A quick check found these names currently for sale in the highest 50K range on GoDaddys TDNAM.com. It is outrageous and unethical that GoDaddy is allowing these obvious TM violations to be promoted on their site. A six year old could tell you these names would not last two seconds in UDRP arbitration. As an industry leader GoDaddy is setting a terrible example. They need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem:
DisneyStudio.com 50K
KinkosCommercialSolutions.com 50K
JetBlue.tv 50K
BarclaysCapitalGroup.com 50K
David
Couldn’t agree with you more.
The drop sites are no better. Pool.com send out a daily list of dropping domains, often they contain terrible trademark domains.
NameJet.com display’s the dropping domains in the same manner on their site.
We have posted on this problem yet nothing seems to change.
These companies are hurting the domain industry by allowing it and profiting off it from drop auctions, backorders, commission and parked page revenue.
Interesting post and response
Whats different from Snap Names, Name Jet or Anyone else? They all allow TradeMark Names to be bought-
The problem isn’t with the registrars it is with the domainers who buy and sell these tyoe names-
Jeffrey:
Precisely my point. They all need to stop this practice. My examples were so painfully obvious that there is no excusing for allowing them. All this does is give fuel to the fire of others who are looking for ways to enact laws that would make reverse name hijacking easier. If we don’t start policing ourselves, others will.
The registrars should be made to suffer the same consequences as any other wrongful holders of TM names. A cybersquatting suit with awards in the hundreds of thousands for facilitating and allowing the sales of these types of names… Unfortunately the collateral damages would be that we may all get painted as squatters on generic names from the publicity of those lawsuits….
David,
I completely agree with you that these are embarrassing examples of clearly infringing domains. It is simple to see that these names should not be for sale. GoDaddy should avoid helping cybersquatters sell clearly infringing names. I think that they risk being included in a cybersquatting lawsuit especially if the buyer uses an infringing domain to offer services that compete with a trademark owner.
However, registrars should not be required to make any review for trademark infringement before registering a domain name for a customer. Such a requirement would dramatically increase the cost of registrations. Can you imagine GoDaddy requiring a local Ford dealer to provide a license agreement before allowing them to use a domain including Ford? What about a customer having to prove to eNom that WashingtonApples.info was not going to be used to sell computers or mobile phones? I think that offering expired domains to a new registrant probably qualifies as a registration service. The registrar is not working for the benefit of the previous registrant. However, I think that it is in poor taste to include trademarked domains in the promotions for drop services. It makes the entire industry look bad.
My concern here is the aftermarket. People should be free to register whatever names they want for any reason. The aftermarket is a different story and much easier to regulate. I found these names on TDNAM in less than one minute and Go Daddy has them listed for sale in their highest category for 50K each. They stuck out like a sore thumb. At the least, GoDaddy and other registrars should have someone editing their aftermarket domains for such extremely obvious TM violations. And I do stress the word “obvious.”
People like CADNA will never get much mileage using questionable TM violations (like WashingtonApples.info) to support their cause. However, having the world’s largest registar promoting the sale of DisneyStudio.com or JetBlue.tv to the highest bidder is giving them a goldmine on a silver platter.
PS: An excellent example of someone who self-regulates themself is Monte Cahn and his Moniker Auction. Monte will not auction names that have obvious TM violations. There is no reason why Go Daddy can’t follow Monte’s example. And the excuse that Go Daddy has thousands of more names to oversee is weak. The GoDaddy TM violations I pointed out were in their highest price range of 50K. They were extremely easy to spot.
Guys
Here’s another problem. We all assume that everyone who does to sites like TDNAM are experienced domainers who know the rules.
But as we all know Godaddy spends a lot of money advertising on television and get a lot of non-domainer business. Most of their business comes from outside the domainer community.
When people go into a site they see advertised on Television and see a famous and respected race car driver as their spokesperson, it gives credibility to the site. Rightly or wrongly this is the way it is.
Now when you got non-domainers to the site and see domains with famous trademarks for sale at big prices, how many of them think its ok to register and own such names??
We will never no, but my guess is some.
Some people will see a name like Disneystudio.com for sale for $50K and register some infringing names of their own, not knowing anything is wrong with it, especially when they see the name advertised on a site that just advertised on the super bowl.
