THIS IS THE DISCUSSION THREAD ABOUT AMERICA.MOBI AND CHRISTOPHER NOFAL AT A PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM WHICH I AM A MEMBER OF.
CHRISTOPHER NOFAL FILED A FAKE DMCA COMPLAINT TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM AFTER BEING CAUGHT WITH MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE POTENTIAL BUYERS OF HIS DOMAIN AND PUSH HIS AGENDA REGARDING THE SALE OF HIS DOMAIN - AMERICA.MOBI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
America.mobi is for sale. (not mine )
Just saw this on ebay. Would have thought this would have been kept back at as 'premium', but guess not. It was a pre-reg, May 22 2006, so someone pulled a
fast one on trademarks it seems!
link - http://cgi.ebay.com/AMERICA-mobi-Domain-Name-Starting-at-1_W0QQitemZ220219656538QQihZ012QQcategoryZ46689QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
I saw that also and that is the explanation I got.
That really really sucks.
There are something like 7500 trademarks with the word America in it and someone somehow weaseled their way into securing this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
They applied for the trademark in 2002 it seems.... fair play to the guy.. sneaky git ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
This may be a violation of all of mTLD's terms and rules.
Perhaps a classic case of when to enforce.
Nearly two years and no site and it directs no where.
This is the type of scamming and bogus TM claims that destroyed .eu from the beginning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>>This may be a violation of all of mTLD's terms and rules.
>>Perhaps a classic case of when to enforce.
>>Nearly two years and no site and it directs no where.
This is the type of scamming and bogus TM claims that destroyed .eu from the beginning.
You can't blame someone for trying though can you? I don't know that .eu has been destroyed by this kind of activity - it's just an odd TLD in the 1st place;
similar but not quite as odd as .Asia....
At the end of the day someone will buy America.mobi, someone will make a few quid & the name will most likely be developed sooner or later; if someone
offered me a way to buy it I probably would have... we're only human.. (I think?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
This type of thing is flat out wrong! The whole idea of claiming a TM is to protect your brand or use the name to promote your company. You don't claim the
name to then sell it a year or so later. This has bad faith written all over it and mtld should step in if possible. I believe the same thing happened with *****.mobi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> You can't blame someone for trying though can you? I don't know that .eu has been destroyed by this kind of activity - it's just an odd TLD in the 1st
place; similar but not quite as odd as .Asia....
At the end of the day someone will buy America.mobi, someone will make a few quid & the name will most likely be developed sooner or later; if someone
offered me a way to buy it I probably would have... we're only human.. (I think?)
.eu was one of the most poorly handled launches. Bogus registries set up all over the world. Fake TM claims. 4 people arrested and 40,000 domains seized in
the UK. In the US, 12 people set up 3 bogus registries and registered 300,000 domains, mostly the prime LLL.eu and NNN.eu as well as the generics. I believe their case
is still pending.
Fortunately, .eu was launched in the spring of 06 and .mobi in the fall of 06.
Sure, I would buy it if it was reasonable. But I am not sure how many hands it has already changed. Plus, considering it is so heavily trademarked, there may
be pending action against it right now and the seller is trying to unload it. Or, you buy it and the next thing you know your name is being WIPO'd and you end up
losing all of your investment.
Then what, turn around and sue the person who sold it to me? That would be my only course of action.
Either way, it can be a huge mess and ultimately lose it for registering in bad faith.
The way I see it, with .mobi becoming so hot you may in fact see a ton of legal actions coming down.
I for one don't want to think that if I owned it and won a case that there are hundreds more right behind it.
I could win them all. But the time involved and loss of expense does not make it worth it.
AMERICA 7662 Records(s) found (This page: 1 ~ 50) uspto.gov
But nothing in the WHOIS and the Trademark database matches up which indicates to me that there is a great possibility that the seller does not have rights
to the domain name and filed a false claim to obtain it.
whois:
Domain ID13497-MOBI
Domain Name:AMERICA.MOBI
Created On:22-May-2006 14:00:39 UTC
Last Updated On:02-Apr-2008 05:30:21 UTC
Expiration Date:22-May-2008 14:00:39 UTC
Trademark Name:america
Trademark Country:US
Trademark Number:2727241
Date Trademark Applied For:2002-06-21
Date Trademark Registered:2003-06-17
Sponsoring Registrar:Encirca, Inc. (455)
Created by Registrar:Encirca, Inc. (455)
Last Updated by Registrar:Encirca, Inc. (455)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:NOFAL1
Registrant Name:Christopher Paul
Registrant Street1:2109 Mill Rd.
