Take the $150. Companies dont have to register their TM names during the TM registration period. mTLD is not above the law. Intellectual property law still stand whether a company has their name or not. The TM period is just a way to make it easier for companies to get their names earlier without having to deal with the hassle of cybersquatters at the same time. You are lucky they are offering you any money at all...
I'd say take the $150 you didn't reg for $150 not worth the trouble. take it mate...
Lesson 1: if you try it again, have the brains to use privacy whois, use a good registrar like Moniker, as Godaddy will find you guilty before innocent...
Also don't approach endusers (not sure if you did) & be careful if parking, better to develop.
Lastly if it's a tm, you are lucky to get anything..
These days it seems even generics aren't safe!..
It doesn't matter whether you're making money off of it or not they still own the rights to their name. So take the $150 and consider yourself lucky...
I agree with the above posters. Take the money they are offering. Unfortunately, you have very little leverage. If you try to bargain with them, they WILL accuse you of trying to profit from their Trademark.
Listen, don't get scared by their letters. Even though they are right, THEY ARE TRYING TO SCARE YOU by saying things like "profiting off the name", "bad faith", etc., etc. That's what lawyers do, they want to scare you into giving up the name.
But, you should give it up anyway, because you will lose in court. Period.
The reason they are offering any money at all is because it will cost them much more than that to get the name back from you in court. It most likely cost them more than that just to have that letter from their lawyer sent off to you.
Just take the money and give them the domain. It's the only option.
Disclaimer: I'm not giving legal advice, but GIVE THEM THE DOMAIN...
Moved to "Legal Issues" - for your own benefit..
Posting a current legal dispute on NP and mentioning the company by name is not wise and can only work against you...
Very good point Source...
IMO this is a no brainer. Your chances of wining are nil. Even if you had a legal leg to stand on (and you don't, since this is clear TM infringement), you still might lose unless you could match their legal resources.
And don't try bargaining with them since it isn't worth the risk. Their corporate mechanism might actually make it simpler to start legal action and pay $10k in fees then offer you an extra $100.
Also, I suggest you include a mutual release of claims clause in the transfer agreement when you hand over the domain. It is highly unlikely that they would come after you at a later date, but it's better to be in the clear, especially if it doesn't cost anything...
You did not state the domain in question..
But let's assume the domain is an obvious TM..
The fact that they did not take advantage of sunrise registration is not an excuse for any other party to grab infringing domains. Also it does not make sense for a company to register all possible typos and variations of their brands in all possible TLDs, even for defensive registration purposes..
You are lucky they offered compensation for your costs..
Of course I would seize the offer and run..
Check if they actually have a trademark registered with the patent office on it. If they do, take the $150, if not, you can reject it and see what happens...
Man, you are sooo gonna get it .... Labrocca, DNQuest, John Berryhill will be here soon..
Unless you wake up to yourself, forget the amateur legal (rose colored) research and apologise to the people whove sent you the C&D and kindly accept their offer..
Hey, but whatever you do (and in all due respect), please dont talk of trademarks and patents - all advice concerning checking their TM's and filing of same is BS.. You bought the names because you knew of the company and/or of their services, you therefore showed bad faith. The end...
Definitely accept the offer.
If I remember right Telstra is partially government owned as well. You definitely do not want a long, drawn out and costly legal battle that you are GUARANTEED to lose...
I don't think I need to add to this.....
Singapore is the biggest partner of Telstra now. I guess Telstra have large expendition plans in the future and therefore request for all relevant domains to be under it posession asap.
In this capitalist world, It better to keep cool and sell it for 150USD...
Hmm...now why do I get the feeling I saw this thread somewhere else?.
Anyway, wise decision to take the $150. That's...how many times your "initial.
There is really no way you can win this, by the way. They DEFINITELY have the trademarks...
I am from Australia. Telstra does have the monoply here in Australia and is part government owned.
Could you tell us the name?..