Excellent point.
Here’s the really sad part of this…
While Pool & the other drop companies certainly traffic in a lot of potentially infringing names, they are not in control of the list.
GoDaddy, on the other hand, has FULL Control over the names here. Clue in, get responsible, don’t list stuff like this.
…oh yeah, am I the only one that finds the category they are all in (over $50k) somehow even more of a violation? I mean, really, if a listing company is going to have a special area with velvet ropes and refined credentials needed to enter… aren’t they a little responsible to keep that area clean of nasty names like these that might stick to one’s shoe?
Toonz
While Pool and the others are not in control of the drop list they are in control, in the case of pool of the daily list they send out with highlighting 20 names dropping the next day, snap is in control of a daily list it sends out and namejet is in control of showing their top bidded names, each one could at least block these obviously abusive names from being highlighted and thereby promoted.
Today the top two most active names at TDNAM are
wiigames.com 24 bids
wiiforum.com 12 bids
so far
It is much deeper then all that is posted here…
I was recently a “member” of a invite only domain forum and was “banned” for asking a domainer to give back a name to my client that they were infringing on my client’s trademark. I stated that my client a major corp was going to file a UDRP and everyone in this forum was horrified that a “fellow domainer” would be involved in such a thing. The funny thing is my client wanted to sue this domainer and would have taken him to the cleaners all I tried to do was resolve it amicably with an email. I stuck to my guns and was booted from the forum in a hail of controversial posts…..go figure- I recevieved many emails after from members in support of my position BUT cybersquatting goes upto to the highest level domaineers…. the highest level and I hit a nerve…..
P.S.
The name ManhattanJeep.Com was transferred to my client after the “infringer’ slandered me in every forum. Manhattan Jeep is the flagship corporate store so imagine what would have ensued had it not been transferred-
COM is not only USA but a worldwide domain extension. Trademarks are not black-and-white. Some are worldwide known like Disney or Sony, but many are only known in one country or for example only in Asia. Furtermore, same trademark names can used by different companies as long as they trade in different goods or services. All this makes it impossible for all these domain name drop services to check for (potential) trademark infringes. Even the example above of Jeffrey. In Europe the word ‘Jeep’ is a common word for a 4×4 vehicle. And Manhattan is a location. So no trademark infringement or whatsoever in my view.
Jeff
I agree with you 100%. Jeep is a registered trademark, well know and world famous and your client was entitled to the domain.
I am also a member of the private forum you mention and was sorry to see you get kicked off for that reason.
Jeroen
No one is suggesting that Godaddy or any of the drop services search every trademark in every jurisdiction to find every trademark.
We are suggesting that they start by barring extremely well know trademarks that we all know and love.
Microsoft is one, Disney is another, Jetblue is another
We all know what trademarks we’re talking about.
Lets not play games.
Lets get it fixed.
Still think it’s a mission impossible for registrars and drop services to check for TM violations.
disneystudio.com? Trademark Disney, or legimate use as a parady website?
Disneytech.com? Trademark Disney, or trademark of a german company named Disney which does research in biotechnology (same trademarks can exist in totally different line of business)?
ibmail.com? Trademark IBM, or name for a new e-mail application?
fordogs? Trademark Ford, or website for dogs?
shellfish.com? Trademark Shell oil company, or website
jeepo.com? Trademark Jeep, or fantasy name for a new web 2.0 business?
Only the intention or actual use can determine trademark infringement. Registrars or drop name companies can not make the judgement. Only the (new) domain name owner is and should be fully responsible for a possible trademark infringement.
To make my point about Jeep clear: While Jeep (with capital) is a trademark, the word jeep (non-capital) is a common term dictionary-word (check for example US dictionary, English Oxford dictionary or French dictionary) for cars like 4×4, army vehicles, or SUVs. Jeep is a genericised trademark, the brand name became a general description. Just like asperin (trademark Bayer) or walkman (trademark Sony). Anyone could publish a magazine about 4x4s and call it ‘American jeeps’, no TM violation. Same for domain names. If the website behind manhattanjeep.com is about Jeeps then it would be a TM violation. If it is about jeeps then no violation. If it is parked then if might be (most ads about Jeeps) or might not be (most ads about jeeps) a TM infringement.
