Hal yang boleh dan di hindari ketika memegang domain Trademark

Discussion in 'Masalah Hukum dan Kode Etik' started by estrex, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    setelah membaca2 banyak WIPO case akhirnya ada beberapa kesimpulan tentang domain trademark yang mungkin bisa di jadikan pelajaran untuk kita semua.

    1. Jangan pernah Bermimpi untuk menjual domain tersebut seharga jutaan dolar.
    2. Jangan pernah Memasang Harga apapun untuk domain Trademark di forum atau parking manapun.
    3. Jangan pernah Memasang informasi tentang Kompetitor meski hanya advertising.
    4. Jangan Pernah Memasang advertising di luar advertising yang berkaitan dengan produk sang pemilik trademark.
    5. Jangan pernah mereply email dari lawyer atau mereka yang mengaku representatif pemilik trademark dengan mengatakan bahwa kalo perusahaan klient anda berminat silahkan membeli dengan seharga $xxxxxx

    Yang Boleh di lakukan dengan domain trademark.

    1. Bangun domain tersebut sesuai dengan produk trademark mereka (contoh produk review) tapi kalo bisa tanpa adsense.
    2. Redirect domain tersebut ke web kita (cenderung susah pembuktiannya karena dasar alat bukti adalah screenshot)


    nanti saya lengkapi...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2009
  2. Pertanyaan

    Pertanyaan Real Domainer

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Dreamer
    Location:
    ?
    di tunggu contohnya .. bagus ni sharenya
     
  3. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
  4. PutuHamsa

    PutuHamsa Fun Domainer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Domainer
    Location:
    BALI
    Kalo websitenya berisi list2 "kupon" untuk membeli produk trademark mereka gemana?
     
  5. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    selama gak melanggar hak mereka gpp bro...
    pokoknya terkait ama mereka aja..
     
  6. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
  7. lightingblue

    lightingblue Fun Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Half Dev-Domainer
    Location:
    Search World
    lah bro, kalo gak disebut harga, gimana transaksi nya ? Kan suatu saat dia pasti tanya mau jual berapa ?

    anyway, ada yang bisa uplot di mediafire gitu gak, gak bisa download di kitaupload nih, itu keknya server khusus indo doank, dari luar gak bisa buka sama sekali nih >.<
     
  8. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    menjual domain trademark pada dasarnya adalah salah bro..
    karena elo mengambil keuntungan dari hasil kerja (trademark, brand etc) orang lain.
    hal yang begini di lindungi oleh hak cipta dan paten (in this case WIPO).

    so untuk transaksi, komunikasi yang tidak bisa di screenshot atau di print itu lebih baik. setau gw semua bukti (annex) dalam tuntutan WIPO tidak ada voice recording, semua berupa screenshot. Karena kasus domain adalah sidang abritase yang tidak di hadiri oleh penggugat dan tergugat, lagian kalo lintas negara akan susah membuktikan bahwa ini benar suara yang punya domain atau tidak.
     
  9. amabel

    amabel Fun Domainer

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    3
    kalau kita kasih statement email ke mereka kalau kita berniat menawarkan domain ini tetapi ga sebut harga gmna bro? kita pancing mereka untuk menawar duluan tinggal kita setuju atau enggak..

    apa ini termasuk pelanggaran?
     
  10. evytaar

    evytaar Domainer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    SEO Service
    Location:
    evytaar.com
    Wah syukur dapat post ini :D notebook-toshiba.com evy isinya review produk toshiba laptop semua, tapi pake link afiliasi amazon. Itu berarti kan ngga salah yah? cuma salahnya ada adsense nya sih (habis gede adsense dari toshiba :D)
    trus kalau ada adsense nya apa bisa dibanned google bro?

    tapi serem juga ya soal domain berTM ini. Untung Evy tau soal beginian cepet, nanti mungkin kalau udah expired, ga bakal diperpanjang keknya
     
  11. newcomer

    newcomer Domainer

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bro estrex sy ada pertanyaan melihat point 2 s/d 4 nih...

    di situ bro sebutin tidak memberi harga pada domain TM ...it's ok.

    Trs lihat poin 3+4 kalo kita parkir mau tidak mau kan akan muncul iklan yang tidak berhubungan dengan domain TM walopun kita set keywordnya ? Nah itu bagaimana ?
    Apa memang sebaiknya tidak boleh diparkir untuk menghindari hal2 yang tidak diinginkan ?
     
  12. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
  13. xrvel

    xrvel Moderator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,119
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    Person
    Location:
    Pasardomain di hatiku
    A. Complainant

    Complainant’s submissions and contentions are, in summary, that its three main trademarks, namely, VOLVO, PENTA, and VOLVO PENTA are famous marks, that Respondent’s <volvo-penta.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VOLVO and PENTA marks, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <volvo-penta.com> domain name.

