45 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
45 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Has anyone has issues when using Samsung, sony, or the top brands in their domain names?

by Jason Zalesky
39 replies
Just curious if anyone has been contacted by the above names for having their name or product in the domain name? I know I and several people here all have sites targeting products etc. But has anyone ever been contacted since you owned the domain with product or name in it? Just curious because I was just recently about a domain that I have had up for a few years now and they seem to just decide they want it down. Had another last year the same way. Used to it didnt matter as long as you were promoting their products in a good way and it was making them money in the long run. Seems like they are now wanting it all to themselves .

Jason
#brands #domain #issues #names #samsung #sony #top
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    Afraid to say it doesn't really matter what experiences anyone else has had with similar or the same company. If they want your domain name and it has their trademarked term in it you are best to just give it up.

    This is why it is very unwise to register domain names with trademarked terms in them. Those trademark owners can come after you whenever they want - it is not worth putting the time, effort, and money into something that can be taken from you at the drop of a hat.
    Signature

    .


    .

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4114931].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jason Zalesky
    No I understand the risk I was just trying to see if there was a trend. I fully understand all the laws and how they can come after your if they want. I happily give it up as well. Its a risk you take but you may be able to rake in several thousand while you can ride it out.

    My question was if people were seeing this lately and if they are targeting the domains more. Most sites I have had in the past they usually just ask to change something or put up that they are not affiliated etc if I forgot to do so already. The worst they can do if you own the domain is say they want it. So I wouldnt try not targeting products names with huge volumes of traffic just because of that one reason. Now if your building a site your trying to brand yourself with or making it evergreen then yes its a waste of time. As for niche sites I would suggest if you think you can rank it and make some money then why not.

    Jason
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4114943].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sparhawke
      Originally Posted by Jason Zalesky View Post

      No I understand the risk I was just trying to see if there was a trend. I fully understand all the laws and how they can come after your if they want. I happily give it up as well. Its a risk you take but you may be able to rake in several thousand while you can ride it out.

      My question was if people were seeing this lately and if they are targeting the domains more. Most sites I have had in the past they usually just ask to change something or put up that they are not affiliated etc if I forgot to do so already. The worst they can do if you own the domain is say they want it. So I wouldnt try not targeting products names with huge volumes of traffic just because of that one reason. Now if your building a site your trying to brand yourself with or making it evergreen then yes its a waste of time. As for niche sites I would suggest if you think you can rank it and make some money then why not.

      Jason
      If you do make any money then they are likely to come after you even harder and put you so far into the red you will think you have been working at a tomato farm your entire life.

      Believing you will get away with making a few quid on the side and everything will be cosy is stupid.

      worst they can do if you own the domain is say they want it
      No, if they wanted they could sue you into the stone ages for having the temerity of diluting their mark and make an example of you.

      Just because it may not have happened before does not mean that it may not happen in the future, in fact i am starting to think that trademark holders are getting pissed off now and will start using their billions to come after people hard, and I hope they do and in such numbers that everyone will think twice about such a decision. Theft is theft but it tars those of us who do stay within the law with the same brush, and gives us a bad name.

      Enough is enough.
      Signature
      “Thinking is easy, Acting is difficult
      And to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world ~ Goethe”
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117775].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
        I dont think anyone is arguing that, but I would of thought that TM infringement was to protect the brand, meaning I could not get a TV from China and stick SONY on it and sell it as a Sony which would damage them and they would lose money.

        An affiliate marketing, adveritsing and selling their Product and making THEM MONEY I dont see how any damage is caused.

        As a business man I would not care how many people use my name as long as they are doing it to sell my products and using it in the correct manner.

        I think some things with Tm infringement has been confused down the line

        Kickin it on Amazon

        Gaz Cooper
        Amazon Cash King
        Signature

        Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117817].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WillR
          Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

          I dont think anyone is arguing that, but I would of thought that TM infringement was to protect the brand, meaning I could not get a TV from China and stick SONY on it and sell it as a Sony which would damage them and they would lose money.

