The domain name NiceCar.com was just hit with a UDRP
While the domain seems very generic to me, NICE CAR, INC. of Fort Collins, Colorado has a trademark which was filed on May 24, 2005 but not granted until February 6, 2007.
Having said that we have often noted that almost every word, saying, expression and two and three letter combination has a trademark on it somewhere
The domain name has a registration date of August 2000.
The domain holder may not be helping himself with his landing page:
Free for the taking…just file the UDRP
Why do these pigs only go for the .com, this was imagined as it is easier to steal in america, than earn your keep.
UDRP was never designed for these type of disputes. It was designed for obvious TM issues, not generic terms.
The main problem is since UDRP was designed, domains and especially .COM, have become far more valuable.
This process is long overdue to be modified. It has gotten out of hand at this point.
The fact (1) idiot panelist can turn over a generic asset without any appeal process or accountability is ridiculous.
I think it would be a good business model to just file UDRP’s on a bunch of generic domains. All it takes is (1) idiot panelist, like the Vanity.com, to make that a solid “investment”.
Brad
I suppose they will go after my NiceDrive.com and even NiceTry.com next.
At the end of the day – they are hoping for a 1 person panel and a no response – just right out of the UrbanHome.com mold ?
This term has 10M Google results in quotes, and is used in everyday language.
There are also many other companies in the same space using the same brand –
http://www.nicecar1977.com/
http://www.nicecarcompany.com/
http://www.nicecarinc.com/
http://www.nicecarautotransport.com/
http://www.nicecarautosales.com/
That is just a few of the many. These types of disputes are absurd.
Instead or working on this process, and other things that need to be addressed, ICANN is too concerned pimping gTLD for their own financial gain.
If you think UDRP is bad….just wait for URS.
Brad
There is a slogan – “Why Build a Brand When You Can Buy One?”
I think it needs to be changed to – “Why Buy a Brand When You Can Steal One?”
Brad
“The domain holder may not be helping himself with his landing page”. so, it would be better to park it? i guess not. would it be better to not resolve at all? i guess not.
putting a “for sale” page and NO content or ads in generic domains, or using a page with dummy content with NO ads or potentially infringing content for domains that we can reasonably imagine that can subject to some dispute are the best options imho. the rest is becoming a lottery.
no one can think of every possible angle of attack and selling property for profit with no “productive work” can not be assumed to be unlawfully also by domainers. the more we hide the more decisions like this will become common.
what bullshit
I have to think Ari has seen this claim – just thinking of the Reverse Hijacking he got for CarSales.com a few years back – seriously I am tempted to drive up to Fort Collins just to see what kind of wankers would file a claim like this…
Does anybody know this guy and that he does not just have to roll over – it seems to me that even though the Chinese have not exactly made a good name for themselves with ripoffs – they generally do not respond to generic stuff like this because of a language barrier – saddy ?
Jose
Maybe just not quote $100,000 on the page
Zoom in on this (and use the google little walking man) and find out what “mega” corp is presumably claiming secondary market in “Nice Car” – something a bit less than “joe’s garage”
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.aWc&biw=1688&bih=868&wrapid=tlif136244668911610&q=100+Riverside+Avenue+Fort+Collins+COLORADO&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87694af324c8ba55:0xbdc0a9cd24703bee,100+Riverside+Ave,+Fort+Collins,+CO+80524&gl=us&sa=X&ei=eUk1UefAFeSwyQG_o4Bg&ved=0CC0Q8gEwAA
This South Korean (I stand corrected) needs to respond to this garbage.
As far as the $100K offer – well the Complainant resides in the USA – that means he should know all about the 14th amendment of equal access – in domain world – that means offering the domain for sale grants “equal” access tot he domain.
Not that great of a domain name to hold a discussion about. The best domain is obviously the plural version.
@Mike,
I would minimize the domain name image so it does not spill on your side categories. Maybe shrink it a little. We can click on the image to see the details. Thanks.
@BrianWick i did not quite understood what you meant with this
“14th amendment of equal access – in domain world – that means offering the domain for sale grants “equal” access tot he domain.”
So Jose – here is the way I see it 🙂
Where does the value of a domain come from?
Hypothetically – if Pepsi can gain control Pepsi.com from a notorious well documented “CyberSquatter”,
Yet Coke CANNOT gain control of Coke.com from a 14 year old kid who only has 1 domain and a bottle of Coke on the website – and therefore he is not a CyberSquatter,
then Coke is forced to buy their way into the .com Internet Space to prevent Pepsi from having an unfair .com advantage – Coke would be a victim of a violation of the US 14th Amendment – and, moreover, it is Coke (the TM holder) that creates the value of Coke.com – not extortion from a CyberSquatter.
In effect ACPA contradicts itself – and therefore, is unconstitutional.
In order to keep the playing field fair between competing businesses, such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, the 14th Amendment must be protected and in protecting the 14th Amendment, ACPA bad faith and the “Cyber-Squatter” label must be trivialized or even eliminated.
However, in eliminating ACPA bad faith, the ACPA (d)(1)(B)(ii) bad faith clause is also eliminated, and therefore, this eliminates the 1st Amendment of Free Speech (i.e. fair use) and the 6th Amendment which grants the American people, via jury, to determine what is right or wrong and also to be the executioner.
So Jose – I keep all this stuff on an unmentioned website – Are you sorry you asked friend 🙂