I hate typos

[tifosi]

I hate typos. There, said it. I know they serve some purpose in traffic generation, But I just hate them & don't reg them.

Wondered on the viewpoint of others...

 

[newbie]

I have a lot of success from typos. I love'm!

 

[retired member 1]

What I don't get is "domainers" that say "Generic" typos are fair game, but TM'd typos aren't!

To me, the purpose of *any* typo is to steal traffic from another site (someone else's work), if that's generic or a TM'd site the aim is still the same.

 

[grandin]

good point

Very interesting point and will bring it up with Nominet because I don' know the answer....I suppose it depends on which of the following two scenarios apply and therefore based on subjective abusive intent:-

Scenario One

If the generic word gets traffic cause its used in normal day to day life then I do not see a problem...cause you are taking advantage of a word that does not belong to anyone anyway...for example..holidays.co.uk

Scenarion Two

You notice that the owner of the name www.holidays.co.uk is using the name in extensive advertising so you wish to take advantage of that by reigstering a typo of it

I suppose scenario two is a no go but one is?

Lee

 

[Nigel]

I cannot see the problem with reging generic typos. I would not knowlingly (I check TM register first) register a TM typo.

Misspelling is a fact of life. Does the .co.uk owner of a common generic word also have absolute right to every misspelling of that word. I don't think so and I suppose it is up to DRS decisions (and the like) to make a ruling on this if anyone disagrees.

I have just reged a .com of a misspell of a very common two word garden supply. In the first two weeks it hardly got a visit then on Saturday some decent traffic arrived because it got listed in Google. I don't believe the .com owner of the correct spelling has any right to this traffic - our domain is targetting a common misspelling of a common english word (and is actually offering a service to those people who have mispelled the word) so if there is no ruling saying such practice is wrong (has there been any DRS on this? or a .com ruling?) then it must be assumed that anyone is entitled to a misspell of a common generic word.

 

[grandin]

clarification

Hi Nigel...what do you mean 'garden supply'? do you mean a garden supplier or a garden item?

Lee

 

[Nigel]

A Garden Item

 

[olebean]

Can we add a category "am i bovered!"

 

[grandin]

sounds ok

so....given its a garden item then lets assume this...

you register lawnmwoer.co.uk....and sell music downloads cause

www.lawnmower.co.uk also sold music downloads...then you would have a problem.

If you were both selling lawn mowers then no protection can be given to either party cause TM would not be issued on a name that is solely descriptive of the classification of trade.

However, this would be an intersting one....www.crocus.co.uk is a garden supplier so if you set up a mistype and sold garden goods this could be an infringement. However if you sold crocus bulbs under the mistype...i would say no infringement

Lee

 

[Nigel]

Hi Lee

I would agree with your good examples and reasoning - I assume Nominet experts in a DRS would take a similar line but I don't whether it has been put to the test.

 

[tifosi]

Can we add a category "am i bovered!"

won't let me

 

[texidriver]

....... cause TM would not be issued on a name that is solely descriptive of the classification of trade.

Get your head round this then.

"Football"

Class 41:
Providing sports facilities and recreation facilities; sports and recreation
advisory and information services; organising sports events; rental of stadium
facilities and sports equipment; organisation of competitions; sports club
services; physical education; games services provided on-line from a computer network.

http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2374590

 

[grandin]

not easy

nigel you wrote 'I would agree with your good examples and reasoning - I assume Nominet experts in a DRS would take a similar line but I don't whether it has been put to the test.'

My problem with the drs, wipo and eurid is that they are not prepared to make clear cut rules and stand by them....they have a clause that empowers the expert 'to do as he likes'....if the rules were clear cut at least we would know where we stand and then we could then direct our energy to the rules that we thought were unfair.

With non clear cut rules we are to use common sense to interpret the rules BUT as EURID have said to me common sense has no place....so round and round we go....I wouldn't mind so much BUT the remedy for an expert is TRANSFER to the complainant which is turly unfair given so much uncertainty.......it is easy to make mistakes when its all but clear.....

Lee

 

[grandin]

football.eu

texi wrote :
Get your head round this then.

"Football"

Class 41:
Providing sports facilities and recreation facilities; sports and recreation
advisory and information services; organising sports events; rental of stadium
facilities and sports equipment; organisation of competitions; sports club
services; physical education; games services provided on-line from a computer network.

http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/numbe...demark=2374590

Thats a good one texi....the patents reasoning is that class 41 has no relation to football but clearly the description does. Did the owner of the TM apply for a .eu domain name under sunrise...cause if they were first they would have got it!!

I might start applying for some trade marks on my generic words....is bul.co.uk a generic word or it just descriptive of trade mark law?

Lee

 

[Nigel]

My problem with the drs, wipo and eurid is that they are not prepared to make clear cut rules and stand by them....they have a clause that empowers the expert 'to do as he likes'....if the rules were clear cut at least we would know where we stand and then we could then direct our energy to the rules that we thought were unfair.

With non clear cut rules we are to use common sense to interpret the rules BUT as EURID have said to me common sense has no place....so round and round we go....I wouldn't mind so much BUT the remedy for an expert is TRANSFER to the complainant which is turly unfair given so much uncertainty.......it is easy to make mistakes when its all but clear.....

Lee

I agree and this is another reason why the DRS fee should be a lot higher than NIL to initiate a DRS and just £750 to take to the Expert stage.

 

[grandin]

subjective abusive intent

The DRS (as I see it) was designed to speed the process of Trade Mark holders getting hold of their relevant domain names prior to an infringement occurring. This has led to so many DRS cases that the DRS is too complex for any layman to understand....if common sense was to prevail then I do not think that any DRS would have a problem but the fact that common sense is not prevailing then the contract (the contract includes the DRS) is an unfair contract. The contract requires the registrant to be as good as a Trade Mark Attorney in interpretting the law....buying a domain is more complicated than buying a house and that transaction requires legal representation.

I must say....Nominet have got it easy in comparison to EURID...I don't understand my contract with EURID...the best they can do is refer back to the European Commission to re write the rules

Lee