0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I guess now might be a good time to send a mass email informing the others of this news.
The sooner we get this all sorted out, the sooner you will all be given another surprise (a good one this time)
Quote from: FliesLikeABrick on October 18, 2008, 04:03:24 pmThe sooner we get this all sorted out, the sooner you will all be given another surprise (a good one this time)Is karma back?
Since scammers have gotten a hold of the old domain, please make sure to update all of your links and encourage all site owners to update their links to use forums.soldat.plThe old domain will not be coming back. Some sleazy company has gotten hold of it and doesn't appear to be willing to sell it.
Quote from: FliesLikeABrick on October 18, 2008, 04:03:24 pmSince scammers have gotten a hold of the old domain, please make sure to update all of your links and encourage all site owners to update their links to use forums.soldat.plThe old domain will not be coming back. Some sleazy company has gotten hold of it and doesn't appear to be willing to sell it. Did you contact your registrar for advice? I thought there was supposed to be a period after expiration where only the original owner could register.ICANN has a policy called Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) but this does not seem to apply in this case because it seems to have some sort of trademark requirement. I can't say I fully understand the policy and how it should be used though.Link to WHOIS information.Good luck.
Common Law Trademark Rights Panels interpreting the UDRP have consistently held that the Policy affords protection to those having common law trademark rights as well as to those having rights in registered trademarks. See, Cedar Trade Assocs., Inc., v. Ricks, FA 93633 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2000); see also Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Lafwani, D2000-0014 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2000) (“it is this reputation from actual use which is the nub of the complaint, not the fact of registration as trade marks.”). Many of the cases in which common law trademark rights are asserted have involved personal names that have, through use and publicity, acquired the distinctiveness necessary to become trademarks or service marks: van Hooijdonk v. Tait, D2000-1068 (WIPO Nov. 4, 2000); Stam v. Cohen, D2000-1061 (WIPO Nov. 4, 2000); MPL Communications Ltd. v. Hammerton, FA 95633 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2000); Feinstein v. PAWS Video Prods., D2000-0880 (WIPO Oct. 21, 2000); Carter v. Afternoon Fiasco, D2000-0658 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000); Ciccone v. Parisi, D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000); Estate of Getz v. Vogel, D2000-0773 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000); Adjani v. Second Orbit Communications, Inc., D2000-0867 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000); Estate of Shakur v. Shakur Info Page, AF 0346 (eResolution Sep. 28, 2000), Estate of Francis v. Magidson Fine Art, Inc., D2000-0673 (WIPO Sep. 27, 2000); Adu v. Quantum Computer Servs. Inc., D2000-0794 (WIPO Sep. 26, 2000); Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Prods., D2000-0598 (WIPO Aug. 2, 2000); Rattner v. BuyThisDomainName, D2000-0402 (WIPO July 3, 2000); Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Keith, D2000-0299 (WIPO June 9, 2000); Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000); Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000); see also Sean Michaels Inc. v. Mark Allan Online Enm’t, AF 0214 (eResolution July 2, 2000).