          An affiliate marketing, adveritsing and selling their Product and making THEM MONEY I dont see how any damage is caused.

          As a business man I would not care how many people use my name as long as they are doing it to sell my products and using it in the correct manner.

          I think some things with Tm infringement has been confused down the line

          Kickin it on Amazon

          Gaz Cooper
          Amazon Cash King
          Lets say I am selling the Rosetta Stone language software program. I am doing so using their affiliate program and so I get paid 40% commissions on every product I sell for them.

          I go out and register some domain names with Rosetta Stone in them and start trying to rank for popular keywords people are searching when looking for this particular software. I start ranking right up near the official Rosetta Stone website.

          So now instead of the official website getting all those sales and keeping 100% of the profits, some of those sales are now going to me and they are only getting 60% of the profit from those sales (the other 40% goes to me as an affiliate).

          Yes, I may well be selling their program for them but by doing what I am doing, they are losing money that would otherwise be theirs. Same goes with people bidding on product names in Google Adwords, etc.

          This is when a company will still have a problem with you using their trademarks even though you are helping to sell their products. In this type of situation you are actually using their trademarked name to your advantage and taking money away from them by doing so.
          Signature

          .


          .

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117843].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

            Lets say I am selling the Rosetta Stone language software program. I am doing so using their affiliate program and so I get paid 40% commissions on every product I sell for them.

            I go out and register some domain names with Rosetta Stone in them and start trying to rank for popular keywords people are searching when looking for this particular software. I start ranking right up near the official Rosetta Stone website.

            So now instead of the official website getting all those sales and keeping 100% of the profits, some of those sales are now going to me and they are only getting 60% of the profit from those sales (the other 40% goes to me as an affiliate).

            Yes, I may well be selling their program for them but by doing what I am doing, they are losing money that would otherwise be theirs. Same goes with people bidding on product names in Google Adwords, etc.

            This is when a company will still have a problem with you using their trademarks even though you are helping to sell their products... and rightly so.
            Hmmm I understand the theory but I think that is a bit of small minded thinking on the companys part bit like wanting their cake and eating it.

            Ultimately they are still getting there product sold and adding to their bottom line.

            Its a bit like firing your best salesman because he is good at his Job and selling too much of your product.

            I completely understand if someone is passing off a copy or an inferior product and using their brand, but as for Affiliates selling their products it dont make much sense if all they are doing is selling lots of their product.

            Kickin it on Amazon

            Gaz Cooper
            Amazon Cash King
            Signature

            Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117899].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              If I may say so, Gaz, the point I think your reasoning is missing is that owning a trademark confers on the holder obligations as well as rights.

              If they've been notified of a breach of their trademark and haven't taken any steps to correct it, this can be held against them when they apply to renew it.

              For this reason, many companies have the policy of taking action (and some of them relentlessly so) against anyone using their trademark for financial/monetised purposes in a domain-name even if it's promoting their own products. It's not quite as "illogical" as it looks.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117933].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

              Its a bit like firing your best salesman because he is good at his Job and selling too much of your product.

              Not at all.

              It is more similar to your best salesman stealing your product, loading his pickup truck after hours with your goods, then selling them to your best clients. Your clients still love you and your products, but you are not getting the full value of your investment in creating and nurturing that relationship.

              That is not really a good analogy, but it comes close.

              The fact remains that if people were looking for a Sony TV and searched for Sony TV on Google, finding your website at the top of the results, the user might assume that they were buying directly from Sony, because Sony is in the domain name.

              The consumer assumed they were buying directly from the company, and you have created confusion in the consumers' mind by putting the trademark name in your domain name.

              While the consumer still got the product they expected, the company lost the extra profits in the deal, because you have unfairly made yourself look like the real company website.
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117950].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
                Hi

                It is more similar to your best salesman stealing your product, loading his pickup truck after hours with your goods, then selling them to your best clients. Your clients still love you and your products, but you are not getting the full value of your investment in creating and nurturing that relationship.