David,
I totally agree. there is a big different between dropping domains and the after market auctions.
I hope one day these companies will be able to control the dropping domains and clean their lists, but they MUST control the after market auctions TODAY. also, like mentioned above, maybe they can’t control the lists, but they can and should control the promotion emails they send.
another great example is FABULOUS – they wont let you park a domain with TM issues.
Jeroen
You are verrry verrry wrong about Jeep. Just because a dictionary defines it a certain way does not mean there is no trademark…..
Should I provide the link for the Jeep Trademark….?
Further, Manhattan Jeep is the name of a business…Isn’t that even more clear of a cybersquatter profiting at another business expense?
This is ridiculous and the gray that is painted here is why Domain values will continue to decline from the values seen just last year-
spinoza:
Ron Jackson told me about Fabulous last night keeping a wary eye out for obvious TM violations (Ron may write about this subject).
I wasn’t aware and I commend Fabulous.
BlueRay.Com just sold or was for sale at the recent Traffic auction….Clearly a Sony trademark, go figure
Blu-Ray is the trademark……So I may be wrong on that one, but still a close call
I agree close call on blueray but not bang on.
I didn’t buy it or bid on it
These are companies that can sniff out and snap up all the dropping premium domains, so no one will ever convince me that OBVIOUS TM domains can’t be identified and kicked out.
Yes, these obvious TM domains ought to be snapped up and, yes, given to the company holding the TM. To buy or sell an obvious TM infringing domain is both illegal and ethically wrong.
Selling a known TM domain for profit is especially regugnant; perhaps if the registrar (who should know better) were required to refund the buyer in case of a UDRP, you’d probably see this problem solved and fast.
On second thought, perhaps these cybersquatters and greedy domain registrars (who hide behind legalese TOS) deserve each other.
Ron Jackson posted about it:
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/05-27-08.htm
David
Nice coverage although I could have lived without the picture.
After we posted on this, I watched the Indy 500 which was basically a 3 1/2 hour commercial for Godaddy, which strikes at the heart of my comment regarding their appeal to non-domainers
You made an excellent point about non-domainers seeing a name like DisneyStudio.com for sale on TDNAM.com and believing it must be OK to buy names like that because of GoDaddy’s worldwide branding.
I think there are a couple of points that should be clarified for everyone.
First, the daily “list” of deleting domains for com/net is published by Verisign and is subsequently made available to potential customers through websites like Pool.com as well as the other drop catchers. It’s a public list. And ALL buyers have access to it including those who have legitimate trademark interests.
Second, Pool.com (and I suspect the same is true for the other drop catchers) publish a short list, or sometimes referred to as a hotlist, that often reflects the most popular domains as represented by the preferences of their customers. With a few exceptions, we only attempt to grab domains for which our customers have placed backorders.
Third, the issue is not whether Pool.com or GoDaddy or anyone in a position to register domain names should allow the registration of domain names that may be contested by a trademark holder. Organizations like Pool.com or GoDaddy do not have the legal right to arbitrate trademark issues.
And finally, there are many organizations that offer brand protection services to their customers. Some are clients of Pool.com and they WANT to see when their clients marks appear in a domain drop so they can proactively manage the possible results. The same would be true for any domain freely available that is registered through any commercail registrar.
Richard
We understand the daily drop lists are published by Verisign and not controlled by any drop service.
We know that the pool “hot list” is based on the number of backorder requests. However the list is only 20 names so certainly someone could go in and make sure disneymovies.com or similar clearly infringing name is not included on the “Hot List”
The fact that the “Hot List” names are the most backordered ones, means there are a lot of people backordering the domain, not just the one cilent trading customers marks.
Likewise NameJet.com could block those names appearing on their “most backordered page”.
Yes the domains will still drop but there is no need to advertise it.
As far as Godaddy is concerned, the original post by Mr. Castello, talked about not drop names but domains that were offered for sale by their owners that were clear trademark infringements and made the point, that they should self police and have a policy of not allowing such domains to be sold through their system.
I would urge pool.com to adopt such a policy for their resale system.