I guess we just need to wait and see if Polaroids Inc. will contact them.
Or if someone could get them a headsup...
Has any one been sued yet for buying a domain from there? or contacted the sellers themselves?..
I totally agree and I have said it before. Listing deleting domains is one thing, 'suggesting' hand-picked TM names like they're doing is another..
And you wonder why our industry has got a bad rep..
I thought a polaroid was a type of plastic that polarizes light: used in sunglasses to eliminate glare. (from websters dictionary)..
I remember one time on the Ellen DeGeneres show she ways using the word Jacuzzi as if it was a generic term. The next couple of shows down the line she had to read an official statement from Jacuzzi Inc. about how Jacuzzi is a trademarked brand that does not refer to all hot tubs.
I wish I could find that statement on video but I did find this on YouTube. Notice how in the caption "Jacuzzi" is not even capitalized so that might have set off the company a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-kLDIyoOkc..
Coke, Xerox, Jacuzzi, Polaroid and such are examples of extremely well branded products. TM and all ....
Common use has simply adopted them as a standard of description.
Soda or soft drink = coke.
Photo copy = Xerox.
Heat therapy tub = Jacuzzi.
Instant photo development = Polaroid.
I would think this complicates the TM holder's position. Deciphering from common reasonable use and abuse of TM rights. I would also think this is a curse for the TM holder in that the litigation must be endless.
A layperson's opinion......
I think big companies like polaroid should have a part of their "trademark-protection" department working on monitoring such auctions. Infact they can more efficiently acquire relevent trademark domains more efficiently through such auctions instead of paying for expensive legal services to sue the trademark infringers...
I get regular results from Google when I search for cracks. What Google are you using?.
The hand-picking of polaroid for their front-page is total TM infringement imho. They are banking on the TM name to profit substantially. However none of this surprises me at all. It's big business TM domains and squatting them at major parking companies...
I was contacted by the previous owner after picking up a name that apparently had a tm on it...nay, I was threatened by the last owner. Ignored his email and never heard anything again...
As of August 18th NJ has ePaypal.com as a featured name on their homepage. http://i34.tinypic.com/vy7bs8.jpg..
There is another important message in this thread that has not been talked about and that is companies like Snap, Namejet and Pool only go after names that their customers place backorders for. And yes, the more backorders received would suggest the more popular domains (duh). But the real issue on TM rights is far more complex. People hold TM all over the world, many in different classes. And while one TM holder may be more publicly visible than another, that visibility does not detract from the individual rights of other holders.
So, the disclaimer you see from Namejet is the right stand to take. None of the drop catchers are in a position to arbitrate who has "better" rights over a TM among a group of claimants. That's what the UDRP process is for. And frankly, if an individual domain investor with NO prior rights grabs a domain and expects to defend against a TM holder then they can expect to lose.
But, a domain investor that has a strong case against a TM right (perhaps they have their own TM, perhaps they are representing someone who has a TM, perhaps they have a prior-created company... who knows?) then they should have an equal opportunity to acquire the domain and subsequently defend their rights as they feel appropriate.
If you take the point of view that says the drop catchers should apply "TM rules" then so should each and every registrar all over the world. I don't think that really makes any sense at all...
Polaroids are pictures, or the correct definition I thought a polaroid was a type of plastic that polarizes light: used in sunglasses to eliminate glare, and is as generic as Game.
Yeah ePaypal.com is pretty blatant but hey who knows whoever buys it or ends up with it might develop something 100% different than the obvious TM holder. Just because the name is a TM does not mean they are infringing at all, it's when you make money, trash, or cause damage to the TM is when you infringe.
I think his is a HUGE misconception of a TM. The only people responsible for the TM of a company is the company itself. If they are not enforcing their TM then it's their problem not ours or anyone elses. I am not saying go reg TM names blah blah blah but I sure as hell am not going to stop people from doing so.
I think the only thing that we should do as a community is raise awareness not scare people in to not regging or owning these names. Make it aware the types of issues blah blah blah that come with names like that. And if a person is ready to take those risks let them. You can call them cybersquatters or whatever but they will get what is coming to them if they are infact infinging on a brand or company.
I think it's time to go start an awareness website......
The problem with epaypal.com is they could easily make the case that they are trying to prey on the 'goodwill' of the pretty famous tm, paypal. I think they could win that argument whether the service is different or not. It is confusingly similar, and not a descriptive term/phrase. Strike 2. And, given the previous I think it wouldn't be a far fetch to say it's registered and used in bad faith. Strike 3.
Just imo... epaypal.com is a non-winner unless the registrant is ready for the fight of his life, and prepared to lose...