I just got a couple of emails from domains by proxy (they hide your name and other information to the public in whois requests) saying that they recieved a letter saying that i infringed the "facebook" trademark. I have to sites, www.facebookpass.info and www.proxiedfacebook.info They are saying that I infriged on their trademarked name, "facebook" and am trying to play off of their good will and also am showing pornography on it. Both of the sites have been used as proxies before, and are now just set up on a cash parked page. The word facebook is a real word, which can also mean yearbook, so I would like to know if they can claim anything against me or anything like that?
If you are seen to be damaging a companies reputation then yes thay may have a defimation case, the will nto succeed on teh basis of teh domain name, but defimation cases can be very expensive and hard ones to win, if you are seen to damage a companies reputation they may well have a case. Change the sites to be different to what facebook does and looks like but be wary of using them for porn, illegal, immoral etc as that can constitute a damage to reputation.
You see, the site is parked with godaddy. What they see is the ads go daddy put on it. (CashParking) therefore it's not even me defacing the name or site or whatever.
Understand but you will still bear the brunt as you are in full knowledge of this happening. Best to remove those ads or host elseware where you do not have the ad issue.
Ok. I just turned off any adult ads that godaddy could show on the page. Now, what do I answer to the person that emailed me?
Put in a formal letter the followng Dear Sir/Madam, As teh registered owner of the domains .......... I have read and understood your letter dated the ....... I thankyou for bringing to my attention a matter that is of concern to your company. I take no responsability whatsoever for the material you speak of, in addition any wrong doing both implied and stated by your company is fully denied. I respect the information you outlined in your letter relating to advertising, to wich I deny any knowledge that such ads existed in the form portraid. I have spoken with the said supplier of ads to my site, who has corrected the issue and trust this puts a satisfactory end to the matter. Yours truly .Blah Blah Blah
This should aleviate any issues with the company, if not please pm me there response and ill take a look at it for you.
Please do not follow this ridiculous advice. It is incoherent at best. Since you are doing nothing but parking the domains now, I would probably offer to give them the domains, especially if you live in the US and would rather avoid a lawsuit over an infringing domain.
And you are aware that if both you and Hades are in the US, Facebook sues, it leads into the discovery process where Hades must provide any electronic communications whatsoever (email, PMs, etc.) to the complainant, and they see Hades' PM to you or whatever, that they can take action against you as well if they feel like it? Well, if you're also in the US, anyway.
I hate when people don't know what they are talking about, but sound like they do...it's annoying. So..let's say I already sent the letter that this guy gave, my options before I get sued would be?
Just send them a new letter/email saying that on further review you have decided to give the domains to them. Since you aren't doing anything with them (besides parking them) you would likely lose the domains in a dispute any way. You can ask for the cost of registration, but if you ask for more than that it is a sign of "bad faith" and would pretty much guarantee losing the domains in a dispute.
hmmm... who is the idiot here... a guy offering an opinion for someone looking for, but unwilling to go and pay for a qualified attorney... OR ...the guy that thinks whatever FREE opinions he gets from here are a genuine replacement for not paying for "qualified" legal assistance. The only LEGAL ADVICE you should accept from DP WEBMASTERS (e.g. EVERY NON-ATTORNEY) is - hire an attorney. My opinion is... ignore them at least until you receive a register C&D... and then seeking out a real attorney. Opening your mouth without real legal guidance is what will get you in to trouble.
