets in US. THis:

If you are sued personally under ACPA, it can be cause for serious concern given the possibility of a court judgement being issued against you. You should immediately assess whether you have contacts or assets in the U.S. and contact CIPPIC or a lawyer as soon as possible.

Im just curious. I will apologize to Kodak.

Are you forgetting that Kodak has an international presence?? They can enforce their trademark here, just as much as they can in the US. Being a Canadian doesn't exempt you from anything in this situation.

And how can they get paid? Garnish your wages or some other means of getting money out of you. I'm sure their lawyers would come up with some creative way to separate you from whatever money you're earning now or in the future, should it come to that.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9149489].message }}

Matthew Anton

10 years ago

Something positive can come of this! Blackhat tactic:
Buy a domain such as flowertucciland, and wait for the "actress" to contact you. Now you have access to her...or her attorney.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
Google+ Matthew Anton

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154420].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

looks alot like trademark infringement

Yeah - that's what we've been saying.

But - you go on to offer legal advice? Oh my:p
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154774].message }}

timpears

10 years ago

Education is expensive sometimes. Hope you learned something from this episode/lesson.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Tim Pears

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9158181].message }}

dhimsbugs 10 years ago

Originally Posted by timpears

Education is expensive sometimes. Hope you learned something from this episode/lesson.

I too have experienced the same problem. The lessons are very meaningful.

http://moviediablo.com/kaylila/upload/71/dot.png
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9163443].message }}

LearningChinese

10 years ago

First law of Internet law: Don't take legal advice from the Internet

I once had a copyright issue and it was worth the peace of mind to go pay an initial fee to a copyright attorney for 15 minutes of his time over the phone. I think I paid a hundred dollars and slept much better.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9162209].message }}

WareTime

10 years ago

Love the Post Title

<title>The cops locked me up for earning $15000 in 10 minutes. </title>

<p>…. then after I robbed the bank, they arrested me. Can you believe it?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9162400].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by WareTime

Love the Post Title

<title>The cops locked me up for earning $15000 in 10 minutes. </title>

<p>.... then after I robbed the bank, they arrested me. Can you believe it?

It's the case of the baited forum thread title.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9162937].message }}

Kevin Maguire

10 years ago

Sbucciarel is thrashing you all, I'm getting the popcorn.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9162956].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Sbucciarel is thrashing you all, I'm getting the popcorn.

I don't know where that's coming from. I'm not thrashing anyone. Just chiming in on the issue of using someones' trademark, particularly someone as big as Kodak.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9163232].message }}

RedShifted

10 years ago

Stupid question.

But how can Kodak sue the OP when there are sites like this:

Google Sucks - Google-Sucks.org

???

Google is obviously much bigger and more powerful than Kodak is. And I know that google-sucks site has been around for a while. All it has is a little disclaimer on the bottom.

Here's another site for yelp thats been around a while:

http://yelp-sucks.com/

I just don't get how those 2 sites are legit but somehow the OP is doing something wrong?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9163359].message }}

Lucidmike78

10 years ago

Originally Posted by RedShifted

Stupid question.

But how can Kodak sue the OP when there are sites like this:

Google Sucks - Google-Sucks.org

???

Google is obviously much bigger and more powerful than Kodak is. And I know that google-sucks site has been around for a while. All it has is a little disclaimer on the bottom.

Here's another site for yelp thats been around a while:

http://yelp-sucks.com/

I just don't get how those 2 sites are legit but somehow the OP is doing something wrong?

With those sites, it is clear that Yelp is not affiliated. Yelp can probably file a lawsuit on the basis that the website is using their trademarked name, but not all companies are interested in removing the opinions of their company.

However, they would probably pursue a lawsuit if there was a website like YelpTransforms.com, if the service mark read "Yelp Transforms Restaurant Business". Some people would get confused thinking it's a website run by yelp, there are so many reasons that's bad for any company.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9163516].message }}

RedShifted

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Lucidmike78

With those sites, it is clear that Yelp is not affiliated. Yelp can probably file a lawsuit on the basis that the website is using their trademarked name, but not all companies are interested in removing the opinions of their company.