Registrant City:Alexandria
Registrant State/Province:VA
Registrant Postal Code:22314
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2026838743 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1.2026838743 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Registrant Email:delta90046 [at] gmail [dot] com
Trademark info:
Typed Drawing
Word Mark AMERICA
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer software, namely, a suite of software for document sharing, accessing the internet,
teleconferencing and video conferencing, computer system testing and debugging over computer networked and localized workstations; software for testing web page
efficiency; software for modular database management used to store and access information over computer networks; downloadable software that provides modular database
management; downloadable software that utilizes a modular database to facilitate file and information sharing. (Class 9). FIRST USE: 19970601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
19970601
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 78137502
Filing Date June 21, 2002
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition March 25, 2003
Registration Number 2727241
Registration Date June 17, 2003
Owner (REGISTRANT) DreamLab, LLC LTD LIAB CO FLORIDA 10190 Scott Mill Rd. Jacksonville FLORIDA 32257
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
To me, theft is theft and fraud is fraud. For what ever purpose or gain.
This person could find themselves in a pile of trouble as well as the new owner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
Yo dont hate on a brother making some $$, seems he was smarter then us all if he did what you claim.
i agree with you .eu was a big skam even me with my trademark could even get my company name and i apply'd 2 times
they rejected me telling me some bull**** reason.
how mutch will the domain get ya think
i gue$$ 10-15K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> Sir dont hate on a brother making some $$, seems he was smarter then us all if he did what you claim.
i agree with you .eu was a big skam even me with my trademark could even get my company name and i apply'd 2 times
they rejected me telling me some bull**** reason.
>> how mutch will the domain get ya think
>> i gue$$ 10-15K
I don't hate anybody (okay, maybe I do but not here).
But to me this is poison when consumed and there is no antidote. In other words, it is deadly.
If this person registered it by filing a bogus claim to ownership using a federally registered trademark, that in itself could bring down a heap of hurting.
This smacks of bad faith all over it not to mention wire fraud and federal offenses.
There is no doubt I would love to own this. Who wouldn't want a gem like this.
As a portal or sub-domain?
america.mobi
Flights.america.mobi
hotels.america.mobi
CityGuide.america.mobi
north.america.mobi
south.america.mobi
central.america.mobi
news.america.mobi
search.america.mobi
Value?
Perhaps millions to the proper end user that made this an international portal.
But, that is just speculation.
But the whole point of having the application process was to ensure the names went to the proper holders.
Mercedes-Benz.mobi is held by someone in china with bmw ads on it.
The problem here is there may not have been much fanfare with the pre-launch marketing.
A brother making money is free-enterprise.
A brother being slapped with a fraud lawsuit is just another brother being stupid.
And a brother filing bankruptcy so he don't have to pay me back the money from the purchase even knowing the he regged it under false pretenses is just
another brother pulling a fast one and laughing.
And me buying it knowing what I know (even though I love it) would make me one stupid brother.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.
If America.mobi is used for another purpose like travel wouldn't that be a ligitimate good faith use ?
It seems that it's used for trademark as a computer co.
This is a far cry from let's say slipping in and regging google.mobi & using it as a travel port but America ,Come on!! Something is wrong here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.
This general topic has been addressed before. I don't think there is any requirement that a sunrise TM reg be developed. Nor is there any limitation that
they can't later sell it. If Apple Inc decided tomorrow to sell apple.mobi, they would be within their rights to do so.
The motives in making the reg and later selling it is ultimately irrelevant. mTLD isn't the motive police, nor are they the TM police, TM's are issued by
govt agencies, all mTLD could do was see if the TM was issued and then honor that legal TM. If there is a question about whether or not an issued TM is "right", that
isn't mTLD's job to handle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> This general topic has been addressed before. I don't think there is any requirement that a sunrise TM reg be developed. Nor is there any limitation that
they can't later sell it. If Apple Inc decided tomorrow to sell apple.mobi, they would be within their rights to do so.
>> The motives in making the reg and later selling it is ultimately irrelevant. mTLD isn't the motive police, nor are they the TM police, TM's are issued by
govt agencies, all mTLD could do was see if the TM was issued and then honor that legal TM. If there is a question about whether or not an issued TM is "right", that
isn't mTLD's job to handle.
That I understand. But, looking at TopHatters question:
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> If America.mobi is used for another purpose like travel wouldn't that be a ligitimate good faith use ?
