Lawyers familiar with trade mark law
Discussion
Anyone here specialising in trade mark law? I'd be grateful for 10 mins of your time.
My company is in receipt of a letter from another companies lawyer which accuses us of trade mark infringement. It's pretty straight forward really, but I could use some informed advice before I pen my response.
Thanks!
My company is in receipt of a letter from another companies lawyer which accuses us of trade mark infringement. It's pretty straight forward really, but I could use some informed advice before I pen my response.
Thanks!
Is it a registered trademark?
If it is, you can see online in what areas the trademark is registered under - which services and which group of products. If it is similar and you are infringing then this needs no proof of damage. You are infringing, full stop, cease and desist plus damages.
If it is not registered, then the company who believes you are infringing to do something about it they will have to prove this in court. They will have to not only prove their precedence, that your infringement is actual and most importantly they will have to prove that your use of the mark is damaging to them. This is very difficult, and such a court case would be very expensive and difficult even to start let alone win.
That said, I am not a pro, otherwise that would have cost you £100 already. The trademark/IP guys are on a fortune. If you can add a bit more detail and maybe away from the thread link my the two trademarks I can give you an independent opinion to see if they have a case IMO and the likely outcome of your ignorance or if you should defend.
If it is, you can see online in what areas the trademark is registered under - which services and which group of products. If it is similar and you are infringing then this needs no proof of damage. You are infringing, full stop, cease and desist plus damages.
If it is not registered, then the company who believes you are infringing to do something about it they will have to prove this in court. They will have to not only prove their precedence, that your infringement is actual and most importantly they will have to prove that your use of the mark is damaging to them. This is very difficult, and such a court case would be very expensive and difficult even to start let alone win.
That said, I am not a pro, otherwise that would have cost you £100 already. The trademark/IP guys are on a fortune. If you can add a bit more detail and maybe away from the thread link my the two trademarks I can give you an independent opinion to see if they have a case IMO and the likely outcome of your ignorance or if you should defend.
Ok I'll summarise. It really is very straight forward.
My company has received a letter today, completely out of the blue, from Lawyers acting on behalf of "Company B", because I own and am using a domain name which contains thier trademarked name. It's a vehicle manufacturer's name.
I'm not attempting to pass off as them, or defame them or anything like that. Quite the opposite in fact, my web site extolls thier virtues! I've simply registered the domain because it contains the primary keyword for my web site. It's one domain out of several that point to the site in question, but the only one which contains thier trade mark. They don't appear to care about the web site itself, only this one specific domain name.
Their letter demands that I a) Transfer the domain name to them, at thier expense and b) Agree to pay them up to £500 legal fees within 14 days of doing a).
Now, I'm a reasonable man. If someone from "Company B" had called me (my phone number is on every page of the web site) and said, "look here Tim, we're not happy with this domain name" I'd have quite happily given it to them there and then. It cost me a fiver, so no loss to me really.
Absolutely no need to get lawyers involved at all.
So, having received this letter today, the first thing I did was take the domain name offline. Since as part of my business I run a domain name registration service I know all about the transfer process. They can have it, and I'll do the legwork and pay the fiver fee. No problem!
But I am not very happy about having to pay some lawyers up to £500 for writing a letter, especially one which was not necessary in the first place.
So my question is; where do I stand on this £500 issue. If I write back and say they can have it, very sorry if it's upset you, it was immediatley taken offline and I'lll transfer it to your nominated person *right now*, what do you reckon to also saying; not paying the fees though, sorry.
My company has received a letter today, completely out of the blue, from Lawyers acting on behalf of "Company B", because I own and am using a domain name which contains thier trademarked name. It's a vehicle manufacturer's name.
I'm not attempting to pass off as them, or defame them or anything like that. Quite the opposite in fact, my web site extolls thier virtues! I've simply registered the domain because it contains the primary keyword for my web site. It's one domain out of several that point to the site in question, but the only one which contains thier trade mark. They don't appear to care about the web site itself, only this one specific domain name.
