Im getting sued for creating a high PR blog!

by 113 replies
138
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.

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.
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.

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?

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
#search engine optimization #blog #creating #high #sued
  • You are using their name.

    Doesnt mather what you want to do with that domain.
  • Banned
    Give up the domain & consider it the cost of a trademark education.
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • 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
  • Banned
    ... 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.

    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.

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

    You got it. You should not infringe on trademarks.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [1] reply
  • 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
    • Banned
      That ship has sailed, the domain is already on their radar.
    • 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.
      • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [2] replies
    • 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
    • Awful and I mean AWFUL advice.

      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
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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?....
      • [1] reply
  • 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
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
  • Banned
    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
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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
      • [1] reply
  • 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
  • Banned
    Your not endorsing Kodak while you have a Kodak domain?

    I'm 83% sure court cost would be more expensive than $260.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [2] replies
  • You could always put pictures of Kodak bears in drag on it.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • You always want to play dress up.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    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).
  • Sing it... Let it go.. Let it go... Turn your back and slam the door!!
    • [1] reply
    • 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
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
      • [1] reply
  • 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.
  • 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 !!
    • [2] replies
    • 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.
      • [1] reply


    • 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
  • Sell it back.
    • [1] reply
    • Buying trademark domains is just playing with fire, if I was you I would do exactly what Kodak was asking me.
  • This is exactly what the domain business does not need.
    Just apologize and give it back to them.
  • Dump the domain, move on.
    Lesson learned.
  • 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.
  • Banned
    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
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • Offer to give up the domain and move on. It's not worth the trouble.
  • May be the person who sold it or let his hands off it, was being sued or got a same letter from Kodak.
  • 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
  • Reading the terms and conditions is the biggest lie ever ahaha I admire people who actually read those...
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
    • [3] replies
    • 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 .
    • 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
    • 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.
      • [1] reply
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • [1] reply
    • Yeah - that's what we've been saying.

      But - you go on to offer legal advice? Oh my:p
  • Education is expensive sometimes. Hope you learned something from this episode/lesson.
    • [1] reply
  • 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.
  • 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
    • Banned
      It's the case of the baited forum thread title.
  • Sbucciarel is thrashing you all, I'm getting the popcorn.

    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      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.
  • 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?
    • [2] replies
    • 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
    • Banned
      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
  • The association is made because a link to your f*******n site is on it.



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


    give this up.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • [DELETED]
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 138

    Im getting sued for creating a high PR blog!

    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.