thrashiedean.com

The .uk registry is the world’s fourth largest (after the .com, .org & .de registries). It’s administered by Nominet, a not-for-profit company based in Oxford, England. Nominet acts not just as the .uk registry, but also as the .uk dispute resolution service provider.

Nominet doesn’t use the UDRP for dispute resolution, but has instead created a distinctive system inspired by the UDRP. The substantive rules governing .uk disputes are set out in Nominet’s dispute resolution policy document (referred to below simply as the “Policy”) & its dispute resolution procedure document.

Procedural rules

The Nominet dispute resolution procedure is a close relative of the UDRP procedure. However - there’re some important differences.

There is a free mediation service built in to the Nominet procedure. The mediation process involves a neutral third party who tries to bring the complainant & respondent to agreement through “shuttle diplomacy”. If the parties can resolve their dispute before the mediation period comes to a close, Nominet waives its fee.

Another distinctive feature of the Nominet procedure is the possibility of appealing an expert’s decision (in Nominet proceedings, panellists are called “experts”). By contrast there is no appeal ? other than to a court of law ? from a decision under the UDRP or the EURid rules.

A single expert always decides “first instance cases”. Should either party appeal the first instance decision, a three member panel will be appointed to decide the appeal. At the time of writing, there have only ever been six appeals.

The Nominet fee is always paid by the complainant. At present, that fee stands at ?750 plus VAT. There is also a fee of ?3000 plus VAT payable by a person invoking the appeal procedure.

The remedies available are cancellation or transfer. Unlike in UK litigation, there’re no provisions for the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party’s costs.

Substantive rules

Basic rule is that: “A Respondent must submit to proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service if a Complainant asserts to us, according to the Procedure, that: (i) The Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; & (ii) The Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration.” (Paragraph 2(a) of the Policy.)

“Rights” are treated in a similar way to rights under the UDRP: the test isn’t a hard one to meet.

The idea of an “Abusive Registration” maps imperfectly on to the concepts of legitimate interest & bad faith under the UDRP.

Rights in a name or mark?

Paragraph 1 of the Nominet Policy gives that: “‘Rights’ includes, but isn’t limited to, rights enforceable under English law. However - a Complainant will be unable to rely on rights in a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant’s business.”

In practice these rights are often rights arising out of registered ® UK or Community trade marks.

However, the rights can also be rights in the tort of passing off. This is a complex subject, but most experts will be prepare to accept that a complainant has unregistered trade mark rights which could give rise to an action in passing off where the complainant can show substantial use of a mark or name as a trade mark in the UK. It’s probably fair to say that the standard of proof required by Nominet experts of these unregistered rights is significantly lower than that required by the English courts in a passing off action - even though in passing off cases the evidence is usually being used to prove a different point.

Rights can also mean contractual rights ? e.g. where one person has contracted with another to transfer the domain, but then refuses to do so.

?which is identical or similar to the domain name

Because most Nominet experts have at least some expertise of trade mark law, the concepts of identity & similarity are heavily conditioned by the comparable concepts in trade mark law.

As regards identity, the domain name extensions are ignored, so that the trade mark MERCEDES is identical to the domain name mercedes.co.uk. Similar formal differences (e.g. the use of hyphens in a domain name in place of spaces) should not upset a finding of identity.

Similarity is more difficult… In European trade mark law there is a concept which may be called “confusing similarity”, & it’s this concept which experts are accustomed to apply when comparing one mark to another. The question is: would the public be confused by the use of the marks or names, or associate one with the other. Judging by the detail of experts’ decisions, a similar question is often asked in .uk domain name dispute arbitrations.

Abusive registration

“‘Abusive Registration’ means a Domain Name which either: (i) was registered ® or otherwise acquired in a manner which, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights; OR (ii) has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights.” (Paragraph 1 of the Nominet Policy)

Note that the abuse can take place either at the time of registration/acquisition or subsequently. In either case, the key ideas are those of taking “unfair advantage of” or being “unfairly detrimental to” the complainant’s rights.