>> It seems that it's used for trademark as a computer co.
>> This is a far cry from let's say slipping in and regging google.mobi & using it as a travel port but America ,Come on!! Something is wrong here.
The concern here is if this guy filed a false claim using someone else's TM registration info, then there could be some serious implications here, lawsuit,
fines, and perhaps prison?
None of which I care to participate in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> That I understand. But, looking at TopHatters question:
>> The concern here is if this guy filed a false claim using someone else's TM registration info, then there could be some serious implications here,
lawsuit, fines, and perhaps prison?
>> None of which I care to participate in.
I'd feel comfortable with this domain but that's just expressing my own opinion for myself. If anyone has legal concerns with this or any domain name I
suggest getting professional legal advice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> I'd feel comfortable with this domain but that's just expressing my own opinion for myself. If anyone has legal concerns with this or any domain name I
suggest getting professional legal advice.
Even with that TM registration number attached to it in the WHOIS info?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.
"My 2 cents" (why do I always think of that guy when I say that ;-)
America is not a term that can be trademarked........ period!
If someone had a TM for use of the word "america" in association with a product etc... yes, maybe there are TM's out there (in fact we all there are).
However, it is not like a brand name... it's wholly unenforcable & the owner is (IMHO) very likely to be in the clear (excepting the Snowe Bill - which I
think will disappear under the carpet anyway)
The means of acquiring the name may be suspicious but which one of the other xxx number of TM holders could lay claim to it... so many TM holders, just one
name!
So I can't imagine anyone having a much better claim....
America is a country - as long as the use of the name is relevant to that I really can't imagine any claim being upheld (i.e. use for travel, weather,
history, geography, whats on, gossip, politics, cuisine etc... )
If there is a TM for "America Candy Bars" & the new owner sets up a candy store in competition there could be a claim... but other than that, I can't see any
issues.
There is also a perfectly legitimate route to market for any TM terms / products etc..
The company may simply be dissolved & the Intellectual property / licences could be sold off.
The holding company could be taken over & the brand / TM / IP sold off by the new owner... etc etc... the list is endless.
The snowe bill is the only viable threat to a name like this.... good luck to whichever of the forum members wins the name! Don't forget to let us know
when you've got it in the hole! ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> "My 2 cents" (why do I always think of that guy when I say that ;-)
Because he's a twit?
Oops, thought this was a quiz.
I think many are missing the primary point here.
America is a Trademark Name...at least in this particular instance. More than 7000 as a matter of fact. Either solely for the word America or America in that
trademarked name.
And in this particular instance, not only is America a TM name, this domain was registered using a specific US Patent and Trademark Office registration
number. This particular TM attached to the domain name is for a Trademarked drawing for the word America.
The WHOIS clearly shows that this domain name is/has been awarded to the holder based on the application.
No, mTLD is not the TM police.
The following statement is assumptions based on the differing information:
Fraud is fraud. The holder of this domain name registered it in bad faith and illegally. Period.
He submitted an application. On that application he indicated that he had rights to that domain name. He claimed he/she was the TM holder of TM Registration
Number 2727241.
So lets assume that this is, in fact, totally bogus and fraudulent.
You buy the domain name, set up a site etc.
Along comes the actual TM holder and declares rights to the name.
Do you think you can win? Do you think Private WHOIS will protect you? Do you think the TM registration number will drop off?
Oddly enough, the USPTO has devoted a section to "america" in their domain name rulings: http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1200.htm#_T120903m
1209.03(n) “America” or “American”
If “AMERICA” or “AMERICAN” appears in a phrase or slogan, the examining attorney must evaluate the entire mark to determine whether it is merely descriptive
as laudatory or even incapable. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and
descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness); In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1984) (AMERICA’S FRESHEST ICE CREAM
held incapable); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA’S FAVORITE POPCORN held merely descriptive). Typically, these marks primarily extol the
quality or popularity of the goods or services and secondarily denote geographic origin. The examining attorney must look at each mark to determine whether it is
capable, considering all relevant circumstances and case law.
See TMEP §1210.02(b)(iv) and cases cited therein regarding use of terms such as “AMERICA,” “AMERICAN,” and “USA” in a way that is primarily geographically
descriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2), primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3), or deceptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).
Now, there is a ton of laws regarding trademarks:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html
Some to note are:
Remedies
[edit] Injunction
Injunctions are a standard remedy for trademark infringement. The usual injunction is to halt production and sale of infringing goods and services.
