hi everybody.3 months ago i ve registred a the name bitcoinbloomberg.com,, ten days ago i get an email from legal office of bloomberg claiming that i have to transfer them the name,,and they wanna pay me only the cost of registration,,what i have to do thanx a lot,,they said if i wont do they will file a legal procedure against me,,
I'm not an expert on legal matter but my common sense says yes you have to do it. I don't think you have any leverage against them. But you can always bargain to get at least something more than registration charges.
hate to say, I told you so . Do you seriously need advice on such a crappy domain as it is? You should be happy they are even giving you the price of registration for it. Just get rid of it.
What rock have you been hiding under to not have seen the endless similar threads here and elsewhere? Not all companies are litigious but you can't be surprised when they want to protect their brand.
Well, at least you did not take on a billionaire's business empire that likely has 50+ Trademark/Copyright lawyers on staff with nothing better to do than take you to court...oh, my mistake...that's exactly what you did! Get out fast before they change their mind.
Dont let them trick you. They have absolutely no right to bully the domain away from you. Bloomberg is a common Surname around the world and they do not have ownership over the Surname and they cant prevent you from using it in any way you wish. Just like they cant stop someone else with the Surname of Bloomberg in owning a domain like bloombergfamily.com, etc. Secondly, they are not in the business of bitcoins nor can they be. So tell them if they want it, they need to pay a price of your choosing. If not, then let the waste their time and money on the lawyers.
Glad to see the last post. Times two. I'd actually goad them into suing me.. Any court would laugh at them. Just remember, any threat from them, you do not have to appoint a lawyer to respond to them.
The posters that are goading you into fighting Bloomberg are hilarious and obviously know nothing about business and how trademarking litigation works. Even if your surname is Bloomberg (which it is not, as far as I can tell) you will be hard-pressed to prove that you are not trying to infringe on their trademark in the financial arena which is where they do business. In the unlikely event that you make any money from the website while the court proceedings are going on, those funds will be taken by the courts, plus interest, plus any penalties that they want to add on. The courts will not laugh at Bloomberg's team of lawyers; they will reward them for their efforts to protect their trademark.
I stick to my original point. No intention to flame or cause arguement. The onus is on Bloomberg to demonstrate a deliberate attempt to deceive, pass off, or associate. They have not entered into an arena of court, merely threatened action. If every business were to bend over at the hint of legal, then the world will be a poorer place for it. If you are doing nothing wrong, then stick to your guns. I reiterate, you do not have to incur any costs to say no to their repeated requests if your intentions are honest, decent and right.
The bad advice continues. Let's review: the OP registered a domain that combines a financial instrument with a prominent trademark in the financial industry. Not surprisingly, a legal team searching for exactly this type of infringement discovers this attempt and is prepared to litigate as they likely do many times each year. Even if the OP has some tenuous tie to the name Bloomberg (which is extremely unlikely,) using it in the financial arena would not be allowed anyway, most likely. New Posters come to DP all of the time in dismay that their illegal/unethical schemes have not worked out and they did not make millions instantly and concerned that they could have liabilities (occasionally, it involves potential criminal activity.) Most established members on DP try to steer such people in the direction of working hard on a legitimate effort to make money online and away from theft of IP or services as opposed to encouraging them to continue with a shady project that will, ultimately, fail. Of course, it must also be noted that, like many of the OP's that come to DP in a panic because their illegal/unethical scheme has backfired, this OP has not seen most of the ensuing comments on this thread because s/he has not returned since the original posting day. I continue to post on this thread in the hopes that some other newbie internet marketer thinking thoughts of getting rich quick will stumble across this thread and be deterred from doing something stupid. Probably just wishful thinking on my part, but silly comments encouraging such behavior do not help anyone.
To be honest, in 2014, I think the blame should be on domain registration companies for failing to prevent the use of trademarked terms being used so readily. The domain registration companies should be forced to make changes to ensure that once a trademarked is issued by anyone from any country, that no variant is available in any .tld world wide. More and more people are getting into buying domains with no education on the issue, and everyday, more trademarks pop up. You could do a trademark search today, and in a months time be in for a suprise. For most average people, if the domain is available, they go for it. Nothing stops them. If it wasnt allowed to be registered, then it shouldnt be available to be registered, end of story.
http://iwhois.com/bitcoinbloomberg.com There's a time to defend yourself if you're decent and honest...and a time to back down when you're clearly in the wrong. At least the two parties worked things out without having to go to court or similar.
Trademark law protects a trademark owner's exclusive right to use a trademark when use of the mark by another would be likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source or origin of goods. To establish a violation of the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.
Wow, you seem to know the trademark rules, but apparently could not figure out the DP rules to prevent being banned.