Proving an allegation of abusive registration

A non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the domain name is an abusive registration is set out in paragraph 3(a) of the Nominet Policy:

“(i) Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered ® or otherwise acquired the Domain Name primarily: (A) for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name; (B) as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the Complainant has Rights; or (C) for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant;

(ii) Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered ® to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant;

(iii) The Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations where the Respondent is the registrant of domain names (under .uk or otherwise) which correspond to well known names or trade marks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights, & the Domain Name is part of that pattern;

(iv) It’s independently verified that the Respondent has given false contact details to us; or

(v) The domain name was registered ® as a result of a relationship between the Complainant & the Respondent, & the Complainant: (A) has been using the domain name registration exclusively; & (B) paid for the registration and/or renewal of the domain name registration.”

Because of paragraph 3(c)(i) of the Policy, it’s unwise to offer to sell the domain to a trade mark owner where there is a dispute or the potential for a dispute. Another effect of that paragraph is that it’s easier for a complainant to prove her or his case where a domain name is used commercially. For this purpose, commercial use includes serving pay-per-click advertising or carrying affiliate links.

Paragraph 3(c)(v) is designed to deal with the all-too-common situation where an employee of a company (often in the IT department) or service provider to a company (often a web developer) registers domain name reflecting the company’s trade marks, & then refuses to transfer the domain name when a dispute arises.

Disproving an allegation of abusive registration

A non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the domain name isn’t an abusive registration is set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

“(i) Before being aware of the Complainant’s cause for complaint (not necessarily the ‘complaint’ under the DRS), the Respondent has: (A) used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name or a Domain Name which is similar to the Domain Name in close connection with a genuine offering of goods or services; (B) been commonly known by the name or legitimately connected with a mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; (C) made legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name; or

(ii) The Domain Name is generic or descriptive & the Respondent is making fair use of it;

(iii) In relation to paragraph 3(a)(v) [registration as a result of a relationship between the parties]; that the Registrant’s holding of the Domain Name is consistent with an express term of a written agreement entered into by the Parties; or

(iv) In relation to paragraphs 3(a)(iii) and/or 3(c) [pattern of abusive conduct]; that the Domain Name isn’t part of a wider pattern or series of registrations because the Domain Name is of a significantly different type or character to the other domain names registered ® by the Respondent.”

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is arguably one of the most significant in the Policy. Controversially, some experts have read this rather narrowly, such that domain names which are 100% descriptive of the business in which they’re being used are being transferred to complainants in circumstances where it would be very hard if not impossible to put together a credible case in the High Court.

Conclusions

The Nominet procedure is inexpensive & efficient, & the quality of expert decision-making tends to be reasonable. However - the procedure is by no means perfect: it’s a blunt instrument & from time to time decisions are issued which seem unfair, at least inasmuch as they represent a significant extension of trade mark owners’ rights over the position in trade mark law. Moreover, the very fact that there is a distinct set of rules governing .uk domains (and a distinct dispute resolute procedure) means that, where a dispute involves other domain name extensions as well, there is extra expense.

Hagit Ben-Artzi owns Sequitur IPS, a legal consultancy providing specialist advice & representation in domain name disputes & domain name arbitration proceedings. Please visit the Sequitur IPS domain name disputes website.

You file a UDRP complaint under ICANN & a panel has ordered a transfer of the stolen domain name. From this point, you would think everything would automatically fall into place, but more often than not, you’ll still have some work to do.

Under the domain name dispute policy, more specifically UDRP Policy Paragraph 4(K), it states that the registrar is required to implement the Panel’s decision 10 (ten) business days after it receives notification of the decision from the dispute resolution service provider, except if the registrar receives information from the domain name registrant (Respondent) in that 10-day period that it’s challenging.

Here are some steps cybersquatting lawyers use to ensure that the stolen domain name is transferred back to you:

• Establish an account for the domain name
• Ensure the registrar updates the domain name servers (DNS)
• Ensure the registrar gives you with an Authorization Code so that you can initiate the transfer of the registrar & modify the contact information
• Initiate a request for the transfer of registrar using the Authorization Code
• Note: most registrars have an automated process that requires confirmation from the Admin-C contact on the account.
• Ensure the registrar updates the WHOIS database for the domain name to include your information for the Admin/Technical/Billing contact.