Their letter demands that I a) Transfer the domain name to them, at thier expense and b) Agree to pay them up to £500 legal fees within 14 days of doing a).
Now, I'm a reasonable man. If someone from "Company B" had called me (my phone number is on every page of the web site) and said, "look here Tim, we're not happy with this domain name" I'd have quite happily given it to them there and then. It cost me a fiver, so no loss to me really.
Absolutely no need to get lawyers involved at all.
So, having received this letter today, the first thing I did was take the domain name offline. Since as part of my business I run a domain name registration service I know all about the transfer process. They can have it, and I'll do the legwork and pay the fiver fee. No problem!
But I am not very happy about having to pay some lawyers up to £500 for writing a letter, especially one which was not necessary in the first place.
So my question is; where do I stand on this £500 issue. If I write back and say they can have it, very sorry if it's upset you, it was immediatley taken offline and I'lll transfer it to your nominated person *right now*, what do you reckon to also saying; not paying the fees though, sorry.
Unfortunately if it is a car manufacturer they will most likely have registered everything they need to cover themselves.
Trade mark law and also Nominet are clear where they stand with regard to usage of registered trademarks in domain names even if you are not using it.
The issue is here is that part of what trademark lawyers do is represent big companies and scour the net from infringements to protect their client. Playing the devils advocate here, if you are using their name, even to promote them in your own way then you may be confusing people who want to visit the 'real' site. Considering they may spend £100m a year on marketing, they dont want it even the tiniest bit spoilt.
Legally, they could chase you for damages and compensation with regard to the breach.
However, the approach you have explained, *is* more fair. Indeed, I am in a similar situation where a sole trader is using my Limited company and registered trademark name in their UK website. Their business is slightly different although there is an overlap.
My intention is to give them 7 days to do the handover, and as a sweetener to pass on any of their emails for compliance. They wont have much choice as if I threaten solicitors they will be well and truly screwed and heavily out of pocket.
Now in this case, they arnt so kind, and they dont have to be as they are lawyers and if you pay them any money it will be in *their* pocket. However, I would suggest you contact them and confirm that without any admission of liability you will immediately stop using the name and deregister your interest as a gesture of goodwill if they will agree to take no further action. Do it straight away.
Job should be done.
Trade mark law and also Nominet are clear where they stand with regard to usage of registered trademarks in domain names even if you are not using it.
The issue is here is that part of what trademark lawyers do is represent big companies and scour the net from infringements to protect their client. Playing the devils advocate here, if you are using their name, even to promote them in your own way then you may be confusing people who want to visit the 'real' site. Considering they may spend £100m a year on marketing, they dont want it even the tiniest bit spoilt.
Legally, they could chase you for damages and compensation with regard to the breach.
However, the approach you have explained, *is* more fair. Indeed, I am in a similar situation where a sole trader is using my Limited company and registered trademark name in their UK website. Their business is slightly different although there is an overlap.
My intention is to give them 7 days to do the handover, and as a sweetener to pass on any of their emails for compliance. They wont have much choice as if I threaten solicitors they will be well and truly screwed and heavily out of pocket.
Now in this case, they arnt so kind, and they dont have to be as they are lawyers and if you pay them any money it will be in *their* pocket. However, I would suggest you contact them and confirm that without any admission of liability you will immediately stop using the name and deregister your interest as a gesture of goodwill if they will agree to take no further action. Do it straight away.
Job should be done.
JustinP1 said:
I would suggest you contact them and confirm that without any admission of liability you will immediately stop using the name and deregister your interest as a gesture of goodwill if they will agree to take no further action. Do it straight away.
^^ That sounds like extremely good advice.There are two areas to consider. Rules concerning domain name registrations and rule concerning trademark violation.
You are probably aware that domain names disputes can be taken to WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en). For domain names the key questions relate to whether you registered the domain name in bad faith. If you try to extort money, or even offer to sell the name when challenged, that has been taken as evidence of "bad faith" and you could be disposessed accordingly. Have a read through some of the disputes here http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/
Trademarks in the UK are ruled by the trademark Act 1994. You can research IP law on the Government website
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ and the trademark law is at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmact94.pdf
There have been court cases for trademark infringement. There have been a number of cases where "big" companies have lost this kind of action. Land Rover comes to mind, when they took on a Land Rover owners magazine. The point is whether you are profiting from infringing their tradename, or damaging their goodwill through your action. In either case they can act against you. If not, then it is likely that they can threaten you but it is no more than a threat.