In some cases, the court might also award an injunction for corrective advertising, which forces the defendant to pay for an amount of advertising necessary
to reverse the damage to the plaintiff's mark.
[edit] Damages
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, damages for trademark infringement are based on:
1. defendant's profits
2. damages sustained by the plaintiff
3. cost of bringing the lawsuit
The plaintiff is responsible for proving the defendant's sales under point 1, as well as their own damages and costs under point 2 and point 3. The defendant
is responsible for proving their costs to reach a final figure for defendant's profits.
It appears that fines and penalties are levied on a case by case basis. But the record that I have been able to find is 1998 3.3 million $$$ against someone
using an IBM trademark.
This is a gem and anybody would want it.
Problem is, anybody and everybody would want it. Including all who have a rightful claim to this TM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.
:S
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> America is not a term that can be trademarked........ period!
Yes, of course it can be trademarked, just like any other generic term. The point is how the brand is used. Like you said, there could be a TM for America™
brand candy bars. You won't be awarded a TM for Chocolate™ brand chocolate bars. But you could get a TM for Chocolate™ brand cell phones, like LG Electronics has.
Forget about getting a TM for Apple™ brand apple pie. But we all know about Apple Inc, the computer, music, cellphone and software co. And there are other companies
with TM for the term Apple, selling stuff like pick axes that have no connection to Apple Inc.
There are many companies in non competing industries using the trademarked term "Quantum". This is how the game is played with generic terms. But if the term
is invented then the rules can change. I have a feeling I'd have a very hard time getting a TM for Google™ brand yogurt, the lawyers would be all over me like white on
rice.
I'm not sure why there seems to be such misunderstanding about how trademarks can work but this topic comes up time and again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> Yes, of course it can be trademarked, just like any other generic term. The point is how the brand is used. Like you said, there could be a TM for
America™ brand candy bars. You won't be awarded a TM for Chocolate™ brand chocolate bars. But you could get a TM for Chocolate™ brand cell phones, like LG Electronics
has. Forget about getting a TM for Apple™ brand apple pie. But we all know about Apple Inc, the computer, music, cellphone and software co. And there are other
companies with TM for the term Apple, selling stuff like pick axes that have no connection to Apple Inc.
>> There are many companies in non competing industries using the trademarked term "Quantum". This is how the game is played with generic terms. But if the
term is invented then the rules can change. I have a feeling I'd have a very hard time getting a TM for Google™ brand yogurt, the lawyers would be all over me like
white on rice.
>> I'm not sure why there seems to be such misunderstanding about how trademarks can work but this topic comes up time and again.
I understand how Trademarks work but I also have an idea for how they can't & don't apply...
The TM under which this name was applied for - basically a trademarked piece of Graphic design based on the word "America" - lets say it was in luminous
violet & had stretched letters leaning backwards...
Anyone using that graphic could be sued by the TM holder.
A domain doesn't come in any particular font or color or have any predaliction to any use in any niche - it cannot by default become party to a TM issue
until it is used in a way that contravenes an identifiable TM, even then, the TM holder has to find the contravention, prove that it is such & then go to court.
Given that there are so many TM's that include "america" just dilutes the value of each & every claim that any TM holder would plausibly have in a court of
law.
You forget, the domain could be used anywhere on the planet & by any of the TM holders for that matter.
It is a nonsense argument; abuse of a TM has to be specific & provable - especially with a Generic term..
I agree with you that if I was to promote my brand of "google" ice cream I'd be skating on thin ice because I could shown quite easily to be riding on the
back of googles global brand.
America is a country & again I mention the Snowe Bill as it is the only way that ownership of "america" as a term could be threatened...
As long as the owner doesn't use the name to contravene any clear TM's they have nowt to worry about.... it's a term similar to "business" it's so widely
used that any court would dismiss all but the most blatant breaches of existing TM's - all of which will by their nature be quite specific & limited in their powers..
for example there could feasibly be 1,000 TM's protecting 1,000 different graphic designs incorporating the word "america" & they would all be equally valid (they
would all need to be different of course) but there are an infinite number of ways that you could design a graphic around the word; leading to an infinite number of
potential TM's but as long as you didn't breach any of them you would still have no issues with owning & using the domain name...
I used to get really worried about the small print with contracts, I took it all verbatim & wondered about all the what ifs??...
It's like reading the medical info that comes with your precriptions... side effects may include, rash, nausea, headaches & rarely death!
It's the same with all this TM b*llsh*t - the small print looks scary but it's just the way we live these days.. it's all in black & white but you learn
where the real risks are & ignore all the crap that serves to turn us all into nervous nellies....