If you become a victim of domain name theft, winning your cybersquatting arbitration is key. Still, the domain name transfer process does not always go as smoothly as it should & may require experienced cybersquatting lawyers to get the domain name back for you… This involves working with your IT person & the registrar, both new & old, to ensure the cybersquatting Panel’s decision is implemented.

Enrico Schaefer is the founding attorney of Traverse Legal, PLC, a law firm specializing in web law. You can find out more about protecting your domain name, UDRP arbitrations & anti-cybersquatting laws at Traverse Legal’s domain name theft & trademark infringement domain dispute blog.

Are you losing visitors to your domain? Are your search engine rankings still yours?

Other people might hijack your search engine rankings & they might steal your web site visitors. The worst thing is that you might not even notice it.

Imagine your domain URL is listed in search engine results on Google, MSN & Yahoo. In the search engine results, most people that click on your domain URL are sent to your website. However - some people that click your domain URL are sent to a totally unrelated website that has nothing to do with your site & even though your website domain name URL is displayed in the browser, people see a completely different site that has literally nothing to do with you or your company.

How do these hackers steal your Visitors?

Hackers exploit a flaw in the software some domain name servers use & by sending incorrect information to these particular domain name servers, hackers compromise the domain name server to redirect the traffic for the URLs to another site.

If domain name servers do not use a method to validate that the information has come from valid or authoritative source, it will send visitors to the wrong pages. This means that people who enter your domain name URL in the web browser will be sent to the hacker’s pages instead of your pages.

How can you protect you website?

It is very important that you use a reliable host that doesn’t use an open DNS server. To check this, go straight to www.dnsreport.com & enter the domain name URL of your website. You should see PASS in the Open DNS servers line. If your domain name fails the test, you should contact your web host. If you do not want to expose your website to hackers, it’s critical that you use a secure DNS server. If your web host can not fix the issue, you should change to another web host.

Enrico Schaefer is the founding attorney of Traverse Legal, PLC, a law firm specializing in web law. You can find out more about protecting your domain name, UDRP arbitrations & anti-cybersquatting laws at Traverse Legal’s domain name theft & trademark infringement domain dispute blog.

Protecting intellectual property rights should be a critical step for any business. Right. With an on line business, protecting a domain name is all the more critical.

Nothing is more aggravating than having some one infringe upon your domain name. The question for many sites, then, is how to go about protecting the domain. Filing for a trademark is one of the more popular & effective methods, but it’s important to understand there’re some issues that can come up.

First & foremost, a domain name may only be trademarked if it’s more than just an address pointing people to a site. This is often shown by matching the domain name to the actual name of the business & then incorporating it into the page of the site. Let us look at a classic example.

Google is obviously a distinct trademark. The title ‘Google’ is a trademarkable domain for two reasons. First, it’s distinct. OK. Second, it’s both the domain name & the name of the business. Let us assume Google was located at a different domain. Say the domain was se3598xeifp[dot]com. This new domain would not actually be trademarkable because it did nothing more than point the viewer to the site in question. The phrase ‘Google’ still would.

Another area that causes some confusion is the suffix of the domain. The suffix is the ending, usually com or net. Can you register ® a domain & include these suffixes? Many are surprised to learn that it’s fairly hard to do so. Why? Well, none of us have any exclusive rights to the ‘com’, ‘net’ or other suffixes out there. As such, the Trademark Office tends to dislike allowing their inclusion in marks. It can sometimes be done, but you should expect to wrestle with them over it.

A final area of some confusion has to do with geographic descriptions. If you use a domain with a city, state or country in it, you’re going to have problems. There is more. The Trademark Office doesn’t allow people to poach upon municipalities or other defined areas. Sorry, but you can not register ® NewYorkCity[dot].com.

At the end of the day, trademarking your domain name makes absolute senses if you can meet the relevant requirements. Said protection can be a powerful tool in helping you fight off third parties trying to poach on your name & reputation.