                That is not really a good analogy, but it comes close.

                No I disagree with that analogy ,because it would be more accurate that the salesman has paid you your wholesale price for the product which you are happy with and he is now heading out of the factory and selling them for a profit just like any other person or shop you sell wholesale too.

                The fact remains that if people were looking for a Sony TV and searched for Sony TV on Google, finding your website at the top of the results, the user might assume that they were buying directly from Sony, because Sony is in the domain name.

                Not if you had a disclaimer clearly identifying you are not SONY for example

                The consumer assumed they were buying directly from the company, and you have created confusion in the consumers' mind by putting the trademark name in your domain name.

                Again that argument could be put to rest by having a prominant disclaimer

                While the consumer still got the product they expected, the company lost the extra profits in the deal, because you have unfairly made yourself look like the real company website

                This changed the plot a little as I agree if someone is trying to deceive people into thinking they are the brand then they have a case however for Affilaites thats not the case 99.99% of the time.

                Just a friendly debate from a Brit who probably has a different outlook from the US point of view.

                Kickin it on Amazon

                Gaz Cooper
                Amazon Cash King
                Signature

                Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118045].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tpw
                  Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

                  Just a friendly debate from a Brit who probably has a different outlook from the US point of view.

                  No arguments here. Like you said, a friendly debate.


                  Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

                  It is more similar to your best salesman stealing your product, loading his pickup truck after hours with your goods, then selling them to your best clients. Your clients still love you and your products, but you are not getting the full value of your investment in creating and nurturing that relationship.

                  That is not really a good analogy, but it comes close.
                  No I disagree with that analogy ,because it would be more accurate that the salesman has paid you your wholesale price for the product which you are happy with and he is now heading out of the factory and selling them for a profit just like any other person or shop you sell wholesale too.

                  Maybe your scenario is a better analogy, but let me challenge it once more.

                  If your salesman is buying and selling your product, then he is an independent agent "representing your product" -- the same as any affiliate would be doing.

                  If your salesman is paid a commission on the products that he sells, as an employee of your company, then he is "representing your company" -- the same as any other employee would.



                  In the television business, the person doing the buying and selling is allowed to hang a placard on the building that says, "Sony TV's available here, at My TV Store".

                  If the person doing the buying and selling pays a licensing fee to Sony, they get to hang a placard that says, "An Authorized Sony TV Dealer".

                  Consumers understand when they are entering the building that "My TV Store" represents the Sony product, but not Sony the company.

                  In a past life, I actually did sell hundreds of thousands of dollars in Sony TV's... LOL

                  When it comes to selling TV's, one of the brands that is easiest to sell is Sony, because their reputation is unparalleled.

                  In the My TV Store scenario, the store is taking a risk on Sony products, so they are are allowed to make more money on the sale of that product.

                  In the Sony employee example, the salesman is allowed to make a commission on the sale of the product, just as the store is allowed to do so, but the difference is that the employee takes no risk and represents the company. Sony would pay that person a different commission structure, because Sony is taking ALL of the risk, and the employee is taking no risk.


                  Whereas the relationship between the affiliate and the company is structured more like the My TV Store setup, the actual risk is shifted entirely to the company when working with an affiliate, leaving the relationship much closer to that of an employer and employee.

                  Regardless, Sony will not allow My TV Store to rename its store to My Sony TV Store, because consumers would assume that the TV store is owned entirely by Sony, when in fact it is not.

                  While the My Sony TV Store will be selling Sony TV's and making a profit for Sony, the profit would actually be higher if Sony actually owned that outlet.


                  Your argument might seem logical to you and other affiliates, but the reality remains that using Sony in your business name implies a relationship with Sony that does not exist, and if the relationship did exist, then Sony would make more profits on the deal than they would be making under their current agreement with you.
                  Signature
                  Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                  Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118247].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author WillR
              Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

              Hmmm I understand the theory but I think that is a bit of small minded thinking on the companys part bit like wanting their cake and eating it.
              Not just theory as it turns out. That's exactly what happened to me years ago.

              Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

              I think my main point is, if someone is selling a ton of your product without doing anything untoward, then it does not make good business sense to stop them when they are selling your product for you and adding to your yearly bottom line.
              But that's just it. If I am using their name in a domain name and taking visitors that would otherwise have gone to their official website, I am not adding to their bottom line I am actually detracting from it. Even though I am part of their affiliate program and selling their official product they are now only seeing 60% of sales they would otherwise have received 100% of the money for.
              Signature

              .


              .

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118006].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
                Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                Not just theory as it turns out. That's exactly what happened to me years ago.



                But that's just it. If I am using their name in a domain name and taking visitors that would otherwise have gone to their official website, I am not adding to their bottom line I am actually detracting from it. Even though I am part of their affiliate program and selling their official product they are now only seeing 60% of sales they would otherwise have received 100% of the money for.
                See in my thinking thats just the wrong mindset, I would want to help my salespeople sell more of my product, not compete against them and make it harder for them to sell my products, I would want to encourage them

                I have priced my product at a sale price of X amount of dollars wholesale, and thats the price I am basing my business on because I would expect the majority of sales will come from the people I sell my product too wholesale (agents affiliates or shops etc who already advertise with huge sony signs etc)

                Definately an intereting topic and I have no interest in ever testing my theory

                Kickin it on Amazon

                Gaz Cooper
                Amazon Cash King
                Signature

                Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118139].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

                  See in my thinking thats just the wrong mindset, I would want to help my salespeople sell more of my product, not compete against them and make it harder for them to sell my products, I would want to encourage them

                  I have priced my product at a sale price of X amount of dollars wholesale, and thats the price I am basing my business on because I would expect the majority of sales will come from the people I sell my product too wholesale (agents affiliates or shops etc who already advertise with huge sony signs etc)

                  Definately an intereting topic and I have no interest in ever testing my theory

                  Kickin it on Amazon

                  Gaz Cooper
                  Amazon Cash King
                  A company trademark is a valuable company asset, but only if you protect that trademark from dilution. Once you allow others to use it as they see fit, you can lose the trademark. In order to keep it, you must protect it.

                  If affiliates can't figure out how to promote your products without infringing on your trademark, then the company doesn't really need those affiliates, and the affiliates could do a lot more harm to the brand than any benefit the company might get from the association.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4159968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    Yep, i once had a domain rolex-store.com and got mail from Switzerland Ironically, i didn't even use that domain.
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4114953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I have not had issues, but it could be because I know in advance that is a dead end road.

    If you put the brand name in the domain name, they WILL come after you. Ask the lady who owns Sony's Restaurant in California or the guy who owns Nissan.com.

    Trading on their name in a similar industry or same products is something that can get you in deep. You will lose your domain in a trademark infringement suit, and you might have to pay damages.

    However, if you use their trade name in a URL (excluding domain name), you have a lot more right to do so. As a consumer, you can mention them in the URL and title of your page, if you are reviewing their products or services.

    You can also use their trade name in a URL (excluding domain name) if you are an affiliate selling their products.

    But you can never legally use their trade name in a domain name, unless they are not willing to fight for their rights as a Trademark holder.

    With Sony and Nissan, we know absolutely that they will do anything to protect their trade name -- even going after people in unrelated industries, who the trademark holders are not protected from until those businesses start selling in the same industry.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4114969].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      Trading on their name in a similar industry or same products is something that can get you in deep. You will lose your domain in a trademark infringement suit, and you might have to pay damages.

      .
      It would be interesting to see what exact damages any company would be saying you have done to them.

      If you are promoting their products on a site and promoting their brand in a professional manner, with it linking to a retailer that sells that product and you get paid a commision I would argue there has been NO damage whatsover to their brand by you putting up a site selling their products.

      Of course nobody wants to pay to fight any claim, of TM infringment its just easier to give it up, but I would question the damages part unless you are doing something more with their brand than selling there products.