And that helps you why? That proves you DID register the domain name AFTER the trademark was in place. Although you have not made 1 cent from the domain name the fact that you are trying to sell it for $3,000 shows that you are trying to profit from it, or did you reg it for $3,000 (if you did I would find a new registrar). You have already admitted you regged them because of telstra. So if you got the term from telstra what makes you think they never trademarked it? How will using whois privacy help. If you use whois privacy the company will go straight to WIPO. As a WIPO has then been initiated then the registrar are obliged to provide the registered owners details...
Just because they didn't take it doesn't make it right for you to take it...
You can't get any clearer of any TM violation than this. You might as well take the $150 and be happy they gave you anything. No matter what you still registered after the trademark was registered and of course there might have been prior knowledge before that. Just take what they offer and be happy. Having it on Sedo for $3000 definitely doesn't help the case either. This is a open and shut case for cyber-squatting and the chances of you winning are slim to none.
Notice two derogatory terms there? Abuse, cyber-squatter. So because you are quoting him you are abusing the domain name and/or cyber-squatting? Regardless of the quote the domain was registered in bad faith and you should give it up before the situation possibly gets worse...
Phone them? Talk to them, don't do it via email. And get whoIS protection for the name.
You could just hold onto the name, without selling it anywhere. I mean, how is that profiting from it?..
I think you're starting to contradict yourself here. You aren't stating you have one Telstra related domain but some...It makes it worse if you have multiples of a trademarked name.
I see you thought out your original post (very informative without giving the domain name away), but I don't see it helping you in any way.
You should definitely make sure the source of the email is legit, but at the same time take into consideration what you did is a classic example of cyber-squatting. Lodged meaning...they put it in for consideration and they might still be waiting for approval. You should know governments are bureaucrats and take their time for everything. At the same time you might want to contact an attorney to see if everything is legit and what your legal stance is in Australia. If they filed for it there has to be some kind of documentation somewhere that they did this...
Hopefully the one you're going to talk to is a smart cookie. Otherwise, you're.
Potentially shooting yourself in the foot based on what you've posted so far.
Well, it's your arse...
Best of luck!! If you verify it really from Telstra that demand for the return of domain name and if you a australia citizen too. Take the offer, that it. Telstra is a wholly government owned by Australia Government for what I know.
I can mess around with anyone in the world but not the local government.
If it a scammer email, tell that person " try your luck elsewhere". It happen due to the popular of .mobi, scammers seem to appear frequently around us. Be calm is the word!!..
You gotta love the rose colored glasses squatters wear trying to convince themselves they are not squatters. Yet, you only list it for $3,000.00?!?!?!?.
Also, Whois protection is not some magical way to hide your identify and shield yourself from claims. If anything, it could make a TM holder more aggressive...
I live in Australia..
Telstra are money bitting little punks..
I reckon you have all the right to the domain, they even said companies have so little time to claim their domains. So basically it's their fault for on at the right time..
But yeah your prolly right because it's such a big company you prolly will lose....
Curious about the "for your own benefit" comment there - does this imply that threads in the legal issues forum are not indexed?..
Don`t sell it, Telstra has no rights on slang not TM names.
Remove the name from any selling place , transfer it to Moniker (defintely don`t leave it at GoDaddy) and put privacy-whois, then tell them to go surfing for fish other places.
It`s extremely important that you let them chase you and that you remove it from all the web till you develop it in something uniquely yours.
Don`t listen the crap, you got the giant chasing you, best scenario I would dream...
Exactly.. consider yourself lucky they're willing to pay you!..
Have fun with this..
Heres a story of Telstra in a courtcase of telstra.org http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2000-0003.html.
They won, they have trademarks in Australia.
ALSO have fun.
Can't wait to be a lawyer when i'm older..
That was TELSTRA.ORG he did not reg telstra.mobi ...........
And thats why I made that quote bold, read it..
I once bought a .tv name of a trademarked US company name, back in the early days of .tv. Almost immediately found out that it was a bad idea, forwarded the traffic, and attempted to transfer the name. But the very large company never got back to me...
Time went by and then I got an e-mail and phone call purporting to be from their lawyers in Sweden!.
I contacted the US firm's law office directly and successfully transferred the name. They gave me NO money, I did not expect any, but they also did not go after me for my mistake..
