Remix.run Logo
comrade1234 3 hours ago

Something I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration?

Around 1998 I registered a domain. Sony registered a trademark with the same name a few years after that. Someone on a Gmail account asked if he could buy it - I later found out he worked for Sony. I told him no - it's for a game I've been working on. I went on a vacation for a month and when I got back there was a fedex package filled with documents from Sony saying I'm violating their trademark and they'll take the domain.

I got a lawyer and he told me that I shouldn't offer it for sale as that would show the arbitration board that I don't need the domain. But he also told me that in order to fight the trademark it would probably cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. So I could keep the domain but not use it for commerce...

In the end I ended up selling it to Sony but through my lawyer - I never stated it was for sale. But this was early on for domains and I wonder what the process is like now.

1f60c 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I tried to register a domain like acme.stream through Cloudflare Registrar and it asked me to affirm I had Acme Widgets Corp.'s permission [edit: I might be wrong about this part, since I'm in a totally different niche, but the pop-up freaked me out]. I went with a different domain.

chrisrhoden an hour ago | parent [-]

This is a required TMCH assertion for certain TLDs.

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>But this was early on for domains and I wonder what the process is like now.

UDRP:

https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-polici...

collabs 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you allowed to share how much (roughly) you sold it for?

comrade1234 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Not too much... $30K plus all legal fees I had paid.

donatj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

$30k? I was in a similar situation and sold for $2k... I should have held out!

tonyhart7 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

could you share which domain ???

joering2 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The good news is, today with ChatGPT and Vincent.AI, you wouldn't need to spend couple hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyers. You could do it all by yourself and actually to the level of professionalism that most lawyer don't bother anymore.

ChatGPT is excellent on writing narrative and citing Federal/State statues, which make sense, as these been referred in their training docs millions of times. But when it comes to citing caselaw, total hallucination mode. That's why Vincent.ai comes handy and is used by lawyers. Its a $250/month license, last time I checked, but with catchall email address and one of freely available SMS gates out there, you can get free account for 3 weeks, enough to write most of your cases meat. By now I saved close to $50,000 and ruined one of the opposite side's lawyers, by pointing out ridiculousness of his claims in multiple filings (lawyers don't like when non lawyers point out their BS to the judge) and also using GPT to write strongly Florida Bar violation letter; it didn't get far but surely wasted few days of his normally paid time which he was obligated to explain himself.

falsemyrmidon 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Is this an ad?

detourdog 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This has been my understanding. I was told by lawyer in in th 90's that it would be described as squatting in court.

pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-]

Be a big company.

Look for interesting sounding domain names that are owned but not being used by individuals.

Create a product with the same name.

Sue the person with the domain name and take it from them.

Win, because you're big.

detourdog 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Fortunately my DNS entry starts in 1996 and would be covered by the first clause. BigCos claims would need to predate 1996 for my domain to be seized.

iwontberude 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

[dead]

delfinom 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

https://nissan.com/

Archive.org it to see little man beating big corporation

crossroadsguy 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

https://web.archive.org/web/20040403145823/http://www.nissan... at least this one says

> In compliance with a ruling issued by the United States District Court in Los Angeles on November 14, 2002, in the lawsuit of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corporation, this web site has been converted to non-commercial use.

And then this https://web.archive.org/web/20050701005403/http://www.nissan... says:

> Nissan Motor is suing Nissan Computer (named after its founder and current President, Mr. Uzi Nissan) for Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution and CyberSquatting, seeking 10 Million Dollars in damages

Besides this also indicate not so "little man".

pbhjpbhj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A reply said this, but it's dead:

>If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. [...]

>if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark [...]

I disagree, but they made a point and did so clearly.

Why that person felt someone else's chosen commercial use of a domain should trump anyone's non-commercial (or less commercial) use, I don't know.

All business assets are for sale at the right price, right? Even whilst living by the business at a particular domain, I'd have sold that domain for £200k, probably a lot less. Same as for any business asset, even (especially?) those in commercial use.

wredcoll 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree with you about assets being for sale (if someone wrote a big enough check I'd sell my house right now) and commercial not trumping non commercial, but there was, at least for a while, a reasonable argument for opposing "domain squatting" under the theory that domain names were a limited resource and society as a whole benefits from those resources being used more optimally.