    Given the lack of a Response, Complainant’s submissions can be abbreviated for present purposes as follows:

    (i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights:

    The domain name <volvo-penta.com> wholly incorporates Complainant’s registered trademarks VOLVO and PENTA, which Complainant submits is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy despite the addition of the hyphen. Complainant also says that the disputed domain is identical to its VOLVO PENTA mark on the basis that the hyphen should be ignored.

    (ii) Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name

    Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <volvo-penta.com> domain name based on Complainant’s/licensee’s continuous and long prior use of its mark and trade name VOLVO, and its VOLVO PENTA and PENTA trademarks.

    Further, none of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be established.

    Complainant asserts that Respondent cannot conceivably claim to have been unaware of Complainant’s famous marks, nor of the fact that they are owned by an entity in the AB Volvo group.

    Respondent is clearly not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name<volvo-penta.com>; it is parked at a Sedo website (a commercial domain monetization site).

    Respondent is not known as VOLVO PENTA and is not using <volvo-penta.com> in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services; Complainant urges the Panel to follow the finding in State of Florida Department of Management Services v. Bent Petterson, WIPO Case No. D2008-0039, which found that Sedo’s portal website does not constitute the bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent is also not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; In fact Respondent receives click through commission.

    (iii) The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith

    Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 3, 2005. There is no reason for Respondent to use Complainant’s mark in its domain name other than to try to sell it to Complainant and prevent Complainant from registering the domain name <volvo-penta.com> or for other commercial gain.

    “On information and belief” Respondent chose the domain name <volvo-penta.com> with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights therein. At the time of registration Respondent was on constructive notice of Complainant’s famous marks by virtue of Section 22 of The Lanham Act, 15 United States Code section 1072.

    It is further inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s three famous marks. Nor could Respondent’s selection of <volvo-penta.com> been in anything other than bad faith because there is no reason for Respondent to have chosen that term except to attract consumers to its website. Respondent purposely registered <volvo-penta.com> for commercial gain.

    Complainant cites both Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Roger Nichols, WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0017 and Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Soeren Groenlund, WIPO Case No. DNU2002-0003 as examples of cases where previous panels have found bad faith registration and use based on the same submissions from Complainant.

    Complainant also relies on Respondent’s “blatant violation” of paragraph 19 of the Registration Agreement to which Respondent assented in registering the disputed domain name. It contains an express warranty by Respondent that “to the best of its knowledge and belief neither the registration of the domain name nor the manner in which it intends to use such domain name will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party …”.

    (vi) The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith

    There is simply no explanation for registration and use of the <volvo-penta.com> domain name by Respondent except bad faith. Respondent is using the domain name to resolve to a Sedo ;landing page which features links to other sites selling Volvo Penta branded goods and other Volvo branded goods. According to Complainant, other panelists in “WIPO ICANN proceedings” involving Sedo parking pages have found such conduct to be evidence of bad faith, and Complainant cites two examples: Lyonnaise de Banque v. Richard J, WIPO Case No. D2006-0142 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Terry Davies, WIPO Case No. D2006-0031.

    In addition, Complainant submits, the Sedo website indicates that the domain name is for sale, which puts Respondent in breach of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – for the purpose of selling or renting the domain name. Complainant cites NFL Properties LLC and New York Jets LLC v. Link Commercial Corp, WIPO Case No.D2004-1087 where the learned panel found bad faith proven where the disputed domain name in that case resolved to a site which stated “This domain name is for sale!/You can also rent this domain name or co develop it with us/…/To be considered your bid must be at least US$2,000/ Note most asking process are between US$10,000 and US$75,000”.

    Respondent is alleged to have registered the domain name “with the express purpose of not permitting Complainant to register and use the domain name”. Respondent’s use of the domain name is also “blatantly opportunistic”, to adopt a phrase that has been used in a number of prior panel decisions.

    Respondent’s bad faith registration and use is clear despite a disclaimer provided at Sedo landing page because the disclaimer does nothing to counter Respondent’s lack of legitimate rights, bad faith registration or bad faith use of the domain name.

    Respondent’s bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that <volvo-penta.com> is a blatant infringement of Complainant’s trademark rights and dilutes the strength of Complainant’s trademark rights. It is inevitable that the public will assume that the disputed domain is owned by or used under license from Complainant or one of its licensees.

    Complainant goes on to assert that Respondent will “continue and expand its damaging acts unless Respondent’s infringing domain name is transferred to Complainant”.
     
  14. xrvel

    xrvel Moderator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,119
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    Person
    Location:
    Pasardomain di hatiku
    B. Respondent

    There has been no response of any kind to the Center’s communications and, in particular, no response to the allegations made in the Complaint.