The Sweden thing was completely a scam.
Moral of the story, if it is their name, contact them directly and quickly give it back. Do not communicate through any channels that you do not initiate.
If however, it is not their name at all, but a generic term for new technology, use it in good faith. It appears that it is probably not them trying to contact you...
If they have a TM on the name or phrase, take the money. Here are your choices:.
1. Take the $150 and be done, move on to something more productive, and learn a valuable lesson.
2. Have a UDRP or WIPO (or lawsuit) filed against you and pay 10 to 100 times that to defend yourself. If you lose, you have your name in the searchable UDRP database for a long time to be used against you in a future case. This is even if you don't file a response and they win by default. If you win, which I doubt, you still have spend probably more than you could later make just defending yourself...
No this section is not indexed by search engines. The reason this has been done is because the companies in question if they found such threads could use it against the user to win the domain back via wipo or other means...
Connections, read your own posts....
"So last year when the mobi domain names were released I snapped up a few really hot names, some relating to Telstra and their new mobile phone based websites".
This is your quote from your post. So I don't care how much you try to convince yourself you are ok, you are not. You shown bad faith intent, this means you are cybersquatting. The names are "hot" because of someone else's hardwork. As far as whether the term is TMed ot not, if it was registered under the thought process of the quote above, then re assured they probably have a "common law" TM, or at least rights to the name, more rights than you do.
Italiandrago: irresponsible post here in the legal setion. That is cybersquatting tactics and thought process, and offers zero help...
Could you pm me the name? I will keep it private, I am a Australian resident, I may be able to help you out, I still think you should take the $150, you didn't pay $150 and it's better to be safe then sorry...
"This site includes registered trade marks and trade marks which are the subject of pending applications or which are otherwise protected by law including, but not limited".
Read this statement over and over...... "not limited to".... so there can be more.
They can have other TMs which their name is not included, so what is your point in saying it is not their name...
I have a border line TM domain. I wrote to the guys, they never got back. Now there are atleast two xxxx offers I have received on the domain. The domain is a typical fansite material. What if I were to sell off the domain to those guys?.
I am not attempting to hijack this thread, but what if connections sold this domain to the Swedish folks?.
They become legitimate owners of the domain, and connection could also get some cash?..
What are you talking about man.. Do yourself a favor and stop researching trademark law and disecting the finite points of a letter you got from a REAL lawyer.. You admit to buying the domain solely because you KNEW of telstra's products and services and the domain IS related to them.. You knew this when you registered the domain/s therefore you are a cybersquatter. These points continually pressed home by DNQs are not guesses, hes citing the law. I also recommend against people posting their "guesses" of TM law as advice in this thread for they really could be assisting this person into a place he'll wish he never ended up..
My last post in this thread - You will NEVER get a huge pay day from this domain, take the $150 a apologise profusely.
They are not trying to scam you for a domain you have no rights to. UNLESS this domain is generic. Telstra have already lost one case to win the domain "yellowpages.something" because of the generic nature of the domain.. So, there may be a case to "see a lawyer in the morning" - If it's not generic however... Well, do as you wish.. But dont say we didnt warn you...
Get an out of court settlement, delete any page at the site that you own, they cannot sue you for a domain name ownership, only if you have used their content, and ripped them off. Then ask them for a sum of money to purchase the domain, having a trademark doesn't reserve a domain for you, surely? Correct me if I am wrong?..
This is turning into a mess.
Keeping it simple:.
UDRP you seem to have a sure-fire loser on your hands..
You (And some apologists) now seem to think that you can weasel your way out of an admittedly intentional infringement...
Go get real legal advice and stop trying to justify your actions to members here that already know how far you've crawled.
Oh dear, connections hasn't done that yet? I'm disappointed.
It's sometimes amazing what delusion can do to some folks...
Even if the name wasn't trademarked could he be get done for cybersquating because he registered a promo/product name of a Australian trademarked company?.
(just curious, I want to study law)..