So you will see that it is not as simple as "I have a trademark, you lose in a domain name dispute". It seems unlikely that you have breached trademark law, given the circumstances as you describe but don't take advice from someone who does not know all the facts.
Unfortunately, without taking legal advice (which costs you) you are left with the choice either to acceed to their demands or to respond as you say. Most likely they will drop the matter if they get the domain name from you but.....
You are probably aware that domain names disputes can be taken to WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en). For domain names the key questions relate to whether you registered the domain name in bad faith. If you try to extort money, or even offer to sell the name when challenged, that has been taken as evidence of "bad faith" and you could be disposessed accordingly. Have a read through some of the disputes here http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/
Trademarks in the UK are ruled by the trademark Act 1994. You can research IP law on the Government website
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ and the trademark law is at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmact94.pdf
There have been court cases for trademark infringement. There have been a number of cases where "big" companies have lost this kind of action. Land Rover comes to mind, when they took on a Land Rover owners magazine. The point is whether you are profiting from infringing their tradename, or damaging their goodwill through your action. In either case they can act against you. If not, then it is likely that they can threaten you but it is no more than a threat.
So you will see that it is not as simple as "I have a trademark, you lose in a domain name dispute". It seems unlikely that you have breached trademark law, given the circumstances as you describe but don't take advice from someone who does not know all the facts.
Unfortunately, without taking legal advice (which costs you) you are left with the choice either to acceed to their demands or to respond as you say. Most likely they will drop the matter if they get the domain name from you but.....
This is very recent case law which seems to be a pretty much identical situation:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PPCYn25bDDsJ:...
The relevant bit of the Nominet T&Cs is this:
7.4 by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;
It also goes onto say that failure to adhere to all of the terms in 7 and 8 can result in cancellation of the registration.
Of course, as has been said there are grey areas, and of course is situations like Reed Vs Reed these are situations which need a lot of picking into to be able to get any kind of agreement. In this case though IMHO - but *not professional* opinion, then this is a battle worth stepping away from unless you have seriously important vested interests.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PPCYn25bDDsJ:...
The relevant bit of the Nominet T&Cs is this:
7.4 by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;
It also goes onto say that failure to adhere to all of the terms in 7 and 8 can result in cancellation of the registration.
Of course, as has been said there are grey areas, and of course is situations like Reed Vs Reed these are situations which need a lot of picking into to be able to get any kind of agreement. In this case though IMHO - but *not professional* opinion, then this is a battle worth stepping away from unless you have seriously important vested interests.
JustinP1 said:
This is very recent case law which seems to be a pretty much identical situation:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PPCYn25bDDsJ:...
I don't think it is as the boschdrills owner just ignored the complaint; which I've no intention of doing either way. And he was using thier logo, which I'm not.http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:PPCYn25bDDsJ:...
As an aside I note the "expert" in that case fails to understand how Google Adsense works.
The domain name in question in my case was forwarded to another website, not parked on it or connected to it via IP. So when you typed in the domain name in question it forwarded to another domain name entirely (completely unconnected in any way with "Company B", with the browser address bar reflecting this unconnected website.
So in actual fact, they cannot produce a sceen print of any kind that shows my web site with the disputed domain name on it. Not sure if this is relevant or not.
Furthermore, the web site it forwarded to is hosted in the USA, so I wonder if they don't have the US rights to this trade mark, whether they have any claim at all?
Having checked my server logs this morning, I'm amused to see that the domain name in question has only sent 7 visitors to the target web site. Three of those are me! I've not actively promoted it yet since I only registered it 14th Nov 2007.
Anyway the fact of the matter is I DO own a domain name, of which one of the three words in it is a trademark of "Company B".
