I got one of these today for a domain I had parked at my server which also is my hosting business. I planned to have an anti social networking site using this domain but not much time at the moment so I just parked it.

So some lawyer sent me this letter to hand over the domain to something.net Well my domain is something like this darksomethingnet.com which only contains the something word and no way would it be associated with something.net if someone saw it. "company" is also a pretty generic word. If you eat a lot of Kiwis you'll get a lot of this. :P

Also "Dark something" has a meaning in itself.

So should I tell them to take a hike and play it out for fun or transfer the domain to a friend, don't reply and just put up my anti social networking site up which is in no way related to company.net

The issue here is whether those ads on the parked page was infringing on something.net's trademarks. If they are. Then better to just give them the domain. If they're not. then tell them to take a hike.

tell them to take a hike

The issue here is whether those ads on the parked page was infringing on something.net's trademarks. If they are. Then better to just give them the domain. If they're not. then tell them to take a hike.

Hi

To make things easier here's the domain, darkfibernet.com and the the c&d is from fiber.net.

Well the domain was just redirected to my hosting site untill I had time to get it up and running but even with that you'd have to be a idiot to think that darkfibernet.com would be associated with fiber.net or was diluting anyones trademark.

Anyways I guess this'll just make me get my other site up and running.

I did a quick search at the USPTO and didn't find any trademark owned by them (something.net). Of the three "Live" TM's only 1 was broadband/network related. This still doesn't mean their trademark isn't registered with one of the states or is in place due to prior use. I think it's reasonably ok for you to take a hike. But I'm not a lawyer. They might have a case, since your both in the hosting business. It would be better to get advice from a lawyer versed in domains and trademarks rather than from a public forum like this. (standard disclaimers apply).

Well as you say fiber is just a dictionary word and you also have 'net' in your domain name whereas they don't (.net doesn't count). Overall your domain name is considerably different to theirs so basically I wouldn't even respond to them.

Thanks for the replies. I'm not too worried about losing the domain but did get irritated by the stern email. This our clients blah blah blah, hand it over.

Yah alright, eat me.

I just won't reply to it and put up my other site up with in the 14 days they game me :P

If you search for fibernet at the (US) federal http://tess2.uspto.gov trademark site you will find a few matches - but I do not see a 'fibernet' trademark held by fiber.net of Utah.
Did the lawyer's letter specify the trademark Registration Number you were violating?

It doesn't matter whether this person has a Trademark or not. The question you need to ask yourself is how "will this person file a lawsuit" and "do I want to spend the money defending this?"

Anyway, contact a lawyer if you think this is worth your time/effort.

If you search for fibernet at the (US) federal http://tess2.uspto.gov trademark site you will find a few matches - but I do not see a 'fibernet' trademark held by fiber.net of Utah.
Did the lawyer's letter specify the trademark Registration Number you were violating?

This is what the pdf said



We represent Fibernet Corp., a Utah corporation that provides business Internet and related
services (see www.fiber.net). We were recently retained as their trademark counsel and plan to
file an application for federal registration of the FIBERNET name in connection with our client’s
services.

For your information, Fibernet Corp. has been using its name and the domain name fiber.net in
connection with its services since 1995 (see attachments [PDFs of highlighted BES printout
showing registration date in Utah, highlighted WHOIS printout showing domain name
registration, and screenshot of fiber.net showing client history]).

It has come to our attention that you registered the darkfibernet.com domain name in 2005 (see
attachments [PDFs of WHOIS printout showing registration date, screenshot(s) of website]).

Therefore, Fibernet Corp. has superior common law rights to this name in connection with
business internet and related services from its date of first use.

We therefore demand that, within 14 days of the date of this letter:

1. You transfer the domain name darkfibernet.com to Fibernet Corp., and
2. Provide written confirmation that it has ceased using and will not in the future
use any marks or domain names that compete and/or suggest any affiliation
with Fibernet Corp.

You may contact Fibernet Corp.’s technical contact at hostmaster@fiber.net or 801-223-9939 to
obtain the necessary information for the transfer.

Maybe I should register "DarkFibernet" as a trademark in Canada?

It looks like a rather weak C&D to me. They're making demands but no threats.

you'd have to be a idiot to think that darkfibernet.com would be associated with fiber.net or was diluting anyones trademark.

If the complaining party convinces the idiot panelist or idiot judge of their claims should it reach dispute, then you can lose the domain name anyway. You might as well do what Stu and Ross suggested if you don't want to take any unnecessary risks.

This is what the pdf said



Maybe I should register "DarkFibernet" as a trademark in Canada?

Not to sure that would work.

I could be compltely wrong, but I remember when I took business law that most of the time things come down to who filed first?

Which in this case would be them..

I could be wrong, but I remember us talking about that in regards to real-estate law...I wold imagine something similiar applies to this as well.


I could be wrong though.

From what I have heard TM need not be registered but it has to be used for a genuine product or service.

Maybe you should immediately set up a site which is not even remotely associated with the line of products and services provided by them.

Note: I could be wrong too since I am not a legal expert so please consult someone who is.

Why does fiber.net list its copyright as 2005? =\

They are pushing "fibernet" as the name, which is NOT a dictionary word.
They COULD probably get it pushed as its own brand word just like google or whatever, so my suggestion would be to give it to them.

If you haven't really done anything with the name I don't think there's any point pushing this any further, unless the name has great meaning to you, and as ross said if they file a lawsuit it can be much more trouble than it's worth.

(all disclaimers apply of course)

Why does fiber.net list its copyright as 2005? =\Copyright refers to the content of the website. Trademark refers to the distinctive product or service name.

From what I have heard TM need not be registered but it has to be used for a genuine product or service.

Maybe you should immediately set up a site which is not even remotely associated with the line of products and services provided by them.

Note: I could be wrong too since I am not a legal expert so please consult someone who is.

I'm just in the process of doing this. Will be up in the next two days.

They are pushing "fibernet" as the name, which is NOT a dictionary word.
They COULD probably get it pushed as its own brand word just like google or whatever, so my suggestion would be to give it to them.

If you haven't really done anything with the name I don't think there's any point pushing this any further, unless the name has great meaning to you, and as ross said if they file a lawsuit it can be much more trouble than it's worth.

(all disclaimers apply of course)

Strange as there are three fibernet trademarks. I'm sticking with it and see how it goes.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6bdktu.2.1
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6bdktu.2.2
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6bdktu.2.7

It looks like a rather weak C&D to me. They're making demands but no threats.


Thats because you can't make threats legally.....

Thats because you can't make threats legally.....

Surely it was said in context with legal action and not physical threats :D

A legal action is a legal threat

Id just tell them I have no intrest in their proposition and as such feel no obligation to follow their instruction.

Surely it was said in context with legal action and not physical threats :D

A legal action is a legal threat

Yeah. I agree. But they never made any assertions as to what they might or might not do if the op didn't comply. You know the stuff... we reserve the right to, but not limited to, do X. Most C&D letter I've seen lay that on like a thick layer of chocolate. A veiled threat.

Offer to sell it to them, with a reasonable profit obviously :)

They just like your domain and want to some how use it to promote there services. So you having the domain and not them is killing the business they wont get lol

Surely it was said in context with legal action and not physical threats :D

A legal action is a legal threat

Ask any lawyer and I've been dealing with a lot of them about making legal action threats and they will tell you it is a no no.