Just so you know how lawyers work. They will write you a very strong legal letter to make you afraid of them. The fact that they are offering you any money at all says that they are not sure that they could win in court and they are trying to see if you will give it up easily due to the "Court Action" statement. Lawyers won't give up clien'ts funds unnecessarily so that in itself says there is something they aren't sure of. They would have just sent a simple C&D letter and no offer except to be taken to court if you ignore it. I know cause I was a Law Clerk for 20 years.
If I were you I would check with the TradeMarks and Patent Office to make sure they really do have this registered as a trademark and if they don't then say that yes you have this domain name and you would be willing to give it up but that $150.00 won't cover the costs that you have spent on this domain name to this point.
Then see what they say...
"Telstra rigorously protects it's intellectual property and makes strenuous efforts to monitor the activities of potential infringers both in Australia and overseas."..
Stand corrected... you are wrong Irresponsible post....
Money is offered to end the matter fast. It has nothing to do with the strength of their case.
A TM DOES NOT have to be registered to be offered protection.
Imagine how much money the domain holder would have to spend if they decide to make an example of him?..
I was going to post that. I wasn't to 100% sure tho. Just wondering, Are you a lawyer or is anybody on namepros a lawyer?..
"Giving up" clients' funds is what they may be trying to avoid - $150 vs. 20-30 minutes of their time spent on the issue..
I do not know, and will not attempt to guess, what type of "law clerk" you were, but you are off target with your advice (And your attempted credentialing can only hurt the OP)..
1) Offering money does not indicate that they are not sure of their chances of prevailing..
2) You are assuming that they are giving up the funds "necessarily", and that they would not otherwise set out to make an example of the OP (Assuming a perfectly rationale actor)..
3) C&D with no offer? Speaks for itself..
4) USPTO (Or the Aussie equivalent) would be good places to begin looking for TM's, but are not exhaustive (And a simple Google search would tell you more, perhaps) and should not be relied on in determining the strength of the case that the OP is facing..
I am not, I am very clear on that, but there are several very reputable domain lawyers who read all these posts and they do pipe in when needed...
You should just put it up for auction at Sedo and get more $ and take all responsibilities off of you by giving the problem to somebody else...
How's that? I've seen and heard a lot of people do that...
Your actions speak louder than words; any kind of "joke" that you are being taken as is of your own making, not Dave's.
We have all told you to go to your lawyer today (That you posted you were going to anyway), which is the best "incite" [sic] that you can get at the moment.
-Allan The OP has been put on notice that he is infringing - the company that is claiming infringement could very easily seek damages against him for making their task of stopping said infringement that much more difficult, etc.
You might want to learn first before you post in legals again. If you pawn off the domain, you are still liable. That inclused fine of up to $100,000.00, attorney fees, punitive damages, loss of all monies gained... plus, if you do not tell the person there was a TM problems and were contacted about it, they can come after you for fraud which include many penalties...
Like I said... please learn...
Please close the thread I have made a decision on this issue.
No I will not be selling it on SEDO and passing these hassles onto some one else, that would be the wrong thing to do...
Real experts have replied. They have given unbias and fair assesment. Sorry you don't like what was said. No one called you a joke (at least I did not read that), but did say you are dillusioned which happens to may people in denial. BTW- I am not a cop either, but I know if you rob a store, you will get in trouble...
Thread will not be closed; opportunities here still to learn.
Let us know what happens after talking to your attorney (Which was today, yes?).
Your living on the hope that the don't have a trademark. You also registered it with bad faith knowing it was something Telstra branded/named..
Also a lawyer who took on mcdonalds and won must be a hefty price on your wallet.
You seem to go from one extreme to the other. One minute you were thinking of taking it then you say screw them and get your court face on, You need to think it over properly before you do anything..
What are you going to do if you lose? I don't think it'll be small change. Also you said you registered several names that Telstra brand. what happens when they come after you for them?..
Hopefully it will be amicably resolved without any need for legal action, then...
What kind of a forum is this I request for a thread to be closed and my request is denied by forum staff, what kind of a operation are you guys running here?.
School kids giving legal advice :S, staff members who seem to be harshly negative to every one who has a different view on a subject then them...