I'm tempted to call "Company B" and ask to speak to thier MD, and ask him if he knows thier lawyers are bullying his own customers.
Edited to add: It's a .COM domain not a .UK one, so NOMINET rules don't apply.
Edited by timskipper on Thursday 7th February 08:35
timskipper said:
Furthermore, the web site it forwarded to is hosted in the USA, so I wonder if they don't have the US rights to this trade mark, whether they have any claim at all?
I know talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, but...It seems the US is very open with it's trademark records. I've searched the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System and discovered that the word in question is NOT trademarked in the USA.
My domain was registered in the USA and forwarded to another website hosted in the USA. Can I tell them to sod off on this point alone?
As pointed out, domain names will not be allowed if they infringe trademark law. The trademark law point is whether the public will be confused?
Read Landrover Owner Internaltional
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-decisionmaking/t-challe...
The Trade Marks Act 1994 swept away the old law and implemented the EC Directive on trademark protection. It follows that the provisions of the Act must be construed so as to reflect the terms of the Directive.
Section 1(b) defines a "trade mark" as meaning "any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings." There is no doubt that the motor company registered trade marks are signs which have the character required.
A registered trade mark is a property right (section 2) which is personal property (section 22). It can be assigned either in connection with the goodwill of a business or independently (section 24). Once obtained a registration is prima facie valid (section 72). It need not be used for the initial 5 years after registration, but thereafter it is liable to be revoked in whole or in part for non-use under section 46.
Section 2(1) states that the proprietor of a registered trade mark "has the rights and remedies provided by this Act". For the purpose of your case the relevant rights are those contained in section 10 (Article 5 of the Directive). The applicable parts of that section are as follows:
Section 10 Infringement of registered trade mark.
(1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.
(2) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because-
(a) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or
(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.
(3) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which
(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark, and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person uses a sign if, in particular, he
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market or stocks them for those purposes under the sign, or offers or supplies services under the sign;
(c) imports or exports goods under the sign; or
(d) uses the sign on business papers or in advertising.
Your case would seem to rest on an argument under 10(4)(d). However, read on through the legislation:
(6) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a licensee. But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.
It is important to note the difference between subsections (1) and (2) of section 10. This case is not concerned with identicality of registered trade mark and sign and identicality of goods. Thus infringement will not occur simply if the alleged infringer "uses in the course of trade" the sign. Subsection (2), with which I think we are concerned, deals with use when the goods and/or the signs are not identical. In those circumstances a likelihood of confusion must be shown. That requires the proprietor to establish that there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or service that you offer come from the same undertaking or an economically linked undertaking (see Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klysen Handel BV (Case C-C0342/97; [1999] ECR 1-3819).
Could there be such confusion?
Read Landrover Owner Internaltional
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-decisionmaking/t-challe...
The Trade Marks Act 1994 swept away the old law and implemented the EC Directive on trademark protection. It follows that the provisions of the Act must be construed so as to reflect the terms of the Directive.
Section 1(b) defines a "trade mark" as meaning "any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings." There is no doubt that the motor company registered trade marks are signs which have the character required.
A registered trade mark is a property right (section 2) which is personal property (section 22). It can be assigned either in connection with the goodwill of a business or independently (section 24). Once obtained a registration is prima facie valid (section 72). It need not be used for the initial 5 years after registration, but thereafter it is liable to be revoked in whole or in part for non-use under section 46.
Section 2(1) states that the proprietor of a registered trade mark "has the rights and remedies provided by this Act". For the purpose of your case the relevant rights are those contained in section 10 (Article 5 of the Directive). The applicable parts of that section are as follows:
Section 10 Infringement of registered trade mark.
(1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.
(2) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because-
(a) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or
(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.
(3) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which
(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark, and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person uses a sign if, in particular, he
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market or stocks them for those purposes under the sign, or offers or supplies services under the sign;
(c) imports or exports goods under the sign; or
(d) uses the sign on business papers or in advertising.
Your case would seem to rest on an argument under 10(4)(d). However, read on through the legislation:
(6) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a licensee. But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.