Unfortunately, people don't throw money at something that has no money in it... I wouldn't give up any domain no matter if it was "just sitting there"... diluting marks and the perception of mark dilution are two separate things... it isn't that easy (or cheap) to prove you are damaging someone's marks - by "sit on the fense"... Nor would I offer or ask for a fee... if on the other hand they offered a fee in good faith - I may consider it. If you haven't looked the marks are for: "Advertising" is included in the mark... BTW
From the information provided, there are one of two things happening here. Facebook is merely trying to get the site shut down through the host, or the emails are actually part of the UDRP process. Since the OP has hidden his details, the UDRP process would send out similar emails. Even if facebook is not current;y trying to get the sites, they may be very soon. They have recently stepped up their attempts to get such domains and have been spending the 1-2K on sites that were nothing but parked pages. In he US, actual dilution does not have to be proven. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 changed the rules so that now a mark owner only needs to show that it is likely to cause dilution. This is a much easier legal point to prove than the old standard. I was not suggesting that he offer to sell (though my post was short, so perhaps I didn't make it clear). I was merely saying that reimbursement of reasonable costs is all he CAN ask for. Anything more would almost gaurantee that he would lose a dispute if it went to court or UDRP. My remarks about the domains just sitting there was not meant to be a reason for giving up the domains. Rather, (and I think this is fairly clear in my previous statement) the domains being parked without a plan to use the domains in a non-infringing manor is a factor that either a court or a UDRP panel will take into consideration. If you have a domain with a trademark in it and you have no plans for legitimate usage, that is a sign of "bad faith" registration, plain and simple. At this point, from the information given, facebook has not requested the domains. However, looking at both the thread and facts not presented: 1) facebook.com is aware of these sites 2) these sites would likely (with the info provided) be considered infringing because the OP has no legitimate usage for these sites (parking domains is not considered legitimate when taking trademarks into account) 3) facebook.com has been stepping up its efforts to obtain domains that contain their trademark (some of these have been sites that do not get a lot of traffic either). They have millions of dollars in capital and they have no qualms about spending it on things like this. 4) The OP may very well have already followed some bad advice which will at best annoy the legal team and possibly make them want to escalate the proceedings (possibly to the court level to sue for damages)
Facebook seems to be really going after use of their mark lately, I just received an email from AdWords disapproving an ad I had running for a while for a proxy targetted to Facebook users, saying that they had received a trademark complaint because I used Facebook in the ad text.
Which doesn't make anyone elses advice from here any more (or less) valid. I read the opening post as: 1. the proxy company claims "they received legal documents for the owner"... that's BULLSHIT! 2. The "host" (with may be the proxy company) would receive a C&D themselves - the host then has a choice - shutdown the site or wait for legal action... any claims directly for the OP would come directly to the OP - Facebook would attempt to sue the proxy company "IF" they refused to identify the owner so the appropriate addressee can be attached. I would request fax copies of these "letters" and do nothing else until I received them... The host would (normally) just shutdown any domain claimed to be infringing to avoid legal action against themselves. No matter -nameless lawyers there is not... Heller and Ehrman is the firm Facebook deals with - I would at least ask who sent the C&D if "FACEBOOK" themselves that isn't likely. An interesting story on the subject: http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2006wk6/news/facebook_sends_out_its_lawyers
What the proxy company said was that the letter, which was addressed to the proxy comapny, wanted to have my information. Earlier today, the proxy company sent me an email saying they recieved proof of the trademark and gave out my information.
Until you receive a C&D from them you can think about what to do... usually they will give 7 days after receipt to comply. The reason you DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING JUST YET... you don't know the actual terms of the C&D - you can obey the C&D to the letter of the law AND NOT lose the domains (but they really are not much good to you unless you are prepared to defend against action). So to answer you original question... a C&D is a first step in a legal process... you will never be sued if you obey the C&D... and while not-transferring the domains to them could be conscrewed as disobeying the C&D - they are unlikely to persue legal action if you decide to keep them without any public display.
They may be unlikely to persue legal action, but given their recent track record, they will be more than happy to persue UDRP action regarless of whether the OP stops parking the domains. If you read the first post, you would see the the OP paid for anonimity on the whois records. That is why the initial letter went to the registrar and not the OP. They had to first obtain his info from the registrar to contact him. Domains by Proxy is not a proxy, it is GoDaddy's private domain registration company.
Agreed... but they have not sent anything yet to the owner, therefore until they do... the law firm cannot be reasonably certain the owner received any notification. Course if the OP sent a reply previously - then this comment is moot... the law firm is absolutely certain and has signed evidence that the owner was notified.