Richard A. Chapo is an internet attorney with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com.

In order to successfully assert a domain name dispute complaint under the UDRP you have to show that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, that the respondent doesn’t have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, & that the respondent registered ® & used the domain name in bad faith. One of the more common issues relates to pornosquatting. In its simplest form, pornosquatting occurs when your trademark is used as part of a domain name for a website containing pornographic material. Regardless, pornography alone may not actually be enough to show bad faith.

A classic case of "pornosquatting" will, how ever, suffice. Pornosquatting has been held to be clear evidence of bad faith when: (1) a trademark the pornosquatter doesn’t own is used; (2) the site to which the user is redirected is clearly pornographic; (3) the site is commercial, (i.e. you must pay in order to access further pornographic images); & (4) there is a "mouse-trapping effect" making it more hard for the casual Internet user to leave the pornographic website.

The most successful complaints, or defenses for that matter, know the law, work diligently to discover facts that may not actually be immediately evident, & communicate the party’s best position to the UDRP panel. Knowing the history of the party’s trademark & domain name & being able to present exhibits to support the party’s position are essential, & may include: USPTO trademark registrations; public recognition of the trademark; marketing & sales date; snapshots of the website content housed at the domain name at different intervals in time; testimonials; & many others. In the end, having experience to know what works & what doesn’t work when presented to the panel is priceless. Fortunately for you, lawyers are available to perform this work at reasonable prices, & you can contact us today to learn more.

Enrico Schaefer is the founding attorney of Traverse Legal, PLC, a law firm specializing in web law. You can find out more about protecting your domain name, UDRP arbitrations & anti-cybersquatting laws at Traverse Legal’s domain name theft & trademark blogs.

Some call it forum shopping. Others call it preparation. Given the choice, wouldn’t you select the latter. You should since you’re allowed to & there’re readily available ways to select which forum, or service provider, is best for your case. The two most popular domain name dispute resolution providers are WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) & NAF (National Arbitration Forum). Even though both UDRP providers, WIPO & NAF have different fee structures, decision turn-around times, & other nuances explained in their respective supplemental rules. Regardless, the number one consideration when deciding whether to select WIPO, NAF, or one of the other service providers should be based upon a review of how Panels decided cases similar to yours. Both WIPO & NAF provide access to their decisions at:

WIPO http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/cases/index.html

NAF http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions.asp

With the ever-increasing number of decisions available, it’s important to be easily able to form an educated prediction as to how a particular service provider’s panel would resolve your case. Looking at prior decisions can help, but it would be even easier if you knew both the majority & minority views on particular issues that commonly arise in the UDRP. This is where a law firm specializing in domain name disputes can help. Ideally, you should select a law firm with background knowledge of both trademarks & the UDRP. In the end, it’s not asking the law firm too much to do an initial review of your case, peruse decisions issued by both service provider’s on the particular issue, & ultimately provide a risk assessment of your case. You can contact us today to provide such a service, & if you so choose, assist you in filing a complaint, responding to a complaint, or simply navigating your way through the UDRP.

Enrico Schaefer is the founding attorney of Traverse Legal, PLC, a law firm specializing in web law http://www.traverselegal.com You can find out more about protecting your domain name, UDRP arbitrations & anti-cybersquatting laws at Traverse Legal’s domain name theft & trademark blogs found at http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/ & http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/

A domain name is your address on the web, which can make it vitally important. OK. So, what do you do when some one tries to move onto your yard?

If you work on the web at all, you know that domain names can be very similar. This raises the question of when one domain crosses the line & infringes on another. The issue is often brought up with larger commercial sites when others register ® similar domains.

A claim for domain name infringement is governed by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy issued by ICANN. As a domain owner, you might be surprised to learn you have consented to this. It occurred when you purchased your domain, even though you probably did not read the terms & conditions associated with your purchase.

To prove your domain is being infringed upon, you have to prove certain things. There is more. They are as follows:

1. You must prove the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark you have registered. In simple terms, this means you must show the other guy is using a domain that most people would associated with your business. If I’ve a trademark for ZipIt & some one is using a NET suffix of this, it’s confusing for the public.

