In alt.www.webmaster on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:08:43 +0000, Guy Macon
<http> wrote:

> to the OP; whole grabbing productname.hk and productname.cn,
> consider grabbing productnamesucks.com just so that nobody
> else can.

We don't know what the product is, so there's no reason to assume it
sucks enough for such squatting to be needed.

I find it amusing that the OP wants to prevent squatting by squatting
himself, and that you advise him to squat even more.

To the OP: why not squat on productnameiscrap.(everything) too?
Alternatively, why not stop wasting time and money on this non-issue?


--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>In alt.www.webmaster on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:08:43 +0000, Guy Macon
><http> wrote:
>
>> to the OP; whole grabbing productname.hk and productname.cn,
>> consider grabbing productnamesucks.com just so that nobody
>> else can.
>
>We don't know what the product is, so there's no reason to assume it
>sucks enough for such squatting to be needed.

Thus the word "consider." What woord do *you* use when giving
advice that might not apply depending on unknown factors?

>I find it amusing that the OP wants to prevent squatting by squatting
>himself, and that you advise him to squat even more.

Not for any reasonable definition of "squatting." The OP clearly
pesented himself as the trademark owner of his particular brand
name and the squatters as merely "selling products in the same
retail sector."

>Why not squat on productnameiscrap.(everything) too?

because those trademark owners who have tried registering all
variations (productnamesucks.com, productnamesucks.net,
productnameblows.com, productnameiscrap.com, avoidproductname.com,
evilproductname.com, etc.) generally report that only the
productnamesucks.com variation gets any noticable amount of
traffic.

>Alternatively, why not stop wasting time and money on this non-issue?

It isn't a non-issue for a large company that is introducing a new
brand with a multi-million dollar marketing and advertising budget
or for an organization with significant opposition. Example:
petasucks.com was registered by PETA.

Please don't assume that everyone has the same needs that you do.





--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:03 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>>I find it amusing that the OP wants to prevent squatting by squatting
>>himself, and that you advise him to squat even more.
>
>Not for any reasonable definition of "squatting." The OP clearly
>pesented himself as the trademark owner of his particular brand
>name and the squatters as merely "selling products in the same
>retail sector."

Does the OP own the trademark in China? If not, then he has no legal
right to claim the name as his own there, and anyone else is entitled
to register the trademark there and use it there.

Trademarks aren't like copyright. There's no equivalent of the Bern
Convention (whereby anything subject to copyright in one signatory
country is subject to copyright in all of them). For trademarks, you
only own it in the country or countries where you register the
trademark. Outside those countries, you have absolutely no legal or
moral rights over the name. If someone else registers the same name as
a trademark in a different country, then they have the legal and moral
right to it there.

This distinction is intentional. Unlike copyright, which protects
works of creativity and is intentionally global in application,
trademarks protect works of commerce and are deliberately restricted
to the countries in which the trademark owner actually trades. Large
multinationals, such as McDonalds, do indeed register variants of
mcdonalds.cctld in every possible location, but they also register the
word "McDonalds" as a trademark for food retailing in all those
countries as well, and actually operate burger bars in all those
countries. If an organisation isn't going to go to the expense of
setting up operations in various other countries, then it has no
legitimate reason to register either the trademark or the local
variant of the domain name.

Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>>I find it amusing that the OP wants to prevent squatting by squatting
>>>himself, and that you advise him to squat even more.
>>
>>Not for any reasonable definition of "squatting." The OP clearly
>>pesented himself as the trademark owner of his particular brand
>>name and the squatters as merely "selling products in the same
>>retail sector."
>
>Does the OP own the trademark in China? If not, then he has no legal
>right to claim the name as his own there, and anyone else is entitled
>to register the trademark there and use it there.

Keeping in mind that the OP seems to have disapeared rather than
reveal the domain names in question (and thus we can only guess
at whether he actually has any rights or whether he is trying to
infringe on the rights of others)...

In the USA, trademark rights are established by usage, not by
registration. Although it is true that in China, "Well-known"
trademarks are considered valid trademarks before registration,
in general China has a "first to file" as opposed to "first to
use" trademark system.

Again, these are just general comments. Without knowing the
specifics I can't give a proper answer to the OP. Trying to
trademar "Exxon" or "Xerox" is not like trying to trademark
"Apple" or "McDonalds".