It is important to note the difference between subsections (1) and (2) of section 10. This case is not concerned with identicality of registered trade mark and sign and identicality of goods. Thus infringement will not occur simply if the alleged infringer "uses in the course of trade" the sign. Subsection (2), with which I think we are concerned, deals with use when the goods and/or the signs are not identical. In those circumstances a likelihood of confusion must be shown. That requires the proprietor to establish that there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or service that you offer come from the same undertaking or an economically linked undertaking (see Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klysen Handel BV (Case C-C0342/97; [1999] ECR 1-3819).
Could there be such confusion?
Edited by Eliminator on Thursday 7th February 23:15
Eliminator said:
<some useful stuff>
Could there be such confusion?
No, in my opinion.Could there be such confusion?
Before I disabled it, anyone entering the disputed domain name into their browser would be forwarded to a page on my company web site.
The entered domain name doesn't show in the address bar, the target page URL does. So the domain name is just a conduit to launch the person browsing to somewhere else.
The landing page conforms to the layout of my company web site entirely. It has our logo at the top, our registered address on the right hand side, and our company registration number in the page footer. In the central column is a page of information on the subject of the motor manufacturer in question, which invites the viewer to purchase a book I have written.
It's entirely positive information, and is blindingly obviously related to my own personal (very positive) experience of this motor manufacturer. It says so in black and white. It even has a picture of my ugly mug on it, and is littered with my full name.
I would argue in front of Jesus H Christ himself that nobody could ever confuse what is on that page with an official offering of the motor manufacturer. In fact, it's whole purpose of being is because it's a personal experience.
So as far as somone typing in the domain in question, end ending up somewhere and thinking this particular motor manufacturer is behind hit - not a chance.
The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to tell them to eff off. Only the fear of a massive legal bill puts me off.
GreenV8S said:
JustinP1 said:
I would suggest you contact them and confirm that without any admission of liability you will immediately stop using the name and deregister your interest as a gesture of goodwill if they will agree to take no further action. Do it straight away.
^^ That sounds like extremely good advice.Write back, say sorry. Say that you've taken it down and you won't use it again, and that you hope and expect that to be an end to the matter. I am a barrister working in a large company - you do NOT want to start a fight over this, trust me. If you're not bothered about having the domain then just drop it.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Friday 8th February 13:31
Vesuvius 996 said:
I am a barrister working in a large company - you do NOT want to start a fight over this, trust me. If you're not bothered about having the domain then just drop it.
I don't doubt that you're right, for an easy life that is the most sensible route.However, I do like to have all the facts available to me. In respect of the trademark they claim I'm infringing (actually two, but the second one doesn't appear in the domain name or anywhere on my website at all, so a nice bit of forward-thinking by thier lawyers there).
Aside from the fact that my domain and server lives wholly in the USA where they do not hold this trade mark at all, their Community Trade Mark covering the EU, where I am domicile, covers only classifications 12,16,25,28,37 and 41.
41 is the interesting one:
www.ipo.gov.uk said:
Class 41
Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
Also in this class are electronic games services provided by means of the Internet; the provision of on-line electronic publications and digital music (not downloadable) from the Internet.
Does not Include downloadable on-line electronic publications or digital music which are in Class 9 or educational materials in printed form which are in Class 16.
My eBook is download only.Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
Also in this class are electronic games services provided by means of the Internet; the provision of on-line electronic publications and digital music (not downloadable) from the Internet.
Does not Include downloadable on-line electronic publications or digital music which are in Class 9 or educational materials in printed form which are in Class 16.
If they wanted to cover this base, then they need Class 9 as stated above, and anything to do with websites is Class 42:
www.ipo.gov.uk said:
Class 42
Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.
Also in this class are installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; computer consultancy services; the following Internet related services are also proper to this class: design, drawing and commissioned writing for the compilation of web sites; creating, maintaining and hosting the web sites of others.
Does not Include providing access to the Internet or portal services which are in Class 38, or garden design services which are in Class 44.
So it looks to me I am technically in the clear anyway. Non?Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.