    6. Discussion and Findings

    Although Complainant’s submissions are formally uncontested, it has the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are made out, and the Panel believes it proper to consider the submissions, and the evidence, and to make formal findings. Also, under paragraphs 10 and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel regards this as a desirable course to take in any event.

    A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

    Complainant has extensively demonstrated its rights in the trademarks VOLVO, PENTA and VOLVO PENTA. Although Complainant cited the “fame” of its marks as the first ground for its complaint, it had to do no more than demonstrate that it had rights in the marks, and that the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to those trademarks. The evidence of Complainant’s rights in the marks is overwhelming in its geographical, quantitative and temporal extent. The use of PENTA by Complainant’s predecessors in business can be traced back to 1907. Although the use of trademark holding companies can sometimes be problematical where a Complainant needs to rely, for example, on common law marks in the form of goodwill owned by associated entities, here there is no difficulty given the numerous formal registrations held by Complainant. Nothing else matters in so far as the first limb of the complaint is concerned.

    The Panel has no hesitation in finding the disputed domain to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s well established trademarks VOLVO and PENTA, and identical to its VOLVO PENTA trademark.

    B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

    Respondent has not asserted any basis for its use of VOLVO or PENTA in the disputed domain name. This is one area where the lack of a response to a complaint involving famous trademarks makes it difficult for a Panel not to find in a complainant’s favour.

    For the reasons advanced by Complainant, the Panel comfortably concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and so finds.

    C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

    The marks VOLVO and PENTA have been in use for more than 100 years in United States. No plausible explanation for Respondent’s conduct has been proffered. There is no inference available to the Panel other than that the use of <volvo-penta.com> to direct users to a Sedo landing page is simply domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by Respondent. Respondent sits passively collecting click-through revenue generated solely from Complainant’s goodwill and Internet users’ inaccurate guessing of the correct domain name associated with Complainant or its licensees in any particular locality.

    The Complaint goes beyond what is needed and in parts extends beyond what the annexed evidence or cited cases support. Also, Complainant demonstrates that all links on the Sedo landing page to which the disputed domain resolves in fact promote the sale of genuine products of Complainant’s licensees. This is not an example of consumers looking for Complainant’s brands and being mischievously diverted to other inferior products. The diversion here is simply to sites not directly owned or controlled by Complainant. The citation of other Sedo landing page cases is not entirely apposite for that reason.

    The Center invited Complainant to consider modifying the Complaint once it became clear that Respondent was in fact not located in United States but in Hong Kong. The Complainant did not take up that invitation, and references to the Lanham Act and constructive notice remained in the Complaint. In the Panel’s view a resident of Hong Kong does not have constructive notice of a US-registered trademark no matter how famous it might be, although the extent of that fame is of course relevant to an assessment of the likelihood of actual knowledge.

    The Complaint contains occasional overstatements, errors, submissions and artefacts more redolent of a trademark pleading than a UDRP complaint (such as “WHEREFORE, Complainant demands judgment as follows”). However, the strength of Complainant’s trademarks throughout the world are such as to require some plausible explanation from Respondent if the Panel is not to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s conduct. In this case no explanation of any kind has been forthcoming and the use of a Sedo landing page to generate click-through revenue conveys a degree of sophistication on the part of Respondent that the Panel can also take into account.

    Despite minor criticism of the form and content of the Complaint, the Panel formally and comfortably finds that the disputed domain name <volvo-penta.com> was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

    7. Decision

    For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <volvo-penta.com> be transferred to Complainant, Volvo Trademark Holding AB.
     
  15. xrvel

    xrvel Moderator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,119
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    Person
    Location:
    Pasardomain di hatiku
    Kayanya diparkir juga nggak boleh ya :D
    Lalu apa yg harus dilakuin di domain trademark?

    Diredirect ke web yg didevelop?
    Diredirect ke google? :D
     
  16. amabel

    amabel Fun Domainer

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    3
    Pasang photo paling narsis kita bro yang segede gaban..biar terkenal.. :geblek:
     
  17. xrvel

    xrvel Moderator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,119
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    Person
    Location:
    Pasardomain di hatiku
    :jempol:

    Terus domainnya koruptor.com :jempol:
     
  18. amabel

    amabel Fun Domainer

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    3
    Langsung ngecek koruptor.com sayang dah diregister orang peru

     
  19. xrvel

    xrvel Moderator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,119
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    Person
    Location:
    Pasardomain di hatiku
    Orang peru suka koruptor :lol: Atau tu domain pake data whois palsu :ihih:
     
  20. estrex

    estrex Well-Known Domainer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    check out :

    1. googlereview.com
    2. thenokiablog.com

    itu domain bertrademark yang pemilik trademarknya terkenal galak.
     

Share This Page