Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05 | They will never see a dime...
The company will close shop and disappear. It was a default judgment meaning OnlineNic didn't even put up a fight. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by Tarheels Fan  :The company will close shop and disappear. It was a default judgment meaning OnlineNic didn't even put up a fight. You are right. It was a default judgment with the accused never even appearing in court(»www.internetretailer.com/dailyNe···id=28865). And no one can be found to actually pay any award. It sounds good in a press release, but means nothing in collecting any dollars.
But at least Verizon got what it really wanted - all the squatted domain names that are like regular Verizon domains.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | its actualy a good thing as the squatter might have been a phisher and could have been using the domain names for botnet master computers |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Why should Verizon get the rights to anything with Verizon in it???
I don't get the rights to myname.com so WTF.
And it makes no sense to award damages. At most they should say you have to allow Verizon to buy the domains from them for what you paid for them and if Verizon is not willing to buy them then they should be allowed to keep them.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :You are right. It was a default judgment with the accused never even appearing in court(» www.internetretailer.com/dailyNe···id=28865). And no one can be found to actually pay any award. It sounds good in a press release, but means nothing in collecting any dollars. Maybe it will go down something like this:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8muHzGb···embedded
This is their whois information:
Admin Contactor::
Name-- OnlineNIC, Inc.
EMail-: ******@onlinenic.com)
org: OnlineNIC, Inc.
351 Embarcadero E.
Oakland,Oakland,US 94606
And google maps puts that address at a vacant lot by the docks:
»maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&g···loc=addr |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :Why should Verizon get the rights to anything with Verizon in it??? I don't get the rights to myname.com so WTF. Your name isn't a trademark. |
|
jvanbrecht
join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD
| reply to r81984
For one, the company was a registrar, which means they likely paid nothing to register the domains in question.
Secondly, its not that they (Verizon and anyone else) are entitled to any domain that uses their name, however any domain that uses their name to advertise competing products is a problem, and if verizon does not aggresively persue trademark dilution/infringement cases, they lose their trademark.
The monies awarded were punitive more so then anything else. As for getting the money, the judge siezed the companies assets. However, they most likely are not going to even come close to getting the $33m. |
|
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
·Comcast
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :Why should Verizon get the rights to anything with Verizon in it??? I don't get the rights to myname.com so WTF. And it makes no sense to award damages. At most they should say you have to allow Verizon to buy the domains from them for what you paid for them and if Verizon is not willing to buy them then they should be allowed to keep them. Um... its called trademark laws. Do you have your name registered as a trademark? Well, there is your difference. |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jvanbrecht
said by jvanbrecht :For one, the company was a registrar, which means they likely paid nothing to register the domains in question. Secondly, its not that they (Verizon and anyone else) are entitled to any domain that uses their name, however any domain that uses their name to advertise competing products is a problem, and if verizon does not aggresively persue trademark dilution/infringement cases, they lose their trademark. The monies awarded were punitive more so then anything else. As for getting the money, the judge siezed the companies assets. However, they most likely are not going to even come close to getting the $33m. A web address is not trademark infrindment, its just a plain text web address. Now if they had Verizon posted all over the site then you have a problem. All I have read is they cybersquatted which it is their right to do. People cybersquatted domains all the time.
If they did not then I would have myname.com.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | reply to espaeth
Ya that looks a bit shady amybe they are like another McColo |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :said by jvanbrecht :For one, the company was a registrar, which means they likely paid nothing to register the domains in question. Secondly, its not that they (Verizon and anyone else) are entitled to any domain that uses their name, however any domain that uses their name to advertise competing products is a problem, and if verizon does not aggresively persue trademark dilution/infringement cases, they lose their trademark. The monies awarded were punitive more so then anything else. As for getting the money, the judge siezed the companies assets. However, they most likely are not going to even come close to getting the $33m. A web address is not trademark infrindment, its just a plain text web address. Now if they had Verizon posted all over the site then you have a problem. All I have read is they cybersquatted which it is their right to do. People cybersquatted domains all the time. If they did not then I would have myname.com. They weren't just registering the domain names. They were making visitors think those websites are authentic verzion websites. |
|
jvanbrecht
join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD
| reply to r81984
You are incorrect. As someone else said, you never trademarked your name, so you have no right to yourname.com. Secondly, you should have acted quicker, I happen to have myname.com hell I also have mywifesname.com (but she has of course changed it now that we are married)...