      Kickin it on Amazon

      Gaz Cooper
      Amazon Cash King
      Signature

      Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117750].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

        It would be interesting to see what exact damages any company would be saying you have done to them.

        If you are promoting their products on a site and promoting their brand in a professional manner, with it linking to a retailer that sells that product and you get paid a commision I would argue there has been NO damage whatsover to their brand by you putting up a site selling their products.

        Of course nobody wants to pay to fight any claim, of TM infringment its just easier to give it up, but I would question the damages part unless you are doing something more with their brand than selling there products.

        Kickin it on Amazon

        Gaz Cooper
        Amazon Cash King

        The common argument is that the unqualified domain holder is "diluting the trademark and value of the company."

        It is also said that the domain holder is, "profiting from the trademark holders' mark, without authorization."

        Damages could reliably include all affiliate commissions earned, because the affiliate was profiting unfairly, by blurring the line between the trademark holder and the affiliate.

        The trade name is something the company has invested a great deal of money to enhance, and the affiliate is robbing the trademark holder, because the affiliate would never had earned the commission without the trademark holder first investing a lot of money developing the value of the trademark.

        Any further earnings from that business could also be targeted, because they could very likely argue successfully that the affiliate could have financed his/her other earnings on the profits earned and value unfairly taken from the trademark holder.

        Punitive damages would be another factor that they might seek and successfully gain.

        In your example of properly representing the trademark, the best argument I could see them having is that you had unfairly traded on their name, forcing them to pay you affiliate commission for the products they could have sold without your help.

        Also in your example, I think you would be one of the few people on the planet to represent the trademark in a positive and beneficial manner.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117894].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
          I think my main point is, if someone is selling a ton of your product without doing anything untoward, then it does not make good business sense to stop them when they are selling your product for you and adding to your yearly bottom line.

          If they are doing something really bad using your brand OK and understood but not for sellers of your products.

          Kickin it on Amazon

          Gaz Cooper
          Amazon Cash King
          Signature

          Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4117966].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

            I think my main point is, if someone is selling a ton of your product without doing anything untoward, then it does not make good business sense to stop them when they are selling your product for you and adding to your yearly bottom line.

            If they are doing something really bad using your brand OK and understood but not for sellers of your products.

            Kickin it on Amazon

            Gaz Cooper
            Amazon Cash King

            I understand your point, but if they let you infringe on their trademark, they will lose the power to enforce their trademark with those who are abusing it.

            Further, they should not have to pay you commissions if the consumer thought they were buying directly from the company and not an affiliate.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118018].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
              Banned
              Originally Posted by tpw View Post

              if they let you infringe on their trademark, they will lose the power to enforce their trademark with those who are abusing it.
              ^^^ This. Exactly.

              They need to be able to renew their trademark.

              If it can be shown that they've "turned a blind eye to breaches of it", they may not be able to.

              The fact that someone's breaching it to promote their products isn't relevant to that. Owning a trademark confers obligations as well as rights.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118060].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
            Banned
            Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

            I think my main point is, if someone is selling a ton of your product without doing anything untoward, then it does not make good business sense to stop them when they are selling your product for you and adding to your yearly bottom line.

            If they are doing something really bad using your brand OK and understood but not for sellers of your products.

            Kickin it on Amazon

            Gaz Cooper
            Amazon Cash King
            Hi Gaz

            I note you are the "Amazon Cash King"

            I am assuming you read and agreed to the Amazon Associates Operating Agreement when you signed up with them. In particular Section 2(f)

            What then is the difference between this and any other Company requiring the same?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118115].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
              Originally Posted by pjCheviot View Post

              Hi Gaz

              I note you are the "Amazon Cash King"

              I am assuming you read and agreed to the Amazon Associates Operating Agreement when you signed up with them. In particular Section 2(f)

              What then is the difference between this and any other Company requiring the same?
              Of course I read it, what I am posting is about the mentality of it, from a point of people selling products for them ie working with them towards their yearly bottom line.