If anyone wants to test the situation - send me some $$$'s & I'll buy the bloody thing & prove it to you
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.
Alright Already!! Who has the poker face here ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonyomus
>> I understand how Trademarks work but I also have an idea for how they can't & don't apply...
Again, I think you are missing the point here.
There is a clearly defined TM registration number with this domain name.
So who has rights to this domain name?
The person who regged it under false pretenses because he got to it first?
Or the party that owns the TM that the registration applies to?
And mentioning of the Snowe Bill...
seems to me that this gives the snow bill some teeth to bite into this which is exactly what we do not need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.
The relevance of the TM vis a vis the initial registration is not great in my opinion. This was only relevant at 1st registration, I'm pretty sure the TM
exists which means that the registration was & is legit.
You have a sound argument (to a point) IF the registrant was fraudulently claiming to be a TM holder IF they aren't but that's a side issue.
The TM holder (if it isn't the registrant) would have no better claim on the name than any of the other xxx number of TM holders; I believe that the
registration was crafty but I see nothing to show that it was criminal..
Adding to that; the name was under no restrictions & therefore is free to be sold on to a new owner (regardless of whether the new owner has any interest in
any TM)
There is no link between the domain name & the TM in my opinion... that was simply a requirement for the initial registration... the chap that regged it did
well to get it, now it's his to sell to the highest bidder..
It really does seem that simple to me, there is no legal tie between the domain & the TM that was used to procure it..
I'd buy it tomorrow if you'd be happy to lend us a few bob
Well, I'm off to bed; it's almost 2am here & my kids will be up in 5hrs
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> Again, I think you are missing the point here.
>> There is a clearly defined TM registration number with this domain name.
>> So who has rights to this domain name?
>> The person who regged it under false pretenses because he got to it first?
>> Or the party that owns the TM that the registration applies to?
And mentioning of the Snowe Bill...
seems to me that this gives the snow bill some teeth to bite into this which is exactly what we do not need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
23.
REPLY BY mxmaxtor
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> The relevance of the TM vis a vis the initial registration is not great in my opinion. This was only relevant at 1st registration, I'm pretty sure the TM
exists which means that the registration was & is legit.
That is correct. At the present time, it appears that the dotMobi registry has retained all the original TM info that was used during the Sunrise
Registration period. This information no longer corresponds to the dotmobi registrants if the domains have been transferred. This appears to be an error on the part of
the dotMobi Registry.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> You have a sound argument (to a point) IF the registrant was fraudulently claiming to be a TM holder
ONLY the original TM holder would have a valid claim. Any action on the part of the Registry or a 3rd party would be moot. The only way to know for sure
would be to contact the TM holder to determine whether the domain was registered by them originally. If the domain was improperly registered, ONLY the original TM
holder would be able to file a UDRP complaint through ICANN or have any type of claim.
To be honest, this entire thread seems ridiculous since the original TM info supplied during the Sunrise Period does not correspond to the registrants
anymore.
Last edited by mxmaxtor; 04-07-2008 at 04:52 AM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> It really does seem that simple to me, there is no legal tie between the domain & the TM that was used to procure it...
I'll respect everyone's opinion. But,
It really does seem that simple to me, there is STRONG illegal tie between the domain & the TM that was used to procure it...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.
REPLY BY mxmaxtor
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> This may be a violation of all of mTLD's terms and rules.
>> Perhaps a classic case of when to enforce.
>> Nearly two years and no site and it directs no where.
Actually, this is exactly what the dotMobi Registry had in mind: http://mtld.mobi/domain/faq/general
The dotMobi registry either wants all websites to be non-resolving or built according to the dotMobi Switch On! guidelines.
Q: Do I have to have a web site associated with my .mobi registration to be compliant?
A: No, but once you have a site, it must be compliant. If you wish to put up content at once, dotMobi has a "parked page" template as well as a template for
a simple web site that you can use. You can access these tools in our developer community, dev.mobi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.
REPLY BY mxmaxtor
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> I'll respect everyone's opinion. But,
>> It really does seem that simple to me, there is STRONG illegal tie between the domain & the TM that was used to procure it...
Not sure how you deduce that. Being a trademark attorney myself, this mark seems perfectly valid. As was mentioned before, there are numerous companies that
trademark generic words. For example, Microsoft has a trademark to the word "PASSPORT." Ralph Lauren has a trademarks to words like "DEER" and "CORPORATE" to describe
the types of colors for their paints. If Ralph Lauren or Microsoft so wished, they could have obtained passport.mobi or corporate.mobi. Other organizations have
trademarks to words like "ASIA" to describe different flavors of candy.