If the company had registered the domain to use it for something that would fall under fair use rights, then they may have a claim to registering a domain under another companies trademark.
This company, if you read the article, registered 900000 domains related to very large brand names, that shows bad faith and the intention to dilute those trademarks and to use them to make a profit (via advertising).
Anything else you would like to throw my way, I am having a ball shooting you down... |
|
shawuser421
@shawcable.net
| reply to tcope
The thing is it is mainly about the intention of the register. If they registered it because they liked the sound of the name and had an intent to use it later then they wouldn't have had to pay anything to Verizon. Instead they registered all the names with probably the intent of selling it to Verizon for a lot (or maliciously using it which is bad rep on Verizon).
The reason why you can't just sue to get your name is that no one had the intent to sell to you specifically. Like there are millions of JohnDoes out there so registering JohnDoe.com in hopes that one JohnDoe would pay you isn't really illegal. However if it was like JohnDoeAt[address].com you might actually be able to sue as they are targeting you as a person. |
|
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| reply to r81984
All the people telling you that it has to be trademarded are incorrect. A service mark or even just being "known as" is just as good as a trademark. I recently went though a cyber-squatting situation and am very aware of the laws.
You are entitled to the domain of your name. With some caveats, that the person who currently owns it is not. Meaning this: If your name is john smith and you want to register johnsmith.com, but it's already registered by another John Smith, you are out of luck. But if whoever registered johnsmith.com is not name John Smith or has not business named john smith or nothing really tied to the name, you can file a UDRP complaint and potentially be awarded the domain name. Verizon chose to follow the federal lawsuit side, as it lends a financial side by awarding damages. UDRP arbitration does not, and is mediated by independent ICANN panel, not a court. |
|
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
·Comcast
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :A web address is not trademark infrindment, its just a plain text web address. Now if they had Verizon posted all over the site then you have a problem. All I have read is they cybersquatted which it is their right to do. People cybersquatted domains all the time. If they did not then I would have myname.com. Appearently attorneys would disagree.
»www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.···rademark
"Trademark infringement occurs when one party utilizes the mark of another in such a way as to create a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products or services are the same as that of the trademark owner, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by trademark owner. Since most web sites will contain discussions of products or services, web site developers should be aware of the potential trademark issues."
There is no exclusion for web addresses and information on websites. What is written on a website is no different then any other written information. It clearly CAN be trademark infringement!
Again, is your name a registered trademark? can you show that someone is misleading others and this is somehow affecting you by using myname.com?
If you only read that they were cybersquating then it appears that you did not read all of the information. The complaint was that they were representing themselves as Verizon and misleading others and that this action was creating harm to Verizon. |
|
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
·Comcast
| reply to magnushsi
said by magnushsi :All the people telling you that it has to be trademarded are incorrect. A service mark or even just being "known as" is just as good as a trademark. I recently went though a cyber-squatting situation and am very aware of the laws. They are not wrong and I'd say that you are not incorrect either. But what your over looking is that you can have a Trademark and you can have a registered Trademark. If it's registered, protection of the Trademark is greatly extended. So you can be just "known" as something representative of a Trademark and therefore you have certain protection but this is very limited. |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jvanbrecht
said by jvanbrecht :You are incorrect. As someone else said, you never trademarked your name, so you have no right to yourname.com. Secondly, you should have acted quicker, I happen to have myname.com hell I also have mywifesname.com (but she has of course changed it now that we are married)... If the company had registered the domain to use it for something that would fall under fair use rights, then they may have a claim to registering a domain under another companies trademark. This company, if you read the article, registered 900000 domains related to very large brand names, that shows bad faith and the intention to dilute those trademarks and to use them to make a profit (via advertising). Anything else you would like to throw my way, I am having a ball shooting you down... Trademarking means nothing for a web address. It is plain text domain name that anyone has the right to register. When it comes to domains, it is first come first serve. If Verizon wants those names then they should have to buy them from that company for at least what the company paid for them. In no way should that company have to pay Verizon for anything.
If Verizon does not like it then they should not use the internet.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