              Its just a debate, offering another mindset, Im not advising anyone to register trademarks we are just having a discusiion debating it.

              Kickin It on Amazon

              Gaz Cooper
              Amazon Cash King
              Signature

              Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118171].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author pjCheviot
                Banned
                Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

                Of course I read it, what I am posting is about the mentality of it, from a point of people selling products for them ie working with them towards their yearly bottom line.

                Its just a debate, offering another mindset, Im not advising anyone to register trademarks we are just having a discusiion debating it.

                Kickin It on Amazon

                Gaz Cooper
                Amazon Cash King
                Yes - just a debate, Gaz - and I certainly didn't imply that you were advising anyone anything!

                I was throwing in my tuppence worth.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118365].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Sparhawke
            Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

            I think my main point is, if someone is selling a ton of your product without doing anything untoward, then it does not make good business sense to stop them when they are selling your product for you and adding to your yearly bottom line.

            If they are doing something really bad using your brand OK and understood but not for sellers of your products.

            Kickin it on Amazon

            Gaz Cooper
            Amazon Cash King
            So if you do it, then they are losing out on sales that would've naturally gone to them, if I do it then they are losing out again, if WillR does it then they are losing again...

            If thousands of us do it and register their trademark in our domains we are like a bunch of vampires killing the original company that developed their brand over many years and developed their products over many years for a bunch of assholes like us to eat away at.

            If you created a brand called GazCooper over many years and built up a loyal following and then a load of us started taking your trade name and masquerading as you, would you like it when what should be 100% profit suddenly drops to 50% then 20% then 5% then 0.001% because everyone is eating you alive?

            Companies go out of business for that reason, that is why a brand is so important. That is why some companies fight so hard against trademark squatters.

            It is not a case of you making them money, you are actually destroying them from the inside out and why they though they may give you a license to sell their products they will not give you license to put their name on your "shop" unless you are actually part of that specific business.

            It is fine to sell Sony, or Nintendo, or Nike products, just not okay to imply or infer in anyway that you are that company or have some special relationship with them unless you get special dispensation that says "you are a Nike dealership" and we support you.

            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            And Nissan (another Japanese firm) is suing an American business owner, who shares a last name with the company, for trademark infringement. In the Nissan example, they are suing the owner of Nissan.com, because he bought the domain name before they thought to do so.

            You can read the Nissan vs. Nissan.com story here: http://www.digest.com/
            The thing with the Nissan case though is that Nissan does not own the worldwide rights to use that name, and neither does Nintendo, Sega or Sony or any other company...they only have the right to use those names exclusively in their respective business niches. And that is where coined terms come into their own, it is much harder to claim something like Kodak.com came to you in a dream since the word has never existed before in history whereas Coke.com would not be as defensible.

            Nissan tried bullying the owner when it was his actual surname and he was using it for his legitimate computer business instead of simply acceding the point that he got there first with a absolutely valid reason for wanting the name and they tried to force him off it. If they had offered a good price he probably would've handed it over freely but he didn't have to, if I own Apple.com for my orchard business I would not owe the company a thing nor would I have to hand it over, they would have to pay me to go find another name for myself.

            The thing with all this is "usage", how are you actually using the name and are you profiting from the established trademark?

            ChiliBeans.com was a domain that got taken off someone (a VERY famous domainer called Frank Schilling) simply because some eyewear company I have never heard of had decided to called themselves that, much like if Black Eyed Peas decided they owned the exclusive rights to my vegetable domain and had the courts permission to put my farm out of business.

            These days we are seeing another phenomenon too, that is reverse hijacking where someone is seeing a name they like that has been registered for years, putting in for a trademark and then trying to use this as a reason to steal somebodies property. One of the more famous examples of this was the "smiley" that a Russian man tried to trademark a few years ago, whereby any company doing custom graphics of that type would have to pay him a royalty.
            Signature
            “Thinking is easy, Acting is difficult
            And to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world ~ Goethe”
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4119104].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Boston Joe
    No experience myself but I know of someone who had their domain basically taken away from them. If a company is big enough that you are thinking of benefiting from their brand name then they are probably big enough to have employees who's only job is to look for people like that.