For example, if you were AMEX, and let's say you made a product called "BLUE" and it describes your credit card, I'm sure you wouldn't want MasterCard or
VISA to also have a credit card called BLUE. The dotMobi Registry had a lottery in place for situations where multiple companies had the same trademark for different
types of products. Situations like this happen all the time, and they are NOT ILLEGAL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.
If you believe that generic word trademarks are invalid, you should contact your local congressman; this is permitted by trademark law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> I'll respect everyone's opinion. But,
>> It really does seem that simple to me, there is STRONG illegal tie between the domain & the TM that was used to procure it...
It is not clear to me that the domain registrant is not the TM holder. Since the TM records at USPTO.gov don't list a personal name, the differing addresses
are easily explained by someone simply moving or having a second address. Need more proof to say with certainty that something fraudulent or illegal has happened here.
But I understand anyones hesitation if they don't want anything to do with this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
29.
Quote Originally Posted by mxmaxtor
>> Not sure how you deduce that. Being a trademark attorney myself, this mark seems perfectly valid. As was mentioned before, there are numerous companies
that trademark generic words. For example, Microsoft has a trademark to the word "PASSPORT." Ralph Lauren has a trademarks to words like "DEER" and "CORPORATE" to
describe the types of colors for their paints. If Ralph Lauren or Microsoft so wished, they could have obtained passport.mobi or corporate.mobi. Other organizations
have trademarks to words like "ASIA" to describe different flavors of candy.
>> For example, if you were AMEX, and let's say you made a product called "BLUE" and it describes your credit card, I'm sure you wouldn't want MasterCard or
VISA to also have a credit card called BLUE. The dotMobi Registry had a lottery in place for situations where multiple companies had the same trademark for different
types of products. Situations like this happen all the time, and they are NOT ILLEGAL.
Welcome, and thanks for coming on.
In order that there is no confusion who says what or is implying what, a review of the issue may be needed.
The mark is valid, no question about that on my end.
What is in question, and assumed, is that the registrant of the domain name, America.mobi, obtained this domain by submitting an application with false and
misleading information.
It is possible, but highly unlikely, that someone in Virginia would be selling a TM that is owned by a business in Florida.
Based on the WHOIS information indicating the TM registration number and the TM database, this is precisely the case.
If this is the situation, then the person selling the domain name associated with that TM Registration number is essentially selling not only the domain name
but the rights to that TM? And this is a live TM?
I find this highly unlikely.
And for those that think this TM number attached to the domain name would just simply disappear with the change of hands are very wrong.
This is an active live TM in the database.
Futhermore, mTLD awarded this domain based on the information submitted. Information that is now a matter of public record. Information that is now and
forever indexed in the WHOIS database. Information that will not disappear.
Is it any wonder why the domain is not forwarded or parked?
No where in the listing for the eBay auction does it mention the TM associated with it. Is this required by law? No, not on ebay.
But it seems to me that if someone, the legit owner of this domain name, wanted to really hit one out of the park...simply stating that they are the TM
holder and they are selling this name along with the rights to Registered TM Number 2727241...mercy's sake...this would be a million dollar opportunity.
Now, sorry if I am bursting anyone's bubble here or ruining the parade by talking someone out of bidding on this gem.
Fair warning to all...and no, I am not bidding. My ebay user name is circa1850 (for sales and purchases), EaglesDomain (for sales), and NutsOfClay (for
purchases...antique pottery).
Also, while looking for info on this, I did find these nice little sites:
http://www.hotelsinamerica.mobi/
http://www.flytoamerica.mobi/
http://weatherinamerica.mobi/
Anyone here?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.
Did some more sleuthing on this topic, just some info to share:
looked up the whois of DreamLab.us
Domain Name DREAMLAB.US
Domain ID D2450020-US
Sponsoring Registrar BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
Domain Status ok
Registrant ID CN1214-BR
Registrant Name Christopher Nofal
Registrant Organization DreamLab, LLC
Registrant Address1 P.O. Box 1507
Registrant City St. Augustine
Registrant State/Province FL
Registrant Postal Code 32085
Registrant Country United States
Registrant Country Code US
Registrant Phone Number +01.9042620790
Registrant Facsimile Number +01.9042620790
Registrant Email legal@sharingsolutions.com
St. Augustine is about 20 miles from Jacksonville, FL, the location of the TM for America. Notice the e-mail here and go to sharingsolutions.com and you will
find a page regarding America brand software.