2. You must also prove the owner of the other domain has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

3. Finally, you must prove domain name is registered ® by the other party & being used in bad faith. Indications of bad faith include the other party attempted to sell it to you or one of your competitors for many more than they paid for it, the other party has done this repeatedly to other companies, the other party registered ® the domain in an attempt to intentionally steal your clients.

If you decide to pursue an infringement action, it’s always handled as a binding arbitration. This essentially means the dispute is heard by a panel of arbitrators & their decision is binding upon you & the other party. The advantage of this is it tends to be less expensive than going to court, but your damages are limited to an act instead of money… Specifically, the panel can only issue instructions for the offending domain to be canceled, modified or left alone. The panel can not award any monetary damages.

At the end of the day, using the infringement arbitration provisions of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provided by ICANN is a good choice if you just want to terminate a domain you feel is infringing upon yours. There is more. The key to the dispute, how ever, is the fact you really need to have a trademark or service mark first in most cases.

Protect yourself with a domain name purchase agreement from SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com

Appraisers took center stage recently in an eminent domain case in Kansas City, Kan.

The city’s Unified Government (UG) is trying to acquire the Indian Springs Mall for redevelopment.

According to the Kansas City Kansan, the current owner of the mall & the UG remain far apart on the fair market value of the mall site.

On June 4, the parties met at the Wyandotte County Courthouse to submit information to a three-person panel of appraisers.

The panel will consider arguments made during a public hearing to determine the value the UG must pay Joseph Kashani - the mall’s owner - to acquire the property, according to the newspaper.

The two appraisers for the UG submitted values of the mall between $4 & $5 million.

Both appraisers said there was ’some speculation’ in their reports because they did not have full access to financial information of the mall or access to the mall site proper.

The appraisers both claim Kashani denied them entry, acknowledging that full access to the information could potentially lead to a change in their valuation.

Even a slight change in the UG appraisers’ valuation would not come close to the $35 million to $40 million Kashani says his property is worth. He added that he received an offer of $7.4 million for the mall in 2004 & an offer last year of $7.5 million.

Although Kashani had his own appraiser at the hearing, the appraiser did not give a report to the panel & would not state what he thought would be a fair market price.

The UG, as required by the condemnation process, made an offer of $6.8 million last year after the redevelopment district was approved but prior to the eminent domain proceedings. Kashani did not accept the offer.

Joe Vaught, president of the Vaught Group, a commercial real estate firm working with Kashani at the mall, said he believes a fair valuation for the mall site would be around $10 million.

Kashani originally purchased the mall site for $1.7 million in 1995, & has seen the mall travel a rough road since then. As the mall slowly declined from a lack of retail presence, Vaught said he encouraged Kashani to pursue a business park for the site.

TeleTech, a call-center company, operated out of the mall for five years but left in 2002. Shortly after that, the mall’s last major retail anchor, Montgomery Ward, went bankrupt.

The panel has until June 18 to reach their valuation, after which a notice will be sent to the county clerk. Once the UG makes the payment, the Indian Springs Mall will belong to the UG, according to the newspaper.

David Hutton is the editor of Valuation Review, the leading source for news & analysis for the real estate appraisal industry. Valuation Review gives its members with relevant content that informs them about the valuation profession & helps keep them ahead of the competition. Valuation Review is a publication of October Research Corporation, the nation’s leading provider of market intelligence, business news & regulatory information for the real estate, settlement services & mortgage origination industry.

The current Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) offers a relatively quick & cost effective mechanism to independently resolve disputes that arise from the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names. Under the UDRP, a complainant must show that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent doesn’t have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, & that the respondent registered ® & used the domain name in bad faith.

