Logo Mark vs. Domain

[MIKEPIN]

What is the name of your state? FL

In 2009 I registered a domain. It has been with a domain parking service ever since. There was advertising on the page from the parking service.

I now got a letter from a law firm that says I am violating their client's trademark. The registered three logo marks in 1991. They have no word marks. It is not a well-known or famous trademark.

I know I should best see a lawyer, but I can not afford this. So I will try to negotiate a deal and maybe give them the domain.

I just need a bit of "education".

They say I am violating their trademark. We were of cause not using any logos. So how can we infringe a logo mark? Our website was not confusingly similar.

Also, they knew about the domain, they contacted us 10 years ago. Should they not have defended the trademark a long time ago?

Thank you for helping me and giving me your opinions!

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure what you expect of us. If you can't afford to fight it, then negotiation seems in order. Beyond that, there's nothing we could tell you, as we are ignorant of the matter.

 

[adjusterjack]

So how can we infringe a logo mark?

Forever, until somebody jumps on you for doing it.

Our website was not confusingly similar.

Your opinion, not theirs.

Also, they knew about the domain, they contacted us 10 years ago. Should they not have defended the trademark a long time ago?

They are accusing you. You defend.

That you knew of the conflict 10 years ago and kept using the domain name puts you in a very weak position.

Beyond that, I agree with Zigner.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? FL

In 2009 I registered a domain. It has been with a domain parking service ever since. There was advertising on the page from the parking service.

I now got a letter from a law firm that says I am violating their client's trademark. The registered three logo marks in 1991. They have no word marks. It is not a well-known or famous trademark.

I know I should best see a lawyer, but I can not afford this. So I will try to negotiate a deal and maybe give them the domain.

I just need a bit of "education".

They say I am violating their trademark. We were of cause not using any logos. So how can we infringe a logo mark? Our website was not confusingly similar.

Also, they knew about the domain, they contacted us 10 years ago. Should they not have defended the trademark a long time ago?

Thank you for helping me and giving me your opinions!

You could offer to sell to the trademark holder your domain name but, if your domain name is using a trademark that is the same or similar to one that was federally registered prior to the time you acquired the domain name, you could find it taken from you.

Any domain name that conflicts with an existing trademark (causes consumer confusion or dilutes the value of the mark) can cause problems for the holder of the domain name.

If you are not using the domain name anyway, it is probably best to give it up.

Here is a link to ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution (UDRP) Policy :
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en

I am not quite sure I understand how your domain name can infringe on a logo.

 

[MIKEPIN]

I am not quite sure I understand how your domain name can infringe on a logo.

That is my point. A logo mark is not a word mark.


Also, you have to defend your trademark. If you know of a possible violation and you ignore it for 12 years, your mark becomes very weak.

 

[zddoodah]

I now got a letter from a law firm that says I am violating their client's trademark. The [client] registered three logo marks in 1991. They have no word marks.

Please clarify how it is that the firm believes your domain name, which is necessarily a word, violates a logo mark. Please also summarize the firm's argument that your mere ownership of the domain name with no website there violates the marks.

how can we infringe a logo mark?

No one here has the slightest idea. How does the lawyer explain your alleged infringement?

Our website was not confusingly similar.

Wait...what website? You said this is merely a parked domain. Are you operating a website at the domain?

Also, they knew about the domain, they contacted us 10 years ago. Should they not have defended the trademark a long time ago?

You might want to do a quick google search for a legal concept called laches.

 

[MIKEPIN]

Please clarify how it is that the firm believes your domain name, which is necessarily a word, violates a logo mark. Please also summarize the firm's argument that your mere ownership of the domain name with no website there violates the marks.

No one here has the slightest idea. How does the lawyer explain your alleged infringement?

Of cause not. Not to offend any lawyers, but sometimes they write such letters just to scare people into what they want. This lawyer just wrote that I violate their logo marks. He did not further justify it.

Wait...what website? You said this is merely a parked domain. Are you operating a website at the domain?

They say that the parking page with its advertising links violates the logo marks.

You might want to do a quick google search for a legal concept called laches.

Thanks.

 

[quincy]

Of cause not. Not to offend any lawyers, but sometimes they write such letters just to scare people into what they want. This lawyer just wrote that I violate their logo marks. He did not further justify it.

They say that the parking page with its advertising links violates the logo marks.

Thanks.

It could be that one or more of the advertisements appearing on your website are violating the trademark rights of the owner of the marks, unless the design of the website itself uses the logos of the trademark holder somehow.

Or perhaps the notice you received has nothing to do with logos at all and whoever drafted the notice knows nothing about trademarks and/or domain names.

You probably will want to have an IP attorney in your area personally review what you received and how what you received might relate to your domain name/web page.

I suspect, by the way, that the logo owner also has a name/trademark for his/her enterprise and not just a symbol to identify it.

 

[zddoodah]

A bald statement that you violated the client's rights, without any explanation at all, is probably not something that should concern you.

 

[quincy]

A bald statement that you violated the client's rights, without any explanation at all, is probably not something that should concern you.

But it also could be something that should not be ignored.

Attorney letters come in all sizes, shapes and colors, but most are cause for some concern. Without knowing more than what we know now, we can’t tell MIKEPIN if he should be concerned or not.

 

[FlyingRon]

Unless you have your own mark or company with that name, you will LOSE in the dispute. You are the definition of a bad faith squatter.

 

[zddoodah]

Unless you have your own mark or company with that name, you will LOSE in the dispute. You are the definition of a bad faith squatter.

I disagree.

 

[quincy]

Unless you have your own mark or company with that name, you will LOSE in the dispute. You are the definition of a bad faith squatter.

I lean toward that assessment as well, FlyingRon, especially since MIKEPIN was notified by the entity 10 years ago that there was a problem with MIKEPIN’s domain name/web site/something.

But I don’t think we have enough information presented here to say anything definitively.

This is why I recommend that MIKEPIN have the facts personally reviewed by an IP attorney in his area - if he decides not to give up the domain name (which could be the best course of action). I fear continued use will be a legal risk for him.

 

[MIKEPIN]

Unless you have your own mark or company with that name, you will LOSE in the dispute.

I do not believe so after they ignored us for 10 years. They made an interesting offer to buy it, but we were not in it for money.

You are the definition of a bad faith squatter.

For sure not.

 

[quincy]

I do not believe so after they ignored us for 10 years. They made an interesting offer to buy it, but we were not in it for money.For sure not.

I believe you just helped support FlyingRon’s argument.