Well if he took on MacDonald's then I guess he will certainly win against such small fries like an Australian telecom.
Look, you're letting emotion get the better of you. Do not bite off more than you can chew just to prove you can.
You change to another extreme. You know what. Yes I am a school kid, i'd just like to state least I have the sense not to play around with trademarked names and not have to go through this crap in the first place, big deal i'm a teen, I seem to have the right info, I actually gave you proper advice unlike many of the older people here who were saying to keep it and such. You should be greatful I tried to offer some help instead of jumping down my throat.
Also on IAmAllanShores Part.
He only kept it open so you could post what ended up happening, it's good to know the outcomes, he only left it open so you could post the end result..
Well, it's a forum where only the owner (-RJ-) and it's mods can do what they.
See fit. Just read the first paragraph of the link below for a little reality check: http://www.namepros.com/340680-dns-r...ml#post2025486.
It's actually kind of Allan to move the thread here rather than let it remain in.
The open previously, though of course you don't have to thank him if you feel.
You don't owe him a thing. No one has to meet your expectations, especially.
In a forum where you don't pay a dime...
I'm going to venture a guess that based on the hints given, the domain is next.mobi, since they have a site set up as next.com.au that is a youtube clone. Yes, maybe "what next" might be a generic term and you may have a shot, but if it's in fact "next" with that distinct spelling, I'd say you have zero chance of winning.
I would also assume that in this thread you were talking about the same domain when you wrote: http://www.namepros.com/dot-mobi/309...-mobi-soo.html Seems to me you knew then you were infringing based on the part of the quote I underlined. You also made your intentions very clear in that post. BTW, they didn't make a mistake...you did. No company is required to register names defensively. They can just sue if their TM is infringed upon.
If you can get that attorney that beat McDonalds, you better try to hire him on a contingency fee. if he won't take it on that basis, he too assumes you'll lose and wants to be paid anyway. By the way, McDonalds has overstepped TM law by trying to take domains and the right to use real last names from legitimate people and business with the name McDonald, so winning those cases isn't a big deal. This case isn't exactly a common surname like McDonald.
Also, next.com which seems to promote retirement planning was registered in 1999 with content up since 2001. They can likely prove they didn't register in bad faith...
In that case, talk to that attorney you said you're going to...
Everyone has to learn..
I offered real advice, Are you saying that because I am a teenager I don't have real advice? Also this is pretty much basic, I offered help and it wasn't anything that would get you into trouble, If you wanted proper advice you should have went to a attorney like Dave Zan said. Everyone here is only trying to offer "real" advice, your lucky people are nice enough to even helping you or others with problems like this, You should be greatful...
So basically, your lawyer told you to do what we have been telling you to do. I guess we did know what we were talking about, even without knowing the domain name. Damn we are good. All we had to do was read your posts to see what was going on. You asked for help, we did, you didn't like what we had to say and proceeded to argue like a little kid. Then your lawyer tells you the same thing.
As far as un-ethical, you admit to registering TM'ed domains (apparently more than once), I guess that makes you a professional cybersquatter, right? Where is the ethics in that? This is a public forum owned by a private individual, only he or people he appoints makes decisions about the forum...
Sorry, but you'll need a court order to do that. Good luck trying to obtain one,.
Much more trying to enforce it from overseas...
You mean after all the posturing he advised you along the same lines as the "school-kids" here? And you should be thankful that your attorney was willing to talk himself out of some business, as some might have been interested in advising you in a way that would have been better for their bottom line.
Who's the dick? isn't ASTRONAUTS a trade mark of NASA :S..
Ok thanks every one for your advice, But I really thing every one on here needs to calm down and let members shed their own views into certain subjects.
Ok I agree I have made a small mistake with this domain, And like I said this issue has been dealt with.
Domain has been pushed to the new owners.
Thanks for every ones point of view, some people on here have a wealth of knoledge and I appreciate this. I just don't like people posting in a negative way or refering to me using a derogatory term, becuase I did every think in my power to see if this domain was a TM and I thought it was not, now I have found out it is I have transfered it to the right owners.
