can you be sued for the act of registering a domain?

[besterman]

Anybody know if you can be sued for the act of registering a domain name? Even if it is a trademark or a variation of a trademarked name, I understand you may have to give it back, but can you actually be sued for money just for the act of registration?

[stevecore]

i'd like to know to.. just picked up beautifuk.com... beautiful.com is owned by proctor & gamble. dunno if they'd come after me for it.

[IPK]

you can be sued for any reason. it doesn't mean they'll win. nor does it mean they have a valid cause of action.

[ibuydomains]

Only if you registered it for the sole intention of extorting money from the trademark holder...

[PbG]

Or impersonating the owners of the domain you cloned/altered.

Originally posted by ibuydomains
Only if you registered it for the sole intention of extorting money from the trademark holder...

[Mr.Fiction]

You can be sued. The U.S. government made specific laws to punish people that they consider to be "cybersquatters".

Do a google search for "Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act".

$100,000 per domain.

[=^..^=]

depends on if you have legitimate reason for owning the domain
ie: if your name really was billgates and you registered billgates.com that is a legit reason to have it
but as mentioned - not if your intention is cybersquatting

however if you have a domain, even if it is a legit reason to own it..if the other party has it trademarked - they can take it from you.

[BrettJ]

the first two things that come to mind are

intent to ______________

and if you they connect you to a second person conspiracy to _____________

fill in the blank with whatever mischievious action you actually might commit if you go through with your idea.

[juicybucks]

depends if it's really infringing someones copyright...

for example
you can register aolsuxxxxx.com if it's in satire.. well that's my understanding..

I've had domains referred to ICANN by AOL and Telstra (twice) and really it they can't do much depending on the way the domain is being used. Yes I lost them all, but there was no lawsuit, just those massive companies spent thousands getting their domains back

[slackologist]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
You can be sued. The U.S. government made specific laws to punish people that they consider to be "cybersquatters".

Do a google search for "Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act".

$100,000 per domain.

that only applys to U.S citizens?

[plyre]

everything is possible , specially talking about suit cases in USA

[Road Rash]

Originally posted by plyre
everything is possible , specially talking about suit cases in USA

This pretty well sums up EVERY THREAD that asks if someone can sue you for this or that..

!!!! NEWSFLASH !!!!!

Anyone can sue anybody for ANYTHING. It doesn't mean they will win, it just means that they can sue.

Walk into any lawyers office and say " i have lots of money and i want to sue someone "

I guarantee the lawyer will file whatever you tell him to file as long as he gets paid..

[pushpills]

just dont try to sell the domain to em'


worst case scenario they just want the domain back, ive had pleanty of risky names, i just gave back disputed ones and ate the 6.75

[Jimbo]

just use free hosting

[cashman]

If you are not profitting from the name, even if you get sued there isn't much they can ask for. They normally ask you to bring it down.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Depends.

[SoBeGirl Video]

You can register any domain if you plan to use it for public informational use. For example, if you want to make a consumer site about the ill effects of ketchup you can make ketchupsucks.com

look at paypalsucks.com

[besterman]

ok, what about the case of something like you register a name that has 'playboy' in it and then promote 'playboycash'. Then if they sue you, they can't say you profited from it because so did they!

[KRL]

This is America. You can be sued for anything.

If you average 1 to 2 lawsuits a year consider yourself lucky.

[pussyluver]

Not an attorney, but think that just the fact you make money does not have much to do with it. Making money is good.

What makes everyone think that US laws don't apply to the whole world?

[pussyluver]

This letter from Booble attorneys to google clears a lot up on the subject:

Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,

We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.

As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.

In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:

the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.

Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.

In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's parodic web site, we believe your reliance thereon is somewhat misplaced.

Finally, we note that Google does not object to numerous registered domain names and web sites, including the following few samples:

<www.booble.be/v2/index.php>
<www.elgoog.nl>
<www.elgoog.de>

Since the law does not appear to support Google's position, we ask that Google reconsider its objections and accept the Booble web site in the spirit that it was intended - as a parody. We hope that these comments will permit you to now close your file on this matter. However, if you wish to discuss it further, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

[$5 submissions]

I wanted to know that too.

[SoundMan]

if you use it..