    I would definitely advise against the get in get out strategy. I am not a lawyer by any means but I would imagine any significant income will only end in a lawsuit that wouldn't go your way. Could very well be wrong there, just my take.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4115008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author davezan
    Originally Posted by Jason Zalesky View Post

    Used to it didnt matter as long as you were promoting their products in a good way and it was making them money in the long run. Seems like they are now wanting it all to themselves .
    Or maybe because they didn't know some of those sites existed until recently,
    especially if they never gave documented permission to begin with.
    Signature

    David

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4115117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

    Just a friendly debate from a Brit who probably has a different outlook from the US point of view.

    No arguments here. Like you said, a friendly debate.


    p.s. Does this imply that Britain handles trademark differently than the United States?

    Until this moment in time, I was under the impression that most of the major nations have signed agreements equally protecting trademarks in all signee-countries, under the defined rules.

    I also thought Britain was a signee to that agreement, thereby protecting the trademark rights of such British firms as Rolls Royce, BP, BBC, Sky, Lowden Guitars, Guiness, Lloyds of London and others.

    Are you implying that I could use Rolls Royce in a domain name and not have to face trademark complaints and litigation from the Rolls Royce company?
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118323].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Gaz Cooper
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      No arguments here. Like you said, a friendly debate.


      p.s. Does this imply that Britain handles trademark differently than the United States?

      Until this moment in time, I was under the impression that most of the major nations have signed agreements equally protecting trademarks in all signee-countries, under the defined rules.

      I also thought Britain was a signee to that agreement, thereby protecting the trademark rights of such British firms as Rolls Royce, BP, BBC, Sky, Lowden Guitars, Guiness, Lloyds of London and others.

      Are you implying that I could use Rolls Royce in a domain name and not have to face trademark complaints and litigation from the Rolls Royce company?
      No not at all Im just saying were not as sue happy as our US friends but its getting that way as time goes on LOL

      Gaz Cooper
      Signature

      Beginners Guide to getting started in CRYPTO, FREE Ebook on a Massive Opportunity as the World shifts to Digital payment http://amzauthorityzone.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118367].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by GazCooperOnline View Post

        No not at all Im just saying were not as sue happy as our US friends but its getting that way as time goes on LOL

        Gaz Cooper

        One of the most sue-happy companies (trademark related) on the planet happens to be Sony, and they are not U.S.-based.

        As you know, they are based in Tokyo. (Sony Global - Corporate Information)

        Sony is suing a restaurant in California for trademark infringement.

        And Nissan (another Japanese firm) is suing an American business owner, who shares a last name with the company, for trademark infringement. In the Nissan example, they are suing the owner of Nissan.com, because he bought the domain name before they thought to do so.

        You can read the Nissan vs. Nissan.com story here: http://www.digest.com/


        p.s. Corporations employ corporate lawyers who must sue others to justify their jobs. Corporations are always suing each other, in an attempt to get the legal dept to justify its costs of operation.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4118412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cullen11
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4158904].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Your Brand Ebooks
      Originally Posted by cullen11 View Post

      and if they want it send them cash number that you would be happy with selling it for.
      @cullen11:

      No, that's wrong. When companies send C&D notices to trademark infringers, they have zero interest in letting them keep the trademarked domain, in exchange for cash.
      Signature
      ONCE UPON A TIME there was a Warrior named Bob. He was sad. And frustrated. You see, Warrior Bob spent every last nickel on Internet Marketing e-books. But nothing panned out. No traffic. No sales. He was one sad Bob. Then one day Bob found a bottle. He rubbed it and out came a Genie who granted him 3 wishes. For Wish #1 Bob asked for a pet Dragon. Wish Granted. For Wish #2, Bob wanted Warriors' websites seen by 53 million TV viewers, for under $5 per broadcast. The Genie said... (click here)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4159904].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author cullen11
        Originally Posted by Your Brand Ebooks View Post