Once again thanks and case closed. wow if this is a classic thread I would be dumbfounded...
Well, "Astronaut" is a TM of a Norwegian milking company, an Illinois pen and pencil company, a Japanese clock company, a California food company, etc. etc. etc.
I guess he's talking to his lawyer right now...
You are the author of this thread and the staff here should respect your wishes. Denying the closing of this thread is extremely unprofessional. Oh really? You go to figure out one problem now NP staff has given you another legal problem. Nice one guys.
I'll think twice about using this legal section ... EVER. NP Staff call it a "learning experience" but it seems you've been made to look like a fool based on your uneducated decisions about purchasing domain names.
There is a clear lesson to be learned here. Proof is in the pudding...
Huh-what? If he asked for it to be deleted, should we? If he asked that we edit his earlier words without letting the "edited" tag appear, should we? If he asks that certain views expressed in this thread be deleted, should we? "Respecting the wishes" is a cute concept, but is woefully uninformed when it comes to the application of any principle. That's fine, and just for the record, so did the OP. I moved it to the legal section to help the OP - you have to be a member to see the Legal Issues forum and spiders aren't allowed - he posted this in the public forum and opened up his situation to discussion. Can you guess what "discussion" is? It is not us stopping the conversation any time someone doesn't like the answers they are getting. Aside from a snide (And clever) comment about a Melville character, the only one responsible for being made to "look a fool" would be the poster him/herself. A random cliche that does not seem to fit; see my last line above.
In the end all those legal threads look so similar..
A closed thread is still accessible and readable. Enough has been spoken and added to this thread to make the situation very clear and point out what's wrong and/or right. I suppose the request was truly to remove the thread. Considering that this is a public forum, requests for removal are a bit of a longshot, eh?.
Indeed, there was a lot to be learned in this thread. Be concise in your post, don't contradict yourself throughout your responses and when stand up guys, that have zero benefit of ones domain name, give their best, at times VERY valid legal opinion/evaluation about a question, open your ears, listen and then execute. There are no fools on here, other than the ones that point at themselves and deliver posted proof that can be seen even through the thickest pudding.
Thanks for a learning experience...
Allan, this reply approach doesn't work for me You want me to say NO NO NO and then figure out a way to say yes? Let's work with your views quote for quote: Why wouldn't you? Does it hurt NamePros? No! Does it provide some form of respect to a namepro member wishes? My answer is yes. It's a very logical thing to perform Allan. Does it hurt you? no! Does it hurt the member? Yes. (but who cares according to Dave) and now you. Have you done it before on NP for any other member including staff or admins? Yes. What's the problem here with this member? NP appears to have made him look bad, and he wants just a little advice.
We shouldn't even be discussing this but it needs to be discussed because it's just wrong IMO. Depends on the situation and in this situation no, he wants the thread removed this means 100% of the entire thread not just "certain views that have been expressed". Here is some advice: You tick off the checkbox while viewing the threads and in the pulldown click "remove thread". You may need to confirm this removal by selecting "physically remove thread". It's not that hard really.
You sound very agressive and it is clearly showing. Is this how you approach other members when they have a point to make about respecting wishes of OP's? looks like it's done you very well in your arguments overwhelming anything that has been said. Again, that doesn't work for me, maybe others, but not me.. sorry. Cute concept? application of any principle? Come on allen. Read between the lines man.
Your points are clear but you are missing my point. So now I sound cute? interesting. Respecting someone's wishes isn't cute, it's curtious. Something namepros should be focused on because the members are making this forum happen or have we forgotten this rule because you live here? Just take a step back for a minute. Pretend you are a regular web surfer reading some legal forum on some site.
I've been a member for close to a year (maybe more) and I was never under the impression spiders couldn't read the legal side. Where does it state this exactly? I'd like to read the fine print. Let me guess, your TOS ... burried away within millions upon millions of posts? Wait. One look to the footer page clearly indicates that I can advertise my business.
Now a few glances to the header/top nav reveals nothing about any TOS. So I figure it might be in the "quick links" nope. Nothing there. But I'm able to buy sticky threads, pay namepros for my domain names, and everything else but no TOS. Interesting.
