Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc filed a UDRP on the domain name Gauntlet.com today which is owned by domain investor Garry Chernoff’s company NetIncome Ventures Inc.
The domain name Gauntlet.com has an original registration date May 21, 1995.
Mr. Chernoff’s company according Domaintools.com has owned the domain since at least 2005 but could be the original registrant.
The domain name is parked but is returning links for cell phone cases and other leather products.
Gauntlet according to Wilkipedia.org is a name for several styles of gloves.
Gauntlet It is also the name of many video games over the year also according to Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet
Warner Brothers made a movie in 1977 named The Gauntlet which starred Clint Eastwood.
The domain name has an Estibot.com valuation of $84,000.
We will keep our eye on this one that has Reverse Domain Name Hijacking written all over it.
Clint Eastwood would turn in his grave (if he was dead)…
I searched the names we have on record for Warner Brothers (http://whoisology.com/email/wbol-admin@warnerbros.com?section=admin)
The only Gauntlet domain they have as of our last update is gauntletthegame.com.
I would guess that the dispute was brought in relation to the video games. Warner Bros has a Canadian trademark (Mr. Chernoff is from Canada) for “Gauntlet” (acquired from Midway Games), albeit the wares are for “coin-operated video output game machines.”
There’s also a US trademark registered to Midway Games, although it doesn’t appear to hav yet been assigned to Warner Bros (although the “Attorney of Record” and “Correspondent” is from Warner Bros. Entertainment. That too is for video games. According to Wikipedia, Midway filed for bankruptcy in 2009, and has been liquidating its assets.
I don’t think it’s in relation to the movie. I believe that titles of a single creative work can’t be trademarked, at least in the USA, see:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/resources/exam/examguide4-06.jsp#Single
(whereas a series of creative works, like Harry Potter, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., can be trademarked)
Lets hope that Warner Brothers are forced to smell the glove.
Sold the .org many years ago for a good chunk. The buyers never used it.
Trademark holders need to understand how the current rules don’t even benefit them, in some circumstances. For example, we own a domain of a term that is being used in the domains of several companies, one of which has a trademark on the term in a particular area of business (and we have made sure that our parking links do not cover that area of business or particularly relate to any of the companies).
Now if we decide that we want to sell that domain, we can contact all of those companies except the one which has the trademark, as that would then be considered to be cybersquatting. So they won’t be contacted and won’t have a chance to buy the domain, which will then be used by another company in another area of business.
Looks like a RDNH. I never leave killer. com names on a parked page. The parking providers leave you out to hang if there is a problem. Trying to filter out potential trademark ads can be very difficult. imo.
If they get a rdnh finding Mr. Chernof should sue them an new a$$hole.
I bet you they did not even attempt to purchase it, why bother when you can have a udrp for legal lunch money.
I just checked the term “gauntlet” and can say that there are 110 (one hundred and ten) + listed trade marks (live and expired) including several or “Atari” for games some dating back to before 1980 . UDRP is now soooo badly abused and perverted that the only answer is to take the matter to Court as there you have a much much better chance of retaining the domain.
Okay, did I miss something or do movie companies get special dispensation to copyright titles? No; I didn’t miss anything. You can’t copyright titles. Only content.
Next: I’ve done some checking, and while there are NUMEROUS trademarks for “gauntlet” and “the gauntlet”, I did NOT find one issued to Warner Bros.
This is a good case to watch for HallOfShame.com.