The whois for sharingsolutions.com goes to
Administrative Contact:
DreamLab, LLC
DreamLab, LLC (legal@sharingsolutions.com)
866-800-9846 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 866-800-9846 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: 866-800-9846
PO Box 228
Atlanta, GA 30318-9056
US
So DreamLab LLC is now found in 2 states.
Maybe a few phone calls could clear this whole thing up.
EDIT: Also did a search on Christopher Nofal and it turns out this person was also tied up in a dispute over america.info. Just more information, not drawing
any conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
31.
REPLY BY mxmaxtor
Hi all-
I contacted Mr. Nofal. He a manager of DreamLab and is aware the domain is for sale on eBay. Looks like everything is cleared up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
32.
This is all a storm in a tea cup.... Maxtor put it so much better than I did & while I accept that generic terms are frequently trademarked the terms are very
specific; the 'Blue' Amex card example is a very good one....
America.mobi is there for the taking (IMHO)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> This is all a storm in a tea cup...
a thimble is more like it.
Stick around and ride this storm out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.
Anyone here going for it?
We should club together - put $250 each into the kitty & buy it for the 'community' (is that such a silly idea?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
35.
I say you can always trust a seller who has accumulated 36 positive feedbacks for a perfect 100% rating...
all accomplished in less than 2 weeks, all with no previous sales, all with the purchasing of e-books ranging from 1 cent to about 36 cents (mostly one
cent...wouldn't want to spend more than $2.00 getting this wonderful feedback), and all with instant positive feedback generation as soon as that shiny penny is paid.
Any wonder why eBay is banning these sales?
Oh, and the use of the Apple logo is a classic touch to an already questionable TM matter.
Yes, makes me feel much better about not calling this a bull**** reg and bull**** fraud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
36.
mx, are you telling me you called a stranger at around 1 am to ask if they own a domain? I'm starting to smell fish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
37.
Mmmmm? fried, poached sir?
Oh.... hang on.... I've got you now.....
rotting fish! ;-)
I must admit that this does seem a little odd.... unless MX was just being ironic?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
38.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> Mmmmm? fried, poached sir?
>> Oh.... hang on.... I've got you now.....
>> rotting fish! ;-)
>> I must admit that this does seem a little odd.... unless MX was just being ironic?
Yeah, I was not going to point this out.
It would indeed be ironic for a trademark attorney to join a forum late one night and make a phone call to a perfect stranger at one a.m.
Gotta love those red vikings...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
39.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> I say you can always trust a seller who has accumulated 36 positive feedbacks for a perfect 100% rating...
all accomplished in less than 2 weeks, all with no previous sales, all with the purchasing of e-books ranging from 1 cent to about 36 cents (mostly one
cent...wouldn't want to spend more than $2.00 getting this wonderful feedback), and all with instant positive feedback generation as soon as that shiny penny is paid.
Any wonder why eBay is banning these sales?
Oh, and the use of the Apple logo is a classic touch to an already questionable TM matter.
Yes, makes me feel much better about not calling this a bull**** reg and bull**** fraud.
Amazing what a bit of detective work can do sir...
I still stand by my TM 'arguments' in principle but I think you've managed to cast a significant shadow of doubt over the seller as far as this Ebay sale is
concerned...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
40.
Whatever the outcome, fraud or not, legitimate or not,
the new owner will not have TM rights to this domain name and the TM used to register this domain name is not transferring with it.
The new owner will have a name.
Anyone interested should contact the TM owner and sign an affidavit giving up rights to the TM used to file the application. This transfer of ownership is legal
and allowed by law.
It pays to be cautious.
I would hate like hell to see someone pay several thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and lose all of that plus the domain in a
dispute.
Too risky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.
This is the area that I disagree with your take on the situation sir... mTLD allowed TM holders to apply for names to avoid cybersquatters regging all the TM
terms....
Now that the name has had an owner, there are (IMHO) no further ties restricting the sale of the domain or indeed its use...
I believe that if the domain is actually for sale by the owner now, there are no reasons not to buy it; my concern would be that this may not be a genuine sale,
the TM issue doesn't concern me as the mTLD rules only relate to 1st registration... the fact that a TM holder has behaved like a cybersquatter on this occasion just
goes to show that you can't legislate against every eventuality..
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> Whatever the outcome, fraud or not, legitimate or not,
>> the new owner will not have TM rights to this domain name and the TM used to register this domain name is not transferring with it.
