[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's a problem if our trademark is being used for advertising unrelated > products. Now that we're aware of it, failing to take some form of > action could potentially result in us losing the trademark.
Regardless, I would start by accepting Gregg's offer and using domain dispute procedures for the "removed" ones, if we want the domain. I think the first one is the registrar at http://www.enom.com/terms/drp.asp and this seems straightforward, covered by 4.a., 4.b.(i) and (iv). Will the DPL dispute it, does SPI need to, is there a better delegate or should a random DD act? I recommend using enom rather than signaturedomains dispute first, as it looks like signaturedomains are the holder and enom the registrar. Has whois output quality gone downhill, or was .com always this bad? Something like: I/we assert that this domain is confusingly similar to the debian trademark, the holder has no legitimate interests in the domain name and is using it in bad faith by: 1. has acquired the domain name in order to prevent the previous holder giving it to someone with legitimate interests in the mark, according to a statement by the previous holder; and/or 2. is using the domain name to attract visitors to their site through confusion with the debian mark, as seen by the adverts at http://search.domainsponsor.com/d.search?x=1550|1||related||debiangnulinux.com|linux linked from the home page http://debiangnulinux.com/ using the word "Linux" when inspected on 2005-04-01 at 13:55 UTC; and/or 3. is using the domain name to disrupt my business by advertising other competing suppliers of Linux, through the same method as in point 2 above. ENDS Of course, 3 only works if you offer debian OS services, which I do. -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
