Say that you buy a domain for a company and later find out that it is infringing on another company's name. Do you have to give them the domain, or do you still have the right to simply take the domain down or redirect it to that specific company's website? I'm unsure on this issue.
Well it's not copyright infringement. If the company has trademarked their name, then you could run into problems and would probably have to hand the domain over.
They are in the process of doing that is what they say. But as long as the domain is not pointing to a website, don't I still have the right to keep it? I'm not saying I will, I'm just curious.
If the domain is not pointing to a website, that can show that you have no legitimate interest in the domain and can be grounds for you losing the domain in a dispute.
blah, that's easy to get around. If ICANN comes at you and wants to take the domain just tell them you were planning on making a parody website and will not be selling products from it. Tell them that you're just saving up the money to have the website built and you're excited. Bada bing. No infringement and they won't take anything away.
That will only work if the domain has not site associated with it. If the domain is being parked to display ads then it will not. Furthermore, WIPO looks at the history of previous disputes, so if they come calling more than once or twice they will see it as an established pattern and the defense will stop working for you. What is the point of paying the registration fees if you don't have content....
You are using their trademark in your domain, but the question is, are you infringing on their trademark? That will depend on what you are using the domain name for. Owning it and not using it for anything is a bad idea - because they can show that you have no legitimate interest in it. But if you have an actual site with legitimate content that relates to the domain name, then it will be okay.
Sounds like you won a UDRP on those bits you mentioned. Curious, considering not all the relevant facts of this one are being touched on. What you said above may work in very limited cases. But it won't always work all the time.
Hm? He said, "But as long as the domain is not pointing to a website, don't I still have the right to keep it?" I take that to mean he basically just has a domain name, nothing more. If that's the case my answer should work fine in almost every case. If it was available I could get i-hate-pepsi.com and nothing could be done about me using Pepsi in a domain, as long as the site really was about how much I hate pepsi. In this case it would go into First Amendment protections and not just a fair-use defense as in a parody website. WIPO... Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. In example: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0190.html Quoted: On August 28, 1999, the Respondent registered the Domain Name <bridgestone-firestone.net> with the Registrar. ..... Respondent admits that the Domain Name uses the Complainants’ trademarks, but raises the defenses of free speech and "fair use". He contends that the website is a "complaint" site that is engaged in no commercial activity and that the use of the trademarks is for the purpose of identifying the companies that are the basis of the complaint site. Respondent contends that in using the Complainants’ trademarks in the Domain Name, he is protected by the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is exempted from liability by the "fair use" exemption under the U.S. Federal Anti-Dilution Act of 1996 for use of a famous mark if the use is for noncommercial purposes or for news reporting and commentary. Respondent further asserts that no prudent Internet user would be confused as to the source or sponsorship of the website, and submits copies of pages of the site – the home page stating that "This website is not affiliated in any way with Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc." and pages whose content is sharply critical of the Complainants. ... 7. Decision For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that although the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainants have rights, the Respondent has legitimate fair use and free speech rights and interests in respect of the Domain Name, and the Respondent has not registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the claim of the Complainants for transfer of the Domain Name.
Of course, that also assumes the dispute is through WIPO which enforces policy, not law. If the dispute is being resolved through the courts then things may fall a different direction depending on what type of judge you're in front of. Granted, that is really an outside chance as very few domain disputes are taken to court unless the defending party has a lot of money. If it is WIPO, then just telling them you are planning to make a non-infringing site will usually be enough the first time. Being that they look at the respondent's UDRP history as evidence in these mediations, if you continue to use such an arguement and never produce anything then the defense is not likely to work for you. Not only that, but the complaint can be refiled if the site that does appear at the domain later is infringing or is found to be commercial in nature. The defense buys you time but does not get you out of the woods entirely. Here is a WIPO decision where similar arguments were made, but the panel found on the side of the complainant. Mostly because the complainant had not actually demonstrated any intent to use the domain (other than to just say that he planned to). Also because of the type and way the respondent gave "evidence" (some was contradictory, most was not backed by any tangible evidence). It boils down to if the panel smells a rat they may decide for the complainant. And again, if you just plan on holding the domain without building a site, what is the point?
I think the hassle is not worth it. Just find a name without thier trademark in it. I would offer to sell domain to them but do not expect any profit.
Offering to sell the domain to the mark holder is the same as saying "I purchased this domain name in bad faith."
I agree here. Although you're innocent the perception of making an offer will say otherwise. About half a year ago I've purchased a domain thinking it was unique. Come to find out that the first half of the name is the same as an established site. The difference, however, is with the contents from my site and the other sites. Clearly there not affiliated nor disguised to be. I don't see a problem down the road. The issues comes down to money or if the domain name is confusing potential visitors of the other site. If you're taking away an audience of the other site and they have rights to that name (trademark) then you may come across a potential problem. If you're served with a legal notice I suggest that you contact a local attorney who specializes in IP disputes.