>> The new owner will have a name.
>> Anyone interested should contact the TM owner and sign an affidavit giving up rights to the TM used to file the application. This transfer of ownership is legal
and allowed by law.
>> It pays to be cautious.
>> I would hate like hell to see someone pay several thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and lose all of that plus the domain in a
dispute.
>> Too risky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
42.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> It would indeed be ironic for a trademark attorney to join a forum late one night and make a phone call to a perfect stranger at one a.m...
What's so ironic? This is a .mobi forum, where known .mobiers frequent. A hot .mobi name is available to buy on ebay, a safe place to sell domains where no fraud
is ever pursued. And what else is a TM attorney to do on a Sunday night at 1am?? Being helpful as a newbie in a forum, and going out on a limb to contact (wake up)
someone he 'supposedly' doesn't know, to confirm the status on a suspectable situation with that individuals domain to appease 'potential' buyers in that forum, seems
to be a unselfish attorney thing to do! I know many attorneys willing to go this extra mile to help out potential interested parties (they don't know) in situations
they have no personal interest in. I mean..., doesn't everybody???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
43.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> This is the area that I disagree with your take on the situation sir... mTLD allowed TM holders to apply for names to avoid cybersquatters regging all the TM
terms....
>> Now that the name has had an owner, there are (IMHO) no further ties restricting the sale of the domain or indeed its use...
>> I believe that if the domain is actually for sale by the owner now, there are no reasons not to buy it; my concern would be that this may not be a genuine sale,
the TM issue doesn't concern me as the mTLD rules only relate to 1st registration... the fact that a TM holder has behaved like a cybersquatter on this occasion just
goes to show that you can't legislate against every eventuality..
I do not know how long or to what extent a specific registered TM associated with a domain (which in this case is factual...and clearly evidenced by the WHOIS
information) remains associated with a domain name.
It would seem to me that it is for the life of the TM.
In today's arena of scams and creative ways of screwing folks and taking their money, who is to say that the seller (even if he was the legit TM holder) could not
and would not file a claim stating that he owns the TM associated and awarded to that domain (registration number 2727241) and wants it back or claims that it was sold
without his consent and permission.
Stranger things have happened.
And, that person seems to me would have a stronger case to cause ICANN, mTLD, or a Civil Judge to seize the domain and give it back to that person. Meanwhile, too
damn bad for the person that bought it.
For me, my biggest concern would be selling and transferring the domain name but maintaining legal control over it by not FOREGOING and TRANSFERRING a live TM.
This is all permitted by the US Patent and Trademark Office.
There is a fee for this service and I would gladly pay that fee for any member IF the seller would release TM rights to this domain.
It is not a large fee, but nevertheless would be the practical and right thing to do.
But take it from someone who has surrendered 7 domains (all stupid regs or purchases), you lose everything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
44.
Quote Originally Posted by mxmaxtor
>> If you believe that generic word trademarks are invalid, you should contact your local congressman; this is permitted by trademark law.
There has to be a limit somewhere. Just because someone has a trademark on a word doesn't mean they have the rights to a domain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.
Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
>> There has to be a limit somewhere. Just because someone has a trademark on a word doesn't mean they have the rights to a domain.
I understand the sentiment but I'd have no clue where to draw this line. Who decides what valid legally issued TM is not to be honored in a domain Sunrise TM
application period? I even wonder how they would deal with multiple applications of valid non competing TM's for the same domain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.
Must take into consideration that it is not so much the word itself that is trademarked. It is how the word is used or depicted as in a logo, header, design, etc.
That is why there can be so many TM's not so much ON the same word but HOW that word is used. In this case, a typed drawing or product.
The 70's band America does not own the word America. But how that logo or typeset is used would definitely be copyrighted and is perhaps even TM.
Apple does not own the word Apple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
47.
Quote Originally Posted by mxmaxtor
>> Hi all-
>> I contacted Mr. Nofal. He a manager of DreamLab and is aware the domain is for sale on eBay. Looks like everything is cleared up.
Considering you and Mr.Nofal have the same IP address, I'm curious if you enjoyed talking with yourself. I hope you can understand why stuff like this calls into
question the legitimacy of this auction. Please come and help clear this all up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.
Thanks for being the ever vigilant mod that you are to keep things on the up and up here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
49.
This is the thread in question, temporarily removed from the public eye in order to have teh forum re-instated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.
ridiculous that the guy would be such a dick and that hostgator would comply
### END ###