However, they would probably pursue a lawsuit if there was a website like YelpTransforms.com, if the service mark read "Yelp Transforms Restaurant Business". Some people would get confused thinking it's a website run by yelp, there are so many reasons that's bad for any company.

See. This is why I could never be a lawyer.

Laws confuse me more than woman do.

So it's not ok to use a trademarked name...
But it is ok if you plan on trashing the company...
But somehow that's not defamation....
Or maybe it is defamation...

Maybe maybe maybe?

The 1 thing I can't wrap my ahead around is WHY Google, Yelp OR Warrior Forum (just remembered that one) won't sue any of these defamatory "suck sites"?

That brings us up to 3 sites now. And I'm sure there's a lot more -

google-sucks.org
yelp-sucks.com
warriorforumsvcks.com (full name gets filtered).

I just can't believe that all 3 won't sue out of the mere goodness of their hearts. There has to be some type of legal grounds that prevent them from suing. WF obviously cares otherwise they wouldn't filter out the name of the site. And if *I* had someone defaming my site, my business, & my livelihood, I would try to sue until their faces turned blue.

I'm sure there's a lot of things I'm just not understanding here. But this is 1 super interesting topic. Not just because its controversial, but noone seems to know the real answer. And I can't imagine that you need to be a lawyer to know the answers to these questions.

Questions being:

1) Why won't WF sue?
2) Why won't Google sue?
3) Why won't Yelp sue?

Is it that hard to prove defamation in court? Or in the end... is it just not worth the money & time?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9164001].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by RedShifted

Stupid question.

But how can Kodak sue the OP when there are sites like this:

Google Sucks - Google-Sucks.org

???

Google is obviously much bigger and more powerful than Kodak is. And I know that google-sucks site has been around for a while. All it has is a little disclaimer on the bottom.

Here's another site for yelp thats been around a while:

http://yelp-sucks.com/

I just don't get how those 2 sites are legit but somehow the OP is doing something wrong?

Trademark law allows an author of a non-fiction work to use trademarks in a way that is critical of the owner's products or services such as "rolling over in my Ford". In this situation, the author uses the trademark to describe Ford's vehicles and is careful not to confuse the reader as to the owner of the trademark. Ford has yet to file a trademark infringement lawsuit against the individual. Another website, fordreallysucks.com is a website that Ford heavily targeted to get removed from the Internet and as with many other corporations, FAILED MISERABLY to get it removed. Ford has seemingly given up on it, maybe they are finally more focused about their failing dynasty.

The above-referenced situations are considered non-confusing and "nominative use" based on the following requirements:

the owner's product and service cannot be easily identifiable without the use trademark
the author uses as little of the trademark as possible to identify the trademark owner's products or services
the author does nothing that suggests to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.

TRADEMARKS 101 - Fair Use & Nominative Use Lanham Act

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9164190].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Another website, fordreallysucks.com is a website that Ford heavily targeted to get removed from the Internet and as with many other corporations, FAILED MISERABLY to get it removed. Ford has seemingly given up on it, maybe they are finally more focused about their failing dynasty.

What your leaving out is that example would be he$$ on the average person in court.

Personally I wouldn't even considering putting myself in that situation because of lack of effort on deciding for a better domain name that doesn't involve a brand name.

It's like standing in the middle of a highway, sure a person might not get hit by a car, then again a person could get hit. It's kind of silly to even consider taking on the risk just because it's an option.

*******************************

Keep in mind folks, nobody on the internet is going to have your back in a courtroom. Use your head, or waste money/time in court over silly things.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9166303].message }}

hipeopo02

10 years ago

Originally Posted by jliang1980

So, they think I am using their good name to recommend my money site to viewers of the blog so that associations would be made between their name and my site.

The association is made because a link to your f*******n site is on it.

Originally Posted by jliang1980

That would be trademark infringement and i accept that, but I'm not trying to use their name to do anything.

hhaha yes you are.... you are trying to rank a money site with it :rolleyes:

give this up.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9166287].message }}

Im getting sued for creating a high PR blog!

Trending Topics

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

A Very Strange Internet Problem

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

Let's dissect the genius behind Nike's 'Just Do It' slogan. What makes it so powerful and timeless?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?