        @cullen11:

        No, that's wrong. When companies send C&D notices to trademark infringers, they have zero interest in letting them keep the trademarked domain, in exchange for cash.
        what I'm saying is that some companies send out C&D notices without having the right to even claim domains and try to bully you into doing what they want. Sometimes sticking to your guns will pay off for you. You're also right that they have NO interest in paying you any cash for the name but if they send me a C & D notice it had better be with a cash offer..
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4161520].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by cullen11 View Post

          You're also right that they have NO interest in paying you any cash for the name but if they send me a C & D notice it had better be with a cash offer..
          lol ... they better send you a cash offer for their own name or what, tough guy? Make you a deal. I'll pay for FacebookSonyGoogle.com for you to use. My gift. You report back in awhile about all the cash you've received.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4161677].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            what I'm saying is that some companies send out C&D notices without having the right to even claim domains and try to bully you into doing what they want. Sometimes sticking to your guns will pay off for you. You're also right that they have NO interest in paying you any cash for the name but if they send me a C & D notice it had better be with a cash offer..
            And it is that type of attitude that led to laws about cybersquatting.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4161705].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author harrymcclaire
    hmm.. nv occured to me because i dont have anything to do with those things.

    but if i were to go into it now that u say, i will avoid such thing.

    i want to be able to slp everyday without fear that tmr i will lose my income just because some company decides to sue me.
    lol
    Signature
    Photo Proof of results
    979 clicks, 177 sign ups, 2 sales
    = $133.08 of CB commissions!
    Within 1st day of blast!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4159543].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Deepikarajpal
    i have one domain that contain brand name of hp series but i still dont use that as i buy that one with aim of sell it but dont find buyer till now so i prefer dont go with brand name in domain
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4159651].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Your Brand Ebooks
    Originally Posted by Jason Zalesky View Post

    Just curious if anyone has been contacted by the above names for having their name or product in the domain name?
    According to authority legal website Harvard Law Review, after GodZilla trademark owner Toho Co Ltd sued Sears for using the name "BagZilla", and Toho lost, they began going after small companies & home based businesses who were using "zilla" in a company name or product name. Harvard Law Review suggested Toho's strategy was to win a bunch of small (easy) cases, in order to establish precedence for their trademark protection.

    Anyways, Samsung (normally a legal powerhouse) has messed with Apple (a mega legal pitbull with an immaculate track record) ....and now Apple is putting the hammer down on Samsung for cloning their mobile device software & hardware designs. (fyi recently the courts have ordered Samsung to turn over samples of their unreleased products to Apple)

    Now, I doubt this has anything to do with Samsung now trying to flex it's legal muscles on warrior Jason. .... but Jason, if you call Steve Jobs, you can probably arrange to keep your Samsung domain.
    Signature
    ONCE UPON A TIME there was a Warrior named Bob. He was sad. And frustrated. You see, Warrior Bob spent every last nickel on Internet Marketing e-books. But nothing panned out. No traffic. No sales. He was one sad Bob. Then one day Bob found a bottle. He rubbed it and out came a Genie who granted him 3 wishes. For Wish #1 Bob asked for a pet Dragon. Wish Granted. For Wish #2, Bob wanted Warriors' websites seen by 53 million TV viewers, for under $5 per broadcast. The Genie said... (click here)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4159845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author arjuna79
    For that name I think yess, you should choose another brand name instead of that..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4162891].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anthony C
    Last year I purchased a brand affiliated domain name and put up a website promoting the brands products. The site generated monthly sales for me but after reading several WF threads like this one I decided that it wasn't worth the risk or hassle. I've since re-built the website under a broad category based domain name and 301 redirected all the original pages to new pages on the new domain for peace of mind. The new site actually turned out better since its now category based with all the inner pages promoting my original brand as well as others in the same niche category.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4164539].message }}

Trending Topics