For what it's worth, who cares. The problem I was referring to is this public legal thread is very threatening to the OP and based on his uneducated nature of domaining. Staff here at Namepros need to be leaders, period. Making a poster feel like they have another legal battle to remove some text from a forum that already has over a million posts is remarkable. Fine! you have some policy, then address that issue professionally! Right?.
See my point? I realize you've provided him with some advice. In fact, I'm here stating my case right now because up to this point I had really respected Dave's views and thoughts in countless posts. Okay so he posted in the wrong forum. So do thousands of other members here on Namepros You did your job. You moved the thread. Okay so now we start seeing the real nature of your reply.
Sounds like you think all members are children that don't understand what discussion is. Get real. That quote by dave was uncalled for period. Do you not agree?.
Here is what should have happened, perhaps then I wouldn't be so inclined to step in: Instead, he receives this:.
Of course I understand what "discussion" is. But do you guys understand what respect is? Shouldn't you be PMing Dave right about now asking him to tone down? or should I be doing that?.
Time for RJ to kick in some attitude adjustments around here. This is awful as my post icon clearly indicates...
Every time you reply, it brings the thread back to the top of the list. I think most agree it's more like probable than "possible" that you made a mistake. Lots of newbies to this industry make the same mistake, which is why it's important for threads like this, so someone can learn from others experiences instead of by their own bad experience the hard way. One lesson I'm still not sure you've learned is that there is a difference between a registered TM that you can find on file with a government body, and a still valid TM gained through unregistered use in the marketplace. TM or not, I don't think registering the non-generic name you believe a major company will be using as a service is good ethics, unless you have a valid non-competing use in mind for it. That indicates bad faith whether there's a TM or not.
However, even that won't work since if TM holder wants they can go back to all holders since registration if they wanted to, even if you've sold it or given it away. Another lesson to be learned: Don't post ANYTHING on the internet you don't want publicly read. You may be able to get it removed, and you may not. Sometimes even if removed, it's likely archived somewhere else and could be found or come back. Second, if you do make a mistake and want something removed, it's best to be nice about it and ask privately.
Once you post on a site owned by someone else, the decision rests with the owner as to what they want to do with it.
You can edit everything you've posted yourself without even asking. However, you also have to consider that you've asked to have what others have posted be removed. The moderators may make you happy and have another poster angry that their opinion was removed. However, to be democratic, I will submit that the moderators may remove my posts without complaint in this thread if all others are also removed. What is "un-authorized material". If you want to post and have ultimate say in whether an answer you don't like gets posted, then you need to own the forum so you can moderate or censor the answers.
If that happens to be the case, you should probably be more specific as to the violation...
People generally understand what respect is. But personal levels vary.
And here I thought my post was "respectful" despite my holding back. I guess.
I'll be more brutally frank next time as long as it's realistically true...
It can go on like this for days, but I think I will now "bow out" of this as well. I can't be an apologist every time someone (you) is (are) offended by my actions. Rationale discussion is always welcome, but we can take it to PM. I will very selectively reply to the portions of your post that deal with NP, and not me. Yes, the deletion hurts NamePros. It removes otherwise valuable content from the site, and disrespects the members who took the time and energy to reply to the original post.
However, the implication that we are treating him differently somehow is just plain false.
I'm now skipping the incoherent portion of your diatribe, but it too will be preserved here. I can't imagine that he was actually suggesting that as a course of action (Basis for removal is laughable at best), although I will not speak for Dave. Instead this would seem to be pointing out how, yet again, the OP was spouting off on topics that he had no knowledge about (Threads here and elsewhere that claim "legal reasons" for the removal of this thread.) and was instead posturing in a way that was most unbecoming.
Not skipping this part; it's priceless. I can only go by what I know, but just to clear it up for anyone who has read this far: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%...ient=firefox-a.
Why cry about our policy that helps people? Malcontent, much?.
Take a breather, and yell at me all you want via PM. Once you get it out of your system, maybe you too will want this thread removed after thinking better of your content/tone.