>Trademarks aren't like copyright. There's no equivalent of the Bern
>Convention (whereby anything subject to copyright in one signatory
>country is subject to copyright in all of them). For trademarks, you
>only own it in the country or countries where you register the
>trademark. Outside those countries, you have absolutely no legal or
>moral rights over the name. If someone else registers the same name as
>a trademark in a different country, then they have the legal and moral
>right to it there.

Only true in "first to file" countries. In "first to use" countries
the trademark may be established by usage. And even in China, you
can register a trademark and then lose it if three years go by without
you establishing it by using it. And in cases where it is clear that
the domain was registered in bad faith to order to take unfair advantage
of the trademark owner he could file a complaint under the ICAAN Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which *is* international.

>This distinction is intentional. Unlike copyright, which protects
>works of creativity and is intentionally global in application,
>trademarks protect works of commerce and are deliberately restricted
>to the countries in which the trademark owner actually trades. Large
>multinationals, such as McDonalds, do indeed register variants of
>mcdonalds.cctld in every possible location, but they also register the
>word "McDonalds" as a trademark for food retailing in all those
>countries as well, and actually operate burger bars in all those
>countries. If an organisation isn't going to go to the expense of
>setting up operations in various other countries, then it has no
>legitimate reason to register either the trademark or the local
>variant of the domain name.

I agree 100%. That's why I want to see what tho OPs supposed
trademark actually is.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:50:27 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

>
>
>
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>>I find it amusing that the OP wants to prevent squatting by squatting
>>>>himself, and that you advise him to squat even more.
>>>
>>>Not for any reasonable definition of "squatting." The OP clearly
>>>pesented himself as the trademark owner of his particular brand
>>>name and the squatters as merely "selling products in the same
>>>retail sector."
>>
>>Does the OP own the trademark in China? If not, then he has no legal
>>right to claim the name as his own there, and anyone else is entitled
>>to register the trademark there and use it there.
>
>Keeping in mind that the OP seems to have disapeared rather than
>reveal the domain names in question (and thus we can only guess
>at whether he actually has any rights or whether he is trying to
>infringe on the rights of others)...
>
>In the USA, trademark rights are established by usage, not by
>registration. Although it is true that in China, "Well-known"
>trademarks are considered valid trademarks before registration,
>in general China has a "first to file" as opposed to "first to
>use" trademark system.
>
>Again, these are just general comments. Without knowing the
>specifics I can't give a proper answer to the OP. Trying to
>trademar "Exxon" or "Xerox" is not like trying to trademark
>"Apple" or "McDonalds".
>
>>Trademarks aren't like copyright. There's no equivalent of the Bern
>>Convention (whereby anything subject to copyright in one signatory
>>country is subject to copyright in all of them). For trademarks, you
>>only own it in the country or countries where you register the
>>trademark. Outside those countries, you have absolutely no legal or
>>moral rights over the name. If someone else registers the same name as
>>a trademark in a different country, then they have the legal and moral
>>right to it there.
>
>Only true in "first to file" countries. In "first to use" countries
>the trademark may be established by usage. And even in China, you
>can register a trademark and then lose it if three years go by without
>you establishing it by using it. And in cases where it is clear that
>the domain was registered in bad faith to order to take unfair advantage
>of the trademark owner he could file a complaint under the ICAAN Uniform
>Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which *is* international.
>
>>This distinction is intentional. Unlike copyright, which protects
>>works of creativity and is intentionally global in application,
>>trademarks protect works of commerce and are deliberately restricted
>>to the countries in which the trademark owner actually trades. Large
>>multinationals, such as McDonalds, do indeed register variants of
>>mcdonalds.cctld in every possible location, but they also register the
>>word "McDonalds" as a trademark for food retailing in all those
>>countries as well, and actually operate burger bars in all those
>>countries. If an organisation isn't going to go to the expense of
>>setting up operations in various other countries, then it has no
>>legitimate reason to register either the trademark or the local
>>variant of the domain name.
>
>I agree 100%. That's why I want to see what tho OPs supposed
>trademark actually is.


I haven't disappered, i have read everyones comments with interest.

Sparticle wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>I agree 100%. That's why I want to see what tho OPs supposed
>>trademark actually is.
>
>I haven't disappered, i have read everyones comments with interest.

And your reason for refusing to answer a couple of simple questions
THAT ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE is ... what?


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>