threatening letter about an LLL

[julian]

Just had a very threatening letter from foreign solicitor on behalf of a big ol' beast of a company saying i've abusively reg'd a so called tm of theirs and have a week to respond - or else.. DRS

I must say someone has pulled the stops out on this compling a 4 page word doc of all the tm terms and telling me what a bad man I am, just seems someone is trying it on - good effort..

 

[grantw]

Do you have it parked?

Grant

 

[julian]

yeah, but its on a totally unrelated in any way to these guys and always has been.

I feel like i want to take it down from parking but that sort of implies im at fault when totally legit..

Do you have it parked?

Grant

 

[retired_member12]

Is it a TM of theirs though?

 

[julian]

In my example it would be like: THE CARPHONE WAREHOUSE suddenly deciding they want TCW/co/uk

It would appear that TCW is tm'd along with TCM FUNDS, TCM PHONES etc, etc

Is it a TM of theirs though?

 

[Systreg]

Lousy gits , in that example ^^^, I believe that's called reverse domain hijacking, and is looked dimly upon by certain people like ICANN, and no dount Nominet as well.

[edit]

See example here:

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/07/13/a-domain-lawyers-view-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/

Bernstein said that companies believe that, just because they have trademarks, they can “swoop in and get these domain names”. She believes that complainants should pay a penalty if found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. “There should be some sort of recourse,” she said. “I think it should be attorney’s fees and arbitration fees. There has to be some sort of deterrent to stop the filing of these frivolous cases.”

 

[mojoco]

In my example it would be like: THE CARPHONE WAREHOUSE suddenly deciding they want TCW/co/uk

It would appear that TCW is tm'd along with TCM FUNDS, TCM PHONES etc, etc

Go straight back at them at put them in their place. Explain to them why their case is week, also let them know that you will pursue their client for any costs that you incur defending what is rightfully yours.

 

[accelerator]

As you probably know, TMs apply to certain classes of business. If the parking shows ads related to that class it could weaken your case, so you have to either make sure no ads in that class are appearing or depark it.

Other than that, I feel you would be within your rights to have a three letter, which could stand for so many other acronyms they would have no case.

Rgds

 

[bb99]

A rather general point but be wary of writing long defensive letters back as it may show all your cards now and reveal what your defence to any DRS may be.

 

[Edwin]

Get a lawyer. Really. If they're using a lawyer even before DRS, you're much better off communicating ONLY via lawyer. Otherwise who knows what you could accidentally end up admitting.

 

[mojoco]

Get a lawyer. Really. If they're using a lawyer even before DRS, you're much better off communicating ONLY via lawyer. Otherwise who knows what you could accidentally end up admitting.

sound advice!

 

[Skinner]

It sounds like the letter I got from an Italian company, only mine was 5 pages long yacking about prima facie rights, and blah blah, and that I had adverts on the parking page making money from their mark and blah de blah, hand it over AND pay costs incurred thus far blah.

It it wasn't parked on daily.co.uk's default registered domains page, and they only had like 3 classes for the word, I'd have been worried

 

[retired_member6]

Many people win four letter drs and that was a bunch of solicitors trying it on, three letters must be even more complicated, the only way I can see them having rights in a three letter is if they used to own it and displayed it on all their letterheads as such. Depends how many you have against you already and how much you stand to lose, if anything, roll with it, solicitors by their very nature are supposed to be obnoxious and irritating, that's their job.

Ignore them or reply with "it's a three letter, if you have rights then so does everyone else which pretty much means, it's generic and you have no rights, have fun" Ignore them, don't reveal your hand in any correspondence as you're just doing their job for them.

You'll find most big companies have solicitors inhouse and it costs them nothing to tell them to start writing letters as they're on a full salary and contracted anyway so them sending letters from a solicitor is no big deal, just means the director or advertising bod can give it to that dept. to deal with, in many cases I should think it's accounts you'll be hearing from next offering you money.

It costs them nothing to use an inhouse solicitor, an american company used one in London to write to me over here, I still got them to agree to pay money but I don't think they ever sent it so I sold it to someone else.

 

[julian]

Thanks for your thoughts gents

 

[namealot]

There have been cases recently for .com were they have tried too say lll.com are not generic enough???. Some poor sod lost lh.com this has made alot of companies sitting on them a little nervous, It would also appear to bring out some sharks to trying it on

Decision on a lll.com

 

[Maccke]

......... deleted.......

 

[expertc]

Few points worth checking:

Was the 3-letter trademark already registered in the UK when the domain was first registered?

Does it sound like any common abbreviation from any industry (google it for abbreviations)?

I have domains (short), which are sort of trademarked words but at the same time very common chemical abbreviations. Therefore any potential claimant would bite the dust straight away. Simple example (not my domain!): Country Music Channel (CMC) could trademark the word as many times as they want, but in my industry CMC is and was Carboxymethyl cellulose – end of story! Hope this helps…

 

[RSK3000]

Julian, It would be interesting to know how things are going with this. Is there anything you are able to tell us.

 

[afx]

Check out their TM's is it a pucker CTM for rights in the UK ? As you mentioned it was foreign company. If it's some shitty US only tm along with a dozen other tm's belonging to other unrelated companies, and you've not cut across their class via ppc usage, their case isn't strong IMO. They may know this already and are simply trying to bully you out of the name on the off chance you relent.

It's difficult to give proper advice without knowing the name, eg. if it was a household well established brand, it wouldn't do you any favours.

As mentioned just because it's from a lawyer doesn't mean it's serious and they've already laid out signifigant funds. As mentioned the law firm could be in house or on a retainer and it's costs them next to nothing. I personally would ignore the C & D, dont play any of your cards yet. Let them start the DRS, put in a proper response (by a top notch lawyer, there's one I can think of who has been very quiet of late, PM me for more info if you like). They will then either give up and not request expert decision / pay £750 or maybe you can reach an agreeable sale price in mediation.

You can also do your own pre-mediation, by contacting them as soon as the DRS arrives before you've submitted your response, if you're crafty you will work out their MO and maybe gain some helpful info for use in your response. Or you may be able to resolve it via an agreed sale and stop the DRS in it's tracks.

Whether it's a 5 to 10K+ 3 letter worth the fight, or a five hundred quid 3 letter with weaker letters all needs to be considered before you allow things to get to the expert. It's possible you may have no choice soon as you submit a response, the complainant can demand an immediate decison with no mediation.

You also need to weigh up the importance of this name to you and what other names you'd like to be less exposed. Although it's 3 strikes and you're out to change the burden of proof, any lawyer in a future case will cite your lost DRS (if it happens) and say look he's proven scumbag linking to the DRS that will be in the public domain.