Comments on: TM Keyword Bidding in Paid Search http://domainnamesales.com/sevenmile/2007-04/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search/ Frank Schilling's Official Blog Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:54:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Drewbert http://domainnamesales.com/sevenmile/2007-04/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search/comment-page-1/#comment-1642 Drewbert Tue, 01 May 2007 22:41:11 +0000 http://209.40.202.107/2007/04/30/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search.html#comment-1642 I wonder if the registrant being a stockholder in the TM owning company would have an effect on things? I wonder if the registrant being a stockholder in the TM owning company would have an effect on things?

]]> By: Steve M. http://domainnamesales.com/sevenmile/2007-04/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 Steve M. Tue, 01 May 2007 09:12:27 +0000 http://209.40.202.107/2007/04/30/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search.html#comment-1641 In my own UDRP vs Lego (over legosystem/s.com) of several years ago, one of my arguments was that--as a bona fide, CA-state licensed real estate broker--because I was legally entitled under state laws to sell business opportunities; including when such sales included intellectual property (IP) including the trademarks of companies and/or their dealers/licensed/franchised entities; I was therefore legally also entitled to sell stand alone trademark domains (which are, really, themselves biz opps). While I lost the decision (my arbitrator obviously having a tough time making a decision as he was months late); I still maintain that licensed realty agents and brokers--in particular in those states like CA where with such a license you're entitled to sell biz opps--have the right to sell TM domains. Including those owned by licensed agents; as in my case. If they'd been worth more and/or I had the time or inclination to get involved in such; I would have filed a US lawsuit to make this argument stick. If any UDRPs come up again, I will include the same argument again. Might be a good idea for other licensees to do the same. In my own UDRP vs Lego (over legosystem/s.com) of several years ago, one of my arguments was that–as a bona fide, CA-state licensed real estate broker–because I was legally entitled under state laws to sell business opportunities; including when such sales included intellectual property (IP) including the trademarks of companies and/or their dealers/licensed/franchised entities; I was therefore legally also entitled to sell stand alone trademark domains (which are, really, themselves biz opps).

While I lost the decision (my arbitrator obviously having a tough time making a decision as he was months late); I still maintain that licensed realty agents and brokers–in particular in those states like CA where with such a license you’re entitled to sell biz opps–have the right to sell TM domains.

Including those owned by licensed agents; as in my case.

If they’d been worth more and/or I had the time or inclination to get involved in such; I would have filed a US lawsuit to make this argument stick.

If any UDRPs come up again, I will include the same argument again. Might be a good idea for other licensees to do the same.

]]> By: Jon Pedersen http://domainnamesales.com/sevenmile/2007-04/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search/comment-page-1/#comment-1640 Jon Pedersen Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:48:41 +0000 http://209.40.202.107/2007/04/30/tm-keyword-bidding-in-paid-search.html#comment-1640 Frank, This pre-dates domains but has the same "human intention" traffic generation that domains have now... How about "pilfering your brand thru paid 411" try dialing 411 in the US and ask for Directv and see how many times you get a Directv corporate # (never) vs. a dealer / affiliate # (they have stuffed the results-directory assistance parked pages?) How many people see a Directv ad on TV and then dial 411 later only to reach a dealer. Directv seem's to be ok with it as its been going on for longer than the first domains were reg'd. Other similar instances - KT&T Communications- registering "I don't care" " I don't know" as phone company name's <a href="http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0392.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0392.html</a> MCI getting $300k per month on a misdial- <a href="http://www.icbtollfree.com/article_free.cfm?articleId=5853" rel="nofollow">http://www.icbtollfree.com/article_free.cfm?articleId=5853</a> ***FS*** Fascinating.. I never considered that.. thanks for posting. Frank,

This pre-dates domains but has the same “human intention” traffic generation that domains have now…

How about “pilfering your brand thru paid 411″ try dialing 411 in the US and ask for Directv and see how many times you get a Directv corporate # (never) vs. a dealer / affiliate # (they have stuffed the results-directory assistance parked pages?) How many people see a Directv ad on TV and then dial 411 later only to reach a dealer. Directv seem’s to be ok with it as its been going on for longer than the first domains were reg’d.

Other similar instances -
KT&T Communications- registering “I don’t care” ” I don’t know” as phone company name’s
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/summer96/0392.html

MCI getting $300k per month on a misdial-
http://www.icbtollfree.com/article_free.cfm?articleId=5853

***FS*** Fascinating.. I never considered that.. thanks for posting.

]]>