Cancel that sorry

hahaha. I just can't believe what I was about to post, I can't stop laughing at it. People wouldn't believe me if I posted it and there is already enough of that going on 😂 😂
 
Because you didn't give 24 hours notice I'm afraid a small fee will be payable!
 
:ROFLMAO: I love how little threads like this over here get so many more positive interactions than absolutely any content than the other forum!
 
Last edited:
I'm just re-reading this for like the 20th time. It really can't be right, it just can't. Nobody could really go before a Trademark judge and argue this, surely?

There is obviously a little bit more to this, and some of you may work it out as we go along. Now they've put it all in writing it's on the record and I'm happy to discuss some points.

I'm objecting to a Trademark application that exactly matches one of my domain names. The reason that they are giving for the use of the trademark is to protect the valuable inbound links. I've never given these people any permission to use these links as a basis for their application. Yet here we are.

The most obvious end goal here is most likely to obtain a TM and to try and DRS me in the future. In a previous DRS, the experts have already said that won't be enough to just have a TM, they'll need a previous reputation etc. I've got a couple of baffled legal people dealing with the Court stuff, so they will handle that.

When they first wrote down why they applied for a trademark, I checked on ChatGPT to see if I was mad.

Q: Can I trademark inbound web links?

A: No, you cannot trademark inbound web links themselves. Trademark law primarily protects brand names, logos, slogans, and other identifiers that distinguish the goods or services of one entity from those of others.

Inbound web links (links pointing to your website from other sites) are essentially pointers or references to content on the internet, and they do not qualify as a source identifier, which is a core requirement for something to be eligible for trademark protection.

However, you can trademark the brand or name associated with the website that the inbound link points to, as long as it meets the criteria for trademark protection.
Click to expand...

Can I trademark a website or domain name just because it has inbound links?

No, you cannot trademark a website solely because it has inbound links. Trademark protection is based on the distinctiveness of a name, logo, slogan, or other identifiers that represent the source of goods or services, not on the website's inbound links.

To trademark something related to a website, the website's name, logo, or a specific brand element must serve as a distinct identifier of your goods or services in the marketplace. The mere fact that a website has inbound links does not grant it the distinctiveness or source-identifying qualities required for trademark protection.

In summary, trademarks protect brand elements that help consumers identify the source of products or services, not the technical aspects or popularity metrics of a website like inbound links.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here? Can you get a trademark to protect a link profile?

Who is right, ChatGPT of a well known trademark Solicitor that operates in the Domain world?
 
GreyWing said:
I'm just re-reading this for like the 20th time. It really can't be right, it just can't. Nobody could really go before a Trademark judge and argue this, surely?

There is obviously a little bit more to this, and some of you may work it out as we go along. Now they've put it all in writing it's on the record and I'm happy to discuss some points.

I'm objecting to a Trademark application that exactly matches one of my domain names. The reason that they are giving for the use of the trademark is to protect the valuable inbound links. I've never given these people any permission to use these links as a basis for their application. Yet here we are.

The most obvious end goal here is most likely to obtain a TM and to try and DRS me in the future. In a previous DRS, the experts have already said that won't be enough to just have a TM, they'll need a previous reputation etc. I've got a couple of baffled legal people dealing with the Court stuff, so they will handle that.

When they first wrote down why they applied for a trademark, I checked on ChatGPT to see if I was mad.

Q: Can I trademark inbound web links?



Can I trademark a website or domain name just because it has inbound links?



Am I missing something here? Can you get a trademark to protect a link profile?

Who is right, ChatGPT of a well known trademark Solicitor that operates in the Domain world?
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here?

If the inbound links they're relying on are from your domain, surely you can just kill those links? And if the inbound links are from the same string in a different TLD, the owner of that domain can kill them, and would presumably also object to the TM.

Even if the TM is granted, it would post-date your domain registration, so it couldn't be used as evidence that your registration was abusive. However, it could effectively prevent you selling the domain because it could be used as evidence that the new owner's acquisition was abusive.
 
Be aware some UDRP panelists believe renewing a domain after trademark granted means it can be taken from the registrant - that kind of insanity is sadly contagious.

Would the 'inbound links' would be to your website in the name-match example, in which case point that out - just thinking of that as TM justification makes it scream a future RDNH attempt to me.
 
Jeff said:
Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Evening Jeff

If you are mate, that makes two of us. My Legal rep thought I was lying to them before I sent it. I'd have loved to continue with this myself but it's so baffling I don't understand it.

Jeff said:
Even if the TM is granted, it would post-date your domain registration, so it couldn't be used as evidence that your registration was abusive. However, it could effectively prevent you selling the domain because it could be used as evidence that the new owner's acquisition was abusive.
Click to expand...
Nothing at all to do with this TM case, but I'm redirecting it to another one of my brands next month when the new site is built because my existing brand has many more exact match searches than this one. 25,000 UK searches a month compared to to 3,000. I'm also getting 50+ complaints a day from previous customers of the old brand wanting compensation. It just makes sense to switch earlier rather than later. I've had that other one for 14 years so it's an end to it all, fresh start an all that.

Thankfully not looking to sell it, but to your point, I think there was a UDRP case last year where they said the new buyer can assume the original rights. So if the registrant registered the name in 2010, and you bought it in 2022, you could assume the rights back to 2010 if it came to a UDRP. Nominet don't always follow the UDRP findings, but they may do. I don't think it has been tested yet in a DRS.

astutiumRob said:
Be aware some UDRP panelists believe renewing a domain after trademark granted means it can be taken from the registrant - that kind of insanity is sadly contagious.
Click to expand...

Hey Rob,

Luckily this one is a co.uk, so I can avoid the UDRP stuff. It's already been through a DRS at Nominet and I have to give it them, at first I was worried they wouldn't understand what had gone on, when you read their findings, it's clear they get everything instantly. They just dig right down into the main points, disregard the nonsense and make a decision. I know there is the odd DRS decision out there that we don't agree with, but 99% of the time they get it right, 99.9% of the time at the appeal stage.

I only have a few .com's, all generics. I really wouldn't like to go through a UDRP with a .com, looks a nightmare. I'd just bring in someone to help me with that.

Have you had one yourself?
 
I've advised on a few in respect of providing registrants my opinion/advice, prepping the data on registration dates etc, extracting the necessary contact/registrant data ( which is a whole different issue / problem ), sorting out historical backups/sites - mostly admin stuff before referring them to experts if they want to defend.

On the other side have worked with solicitors on deciding if to go that route / options.

They break into 3 types IME - what I'd call 'obvious' abusive regs, i-can-see-why-you-think-that but its not abusive regs, and touch-and-go so decide if you want to make a point vs just buying it regs.

As regards them passing-over my desk as a small/nicheish registrar it's rare on a sponsored domain - roughly one every 2-3 years thankfully.

From defending one it primarily comes down to value/money - that's the factor that makes most not defend ( which can itself be a form of abuse ).

NEVER scrimp and opt for a single-person panel.

Previously considered if getting properly involved in Domain Disputes would be a worthwhile pursuit - that convoluted discussion is best F2F over beer ( while drinking stays legal in the UK ! )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top