Which cases and policies are you specifying?.
No cases specifically, but in regards to legislation like the Snowe Bill or anything like-minded...
In someone's trash bin?.
Needless to say, there's nothing to guarantee you'll retain the domain name if.
Someone chooses to dispute your possession of it. I read one UDRP where the.
Registrant used it for email and won, but that won't necessarily stop a panelist.
From thinking it's still not enough for legitimate use.
Just gotta prepare for that as best as you can...
I believe I have seen some WIPO decisions where the respondant has noted their legitimate use for an email address and a site didn't exist. IMHO that's a legitimate non-commercial use of a domain.
We would need to get expert opinion though like Mr. Berryhill.
I could see a case where owning cocacolaemail.org won't hold up but something very generic like windows.org might hold more true. I can't see how using as an email is bad faith usage or TM infringement. It's personal fair use imho. But as Dave pointed out...no guarantee against a panelist just being a prick...
Yep... unfortunately there seems to be no foolproof way to protect a name anymore... but, I would find it hard for someone to prove you use a domain in bad faith because you only use it for email purposes...as the others said, no guarantee you wouldn't get an idiot panelist...
(disclaimer: i'm not lawyer and hadn't any case like that).
But if I remember right that can be a positive point for you.
If you have used email in your business, you can use that to show NO bad faith. (domain only for sale).
Of course your business should be different from TM holder.
Just my 2 cents..
Maybe this one go in right direction.
From : http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2000-1483.html I mean this part:.
Secondary meaning is the consumers association of the mark with a particular source or sponsor and is established out of long association of the name with the business, whereby the name and the business have become synonymous in the mind of the public, submerging the primary meaning of the name in favor of it's meaning as a word identifying that business.
Im no expert, but it does seem to me that where it resolves to is a very important point, more important than using it for email. The decision specifically states that resolving to a page advertising similar services supports findings of bad faith...
One thing is certain: You will get a lot of offers that start out "Since you do not use the domain...".
I run my own nameservers (DNS servers) for some of my domains. For over a decade I used one of my favorite domains as a nameserver and was constantly getting lowball requests about "not using the domain". I would guess that the vast majority of people think that a domain must have a web page associated with it or it is not really used. This is especially true for DNS service since the general public *never* sees the DNS server name. I finally pointed one of the "A" records to a web page just to show public use. I think I would be in trouble with just DNS service since I could not argue that I am known by that address, even though DNS is a critical part of the internet architecture.
Interesting question: how much "public use" does it take to constitute "legitimate use" in the eyes of a typical WIPO panelist?..
In light of recent decisions, I think it's more a question of how well you take care of a panelist...
They mangled the quote here a bit (swapping "Complainant" for "Respondent' at one point), but in tesla.com, the domain name had been used solely for email and ftp: http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/547889.htm.
Respondent has in fact presented substantial, relevant, admissible and persuasive evidence that Complainant registered this domain name on November 4, 1990, not knowing of the existence of Complainant, for purely personal reasons and has utilized the domain name for non-commercial, personal e-mail and other appropriate services. Complainant has presented no evidence to in any way indicate that the sworn representations of Respondent in this regard are in any way to be questioned.
Such a use by Respondent is certainly a legitimate one. Nishan Sys., Inc. v. Nishan, Ltd., 2003-0204 (WIPO May 1, 2003)...