Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Attorneys / Lawyers: Hobbits v. Hobbitts: Generic Mark Argument Won't Prevent Panel From Seeing Pay Per Click Parking as Bad Faith

« The Three Views of Trademark Cybersquatting | Main | Domain Name Return On Investment: Your Time Is Worth Something Too »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Isn't the real answer for Parking Companies and Google to allow us to exclude ad categories in trademark protected categories? If no ads for movies or hobbitts memorabilia, the parking page might have been proof of good faith, not bad. Of course, the registrant, parking company and Google would all make less money. The relevance of the parking page to the consumer is most relevant if they are truly searching for the trademark owner, typed it in wrong and the parked page is showing ads of companies relevant to the trademark they were searching for. Parking is dangerous business for good reason.

Well, I see that domain owner as being in a tough position - even if he developed out website. If he makes a site and uses Google Adwords or some other network of ads he or she cannot monitor the site(s) every second and with the network's auto-optimizing system could put up an infringing ad for two hours even, for example, and cause a trademark infringment instance.

Basically, the only options are to sit on the domains and have a blank page or develop the site(s) and sell advertising yourself - and monitor very closely what goes up.

But, as we both know even the big news/media networks and every other company of any size use networks for ad backfill - it's standard practice.

There really needs to be a standard solution developed for lightning-fast resolutions of conflicts. It just is not fair to the domain owners, nor the trademark owners - so some kind of compromise on some medium between the two parties need to be agreed on.

The comments to this entry are closed.