Would it be illegal to use like utubevids.com I was wondering if it would be a problem. because its different spelling??? I see there are no sites using youtube video domains, but I see allot of utube type video domains?? feedback?
Phonetic spellings can certainly be trademark infringement (mikerowesoft.com). There is certainly a case for infringement with that domain, but predicting if they will take legal action is unknown. I wouldn't want to spend time developing a site to later be forced to hand it over.
It would not be "illegal" in the sense that the cops turn up on your door and arrest you but you would need to check in your local country if a trademark class has been filed for that particular phrase before you do anything, its called due dilligence. You could get away with registering a country tld like utuevids.es for example if the trademark search comes up with nothing, you would be safe with that. Even if google trademarked that phrase later in your country, they would have no legal right to ask you to hand the domain over because your lawyer will just say that google has intentionally filed a trademark in order to get your domain name. Phoenetic spellings still have to be specified in trademark classes. Just becasue i trademark the word CRAIG, does not mean I am automatically entitled to all pheonetic variations UNLESS i specify each one clearly in my trademark filing so always do a trademark search becasue its surpring at what you WONT find. I would say however that you are treading on thin ice with google if you go ahead with it and unless you have a good lawyer who is proficient with IP law, then move on and register another domain for your site, its not worth it.
I have to disagree with Craig on a couple points. First, all phonetic spellings do not need to be registered in most countries. In fact, I don't know of any where that is the case (not that I know every country's laws). If one uses a term that looks like or sounds like an existing mark in the same industry then it will be considered "confusingly similar" and an attempt to "pass off". These concepts are recognized in the US, the EU, and by the Madrid Protocol. If I trademark "Fred" to sell shoes, some one else won't be able to trademark "Freds" to sell shoes. They could register "Freds" to sell fruit. In this case, the OP wants to create a video website using a phonetically similar mark. This would be considered passing off. In addition, the first step Google would take is UDRP which also recognizes misspellings, typos, and phonetically similar names to be infringement when using the term in the same context as the mark owner. That being said, YouTube may not be trademarked in every country, but it was registered through the Madrid Protocol (there are 74 member countries including Spain). This trademark is recognized in all 74 of those countries. Secondly, if the OP has accurately listed his location as Alaska, then merely hosting his site in some other country is not enough to insulate himself from any civil action that Google wanted to take. In fact, hosting the site in another country could be used as evidence that he knew that registering said domain was infringement and the off-shore hosting was an attempt to circumvent those laws.
If it's confusingly similar, it can be a trademark violation! I wouldn't risk it, they might swat you like a fly.
golden rules of domains: 1) resist the urge to buy the .org or .info or .whatever of some company or large site. Sure you'll profit it initially, but realize that you will be liable and if you happen to be selling some product or your a porn site or something, they could sue you for defaming their trademark. 2) similar sounding domains are tricky, while you're not directly infringing their trademark/copyrights - you can be held liable for again defamation.
Sorry, that's incorrect. You can be directly infringing a trademark, look at MikeRoweSoft.com vs MicroSoft.com for example.
Didn't Microsoft only 'win' because they tricked Mike Rowe into saying "the domain is worth at least $10,000"?
Actually, nobody 'won' in that case. After Mike Rowe responded to MS's offer to pay the registration fee by countering 10K, MS sent him a very long C&D threatening to go after him for everything they could think of. Mike then went to the press. The public backlash from the the thought of MS suing a teen for using his own name caused MS to settle the case. Mike got an xbox, his new site paid for, help in generating traffic, and free MS cert training. There was no ruling in the case.
Definitely thinking of copyright acts it might create some sort of nuisance when you have the traffic and popularity and many more things as well. Taking your case suppose your site gets traffic of over 1000 uniques daily and then you get what you wanted and some one from the giants come to know this kind of activity then they will try to get your site in their name. which is definitely bad in last