It's like concert tickets or any other limited resource that is transferable, "society" generally wants most people to have access to them but if they're too cheap then it's easy for one rich person to just buy them all.

Anyways, domain names are perhaps less limited these days (and google/claude kind of remove user's direct interaction anyways) if the usage of non-dotcoms are anything to go by. Also it's super hard to distinguish personal private use vs squatting.

ohashi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

full disclaimer, I have worked on https://udrp.tools for something like a decade now as the developer. We're working on an AI chatbot to help answer these types of questions based on our dataset and other data sources (actual wipo guidelines, udrpperspectives.org). The short answer is no, the answer our AI gave with citations/explanation is below if youre curious:

Does publicly listing a domain for sale mean you'd automatically lose a UDRP arbitration if someone has a trademark for it?

No. A public sale listing is not an automatic loss. Here's how panels actually decide these cases.

The controlling rule

Bad faith based on a sale offer requires that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling to the trademark owner (or a competitor) for more than out-of-pocket costs. Two things must be true at once: (1) the primary purpose of registration was to sell, and (2) the target was that specific trademark holder. A generic public listing on Sedo or Afternic doesn't automatically satisfy either requirement. (WIPO Overview 3.1; UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

What panels actually look at

No single factor decides it. Panels weigh all of these:

How distinctive is the trademark? A coined word like KODAK is treated very differently from a generic term like CLOUD.

Did the registrant plausibly know about the mark when registering? Famous marks raise this inference; obscure marks don't.

Was the offer directed at the trademark owner specifically, or listed publicly for any buyer?

Does the asking price only make sense if the trademark owner is the buyer, or is it consistent with general market prices?

Does the registrant hold a broader portfolio of generic/descriptive domains, or a collection of brand-matching ones?

Was the domain registered after the mark became well-known, or before?

Is there a credible non-trademark reason to want the domain?

Things that do NOT automatically mean bad faith

Listing a domain publicly for sale (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Asking a high price (UDRP Perspectives 3.5; WIPO Overview 3.1.1)

Even reaching out to the trademark owner directly — panels look at whether multiple parties were approached and whether the registration was brand-specific (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Wanting to profit — legitimate domain investing is a recognized lawful activity under UDRP (UDRP Perspectives 2.6)

When the calculus shifts against you

The harder cases are where the domain is identical to a highly distinctive coined brand, there's no plausible use for the domain other than trading on the trademark, and the asking price is only realistic for the trademark owner itself. In those cases panels have found bad faith even without a direct approach to the owner. A notable example is the three-member panel majority in WIPO case D2022-1570, which found that the asking price implied the complainant was the only conceivable buyer — though a dissent disagreed, illustrating that even these edge cases are not automatic.

Bottom line

The outcome depends on: how famous and distinctive the mark is, whether you had it in your sights at registration, whether there's a credible independent reason to want the domain, and who you're actually marketing it to. Generic terms with multiple plausible buyers, listed publicly, have repeatedly survived UDRP challenges. (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Coined-brand matches with sky-high asking prices and no other credible use have not.

axus 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I noticed the UDRP rules had changed last year, the main change is of course related to WHOIS respecting privacy now. Looking that up:

"The registrar must provide the full Registration Data to the UDRP provider within two business days after the registrar is notified that a UDRP complaint exists. The registrar must also lock the domain."

onlypassingthru 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Around the turn of the millenium I remember reading about a college student who had registered a domain with a family name which also happened to be the same name of a well-known watch manufacturer. IIRC, the watch company was able to force the student to hand over the domain because the student used a picture of the famous watch on his rudimentary homepage (remember those?) and the company was claiming trademark infringement.

franga2000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I shouldn't offer it for sale as that would show the arbitration board that I don't need the domain. [...] So I could keep the domain but not use it for commerce...

If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. I'm sure if you finished you game and offered it for sale on that domain, you'd be fine. You're actually using it and in a non-infringing way.

So yes, if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark, but alas...