However, the UDRP isn’t without its share of problems. There is more. The first major problem of the UDRP is that it’s only a curative solution, meaning it gives relief after a violation has already occurred. By example, a cybersquatter can register ® an IP owner’s identifiers forcing the aggrieved owner to use the UDRP. In essence, the UDRP seeks to return the damaged IP owner to as good as a position as he was before the cybersquatting. Second, the UDRP has no preventative measure to protect trademark holders from cybersquatters. There is more. Theoretically, the only way IP owners can protect themselves as new gTLDs are introduced is by registering their entire trademark portfolio. In essence, IP owners compete with cybersquatters for their own trademarks. There is more. Third, no provisions exist to deal with the situation where IP owners want to protect their trademarks in sponsored gTLDs but are restricted because the TLD is reserved for all those entities that qualify in the particularized & specialized space.

Fortunately, there’re ways to protect your trademarks, & other domain names for that matter. While no uniform IP protection mechanism to combat the unauthorized registration of domain names currently exists, you can heed recommendations, such as those made by WIPO, & perform your own preventative care. One example is to use defensive registrations, or register ® domain names in the existing TLDs (such as .com, .net, etc.) & new gTLDS (such as .mobi). It’s also important to be fully aware of when such new gTLDs are to be made available & ensure that you take advantage of any sunrise period, a period affording trademark holders the right to register ® prior to the general public, available to you… Similarly, being able to recognize the common tactics of cybersquatters in both existing & newly offered gTLDs can further enhance your ability to stop unauthorized registration of domain names similar your trademark. You can contact us or another domain anme lawyer today, with experience in cybersquatting, domain name disputes, & trademarks can assist you in protection mechanisms & help stop an unnecessarily forced run-in with the UDRP.

Enrico Schaefer is the founding attorney of Traverse Legal, PLC, a high-tech law firm specializing in web law. You can find out more about protecting your domain name, UDRP arbitrations & anti-cybersquatting laws at Traverse Legal’s domain name theft & cybersquatting blog & also at the intellectual property & trademark blog.

So you have a hot idea for a website, or maybe you want to capitalize on a hot new product that has just been released. There’re some things that you’ll want to know first before you get yourself in a lot of hot water.

Choosing a domain name is not really rocket science but it’s very important. You want to select something that is as short as possible, easy to pronounce & remember for marketing purposes, & if at all possible you want to get your main keywords in the domain name. All that aside, you also have to be very careful that you do not step on the toes of a person or company who may be inclined to sue you.

For example, judges have ruled against domain name squatters in every case where they registered ® a celebrity’s name. They will also rule against companies that infringe upon other companies. A very good case in point would be the case a couple of years ago between the World Wrestling Federation & the World Wildlife Foundation. The World Wrestling Federation called itself the “WWF”, put up a website at wwf.com, & the World Wildlife Foundation filed a trademark infringement suit against them. The Wildlife Foundation won because they had been in existence for many years before the wrestling firm & therefore the World Wrestling Federation had to change its name to World Wrestling Entertainment. Obviously this cost them a great some of money to change their name that appeared on millions of marketing products all over the world as well as the expense they had put up on their website & on line marketing.

Another more recent issue that is still ongoing is the battle between Apple & the V.O.I.P. product “iphone” from Cisco. Apple announced they would be bringing a product to market called the Apple iPhone to go along with their other products that start with an “I”. Cisco promptly filed for injunctive relief & as of this writing the issue is unresolved.

There are a few basic guidelines that will help keep you out of trouble when you’re choosing a domain name so you do not run into legal trouble from violating someone’s trademark. Let us take a look at them.

First off you really need to realize that a name that is used to identify a particular service or product is a recognized trademark. Trademarks that are deemed to be suggestive & memorable are granted protection by both state & federal law.

A confliction of trademarks occurs when one trademark is in conflict with another & the deployment of both is probably going to be confusing to customers or would be customers concerning the company’s products or services. As I illustrated above, when the legal issue is with a later user of a trademark, the law rules that the first commercial user of the trademark is the legal owner & is therefore given protection. The loser will be forced to cease using the trademark & may even be compelled to pay damages to the original owner, particularly if it’s determined that they were malicious in their intent.

The smart thing to do is to consult a trademark lawyer & have them check out your idea for a domain name before you invest too much in developing & marketing it.

Gregg Hall is an author living in Navarre Beach, Florida. Find more about this as well as intellectual property attorneys at http://www.focusonip.com