If any other member thinks I am out of line, I welcome a PM or report me to RJ/Mark/Chris/Whomever.
Psalzmann Read this please : http://www.namepros.com/340680-dns-r...ml#post2025486.
My "personal" policy is NOT to Delete anything ... It's safer for everyone in the long run. I do move threads to private sometimes as per OP's request ... But generally that is a Dated Sales thread (Year old ++).
Not to mention - The Attorney(s) and Experienced Members who do come in here to Volunteer their Comments and Opinions shouldn't have to answer the same questions over and over ... Many Answers are already here if people would just search rather than post a new thread each time.
Threads such as this are in fact a learning experience for Everyone IMO ~..
Now THIS is a MUST READ! First time i've "heard" about the referred to thread. Not just educationally very valuable, but to a certain extent hilarious! On a side note; Reading John Berryhill's "um" response - something tells me he's a Lewis Black fan...
Congratulations on a happy ending connections, and in making the pro choice.
Onwards and upwards..
Hey "connection" - it's against the rules of most all forums to "break the connection" - meaning to run around later and write "close thread," "content edited out" or "erased post." It's also known as flagrant abuse of the editing function. In other words, to try to hide and cover up all of your previous comments. You need to be able to stand by your words and take it like a man if you're wrong.
But don't worry, before you did your "close de thread" routine, many of us "cut and pasted de thread" for our archives. So all of your old comments STILL exist somewhere, and always will. So you DID learn something after all. Have a nice day...
And I don't appreciate other members advising him that he should do just that, but I guess that's what I get for not closing the thread - sure "learned" me.
Can people please stop posting in this thread, I was advised by the moderation team here to edit out my posts, because they seem un-able to close or delete threads for some reason, yet they seem to be able to lock threads and unlock them.
Once again I understand you cant totally delete this thread but can you atl east LOCK it. Because I am sick of posts in here, like I said this case is over, their is no room for further discussion. But if people want future reference then lock it they can still read it I just don't want this thread been bumped up every day.
Thank you for your time.
And like I said case is closed, the legal team in this case has advised me not to further discuss this matter this is why I am trying to get this closed or locked...
What`s this drama all about?.
I even wasted time to give you an advice......and you can`t even share the name ? If you have surrendered to Telstra what`s the problem then?.
I`m very disappointed mate...
I was actually trying to find that but couldn't, probably too tired. Thanks...
Thanks for your advice but it would have just landed me with more problems if I did what you advised me to do.
Sure I think a lot of people are making me sounds like this massive bad guy here, but the fact of the matter is their were a lot of possible outcomes for this case and the fact of the matter is that I should have researched some posts on here in more depth before acting.
Sure their are some great resources here, sorry for sounding negative here I guess I am still new to this business of domains in part, I have only been into domains for 2-3 years yet like I stated I have made some big sales XX,XXX and also had some losses like this one for example.
I think we just need to move on from this fact sure I have made some mistakes and I have now dealt with them.
I`m sorry to insist but I don`t understand you.
You are saying you had a loss here. Which loss? You hand-regged a name on bad faith and Telstra payed you $150. I call that a gain.
Also, I see no issues at all letting us know what name was so that we can understand how right or bad Telstra has been. They have got the name and I can`t see how you can`t share the end of this story...
Being in Australia and registering Telstra names is like being in the US and registering Microsoft ones...
Dragon, never ask someone reveal a domain if they don't want to. It is their risk, not yours. You never here the veterns here ask for it, and with good reason. That is why many times we try to cover all possible senarios at times. Yes, it makes things easier, but we are here to HELP people, revealing hte name could hurt them.
Connections - As far as I can remember, no one here called you a bad guy. Maybe naive or misinformed, but there are many others like that too. That is why we try to help as much as possible. Believe it or not, but this thread can really help someone new to the business or someone who has been in the business but did not really dive into the legal aspects. (as does the many other posts here in legals). Myself and many others help (including some well respected domain attorneys) wihtout asking for anything in return.
Keep in mind, we have no vested interest in any of the questions here, just a desire to help. I think many people benefited from this thread (and hopefully you did to)...