Also in this class are installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; computer consultancy services; the following Internet related services are also proper to this class: design, drawing and commissioned writing for the compilation of web sites; creating, maintaining and hosting the web sites of others.
Does not Include providing access to the Internet or portal services which are in Class 38, or garden design services which are in Class 44.
timskipper said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
I am a barrister working in a large company - you do NOT want to start a fight over this, trust me. If you're not bothered about having the domain then just drop it.
I don't doubt that you're right, for an easy life that is the most sensible route.However, I do like to have all the facts available to me. In respect of the trademark they claim I'm infringing (actually two, but the second one doesn't appear in the domain name or anywhere on my website at all, so a nice bit of forward-thinking by thier lawyers there).
Aside from the fact that my domain and server lives wholly in the USA where they do not hold this trade mark at all, their Community Trade Mark covering the EU, where I am domicile, covers only classifications 12,16,25,28,37 and 41.
41 is the interesting one:
www.ipo.gov.uk said:
Class 41
Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
Also in this class are electronic games services provided by means of the Internet; the provision of on-line electronic publications and digital music (not downloadable) from the Internet.
Does not Include downloadable on-line electronic publications or digital music which are in Class 9 or educational materials in printed form which are in Class 16.
My eBook is download only.Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
Also in this class are electronic games services provided by means of the Internet; the provision of on-line electronic publications and digital music (not downloadable) from the Internet.
Does not Include downloadable on-line electronic publications or digital music which are in Class 9 or educational materials in printed form which are in Class 16.
If they wanted to cover this base, then they need Class 9 as stated above, and anything to do with websites is Class 42:
www.ipo.gov.uk said:
Class 42
Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.
Also in this class are installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; computer consultancy services; the following Internet related services are also proper to this class: design, drawing and commissioned writing for the compilation of web sites; creating, maintaining and hosting the web sites of others.
Does not Include providing access to the Internet or portal services which are in Class 38, or garden design services which are in Class 44.
So it looks to me I am technically in the clear anyway. Non?Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.
Also in this class are installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; computer consultancy services; the following Internet related services are also proper to this class: design, drawing and commissioned writing for the compilation of web sites; creating, maintaining and hosting the web sites of others.
Does not Include providing access to the Internet or portal services which are in Class 38, or garden design services which are in Class 44.
1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
So why fight?
I've had many a client who has bankrupted themself over a stupid principle.
Vesuvius 996 said:
My point is this.
1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I agree! Although it would appear wouldn't it, from what I've posted, that they're just trying it on, knowing full well this is the usual advice given to people without deeper pockets than A.N.Other Motor Manufacturer Ltd.1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I may wait until after EuroMillions has been drawn tonight before making a final decision.
timskipper said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
My point is this.
1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I agree! Although it would appear wouldn't it, from what I've posted, that they're just trying it on, knowing full well this is the usual advice given to people without deeper pockets than A.N.Other Motor Manufacturer Ltd.1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I may wait until after EuroMillions has been drawn tonight before making a final decision.
timskipper said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
My point is this.
1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I agree! Although it would appear wouldn't it, from what I've posted, that they're just trying it on, knowing full well this is the usual advice given to people without deeper pockets than A.N.Other Motor Manufacturer Ltd.1. You're not really that bothered about the domain.
2. If you fight, they'll rack up costs, which is you lose, YOU will have to pay
I may wait until after EuroMillions has been drawn tonight before making a final decision.
Legal costs of that may be tens of thousands of pounds.
If the site/domain really financially worth that risk?
JustinP1 said:
If the site/domain really financially worth that risk?
No, it absolutely is not.It cost me $7.05c to register the domain and has earned me £0.00 in book sales since I've done nothing with it! I do nicely out of the book through visitors directly to my company site though, so there's no way I'm taking that down.
I can live with the $7.05c loss, but it really does irk me that they're bullying me into handing over a domain on some points of law evan a layman like me seems to be able to drive a lorry through.
Plus the fact I'm a bloody customer of the company concerned! Nice way to treat your customers and advocates isn't it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff