<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Peaches Uniforms Wants a Bite Out Of Peaches.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:39:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: I found my thrill</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-336282</link>
		<dc:creator>I found my thrill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:46:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-336282</guid>
		<description>I second the motion on where is the Chillibeans.com lawsuite. Should not be a secret.

Peaches = DESIRABLE WOMEN
(not all women ;) I suggest only 7 - 9% are peaches. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN
read the decision.

It is a good thing that the women were not ugly (and I am here to tell you) otherwise the use would not have been suggested by the generic meaning = no bonified use = you lose your domain after 10 years of no complaint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I second the motion on where is the Chillibeans.com lawsuite. Should not be a secret.</p>
<p>Peaches = DESIRABLE WOMEN<br />
(not all women <img src='http://domainnamewire.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  I suggest only 7 &#8211; 9% are peaches. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN<br />
read the decision.</p>
<p>It is a good thing that the women were not ugly (and I am here to tell you) otherwise the use would not have been suggested by the generic meaning = no bonified use = you lose your domain after 10 years of no complaint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-333308</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-333308</guid>
		<description>@ John - haven&#039;t located a lawsuit related to ChiliBeans...feel free to point me in the right direction :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ John &#8211; haven&#8217;t located a lawsuit related to ChiliBeans&#8230;feel free to point me in the right direction <img src='http://domainnamewire.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Berryhill</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-333285</link>
		<dc:creator>John Berryhill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-333285</guid>
		<description>&quot;If Peaches.com loses this generic name (as Frank did with ChiliBeans.com)&quot;

Umm... not so fast there.  Chillibeans.com is subject to follow-up litigation, and is far from &quot;lost&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If Peaches.com loses this generic name (as Frank did with ChiliBeans.com)&#8221;</p>
<p>Umm&#8230; not so fast there.  Chillibeans.com is subject to follow-up litigation, and is far from &#8220;lost&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Peaches.com Successfully Defended - The Domain Industry's News Source</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-333273</link>
		<dc:creator>Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Peaches.com Successfully Defended - The Domain Industry's News Source</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-333273</guid>
		<description>[...] 24-7 Outdoors Inc. has successfully defended its domain name Peaches.com. Domain Name Wire first wrote about this case in December. The complainant, Peaches Uniforms, sells style-conscious scrubs and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color: #FFfbd0">
<p>[...] 24-7 Outdoors Inc. has successfully defended its domain name Peaches.com. Domain Name Wire first wrote about this case in December. The complainant, Peaches Uniforms, sells style-conscious scrubs and [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-307987</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-307987</guid>
		<description>@ David - I have not seen the actual filing as the respondent would not comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ David &#8211; I have not seen the actual filing as the respondent would not comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-307986</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-307986</guid>
		<description>@ Matt - thanks for being picky :)

My guess is in the UDRP Peaches Uniforms claims common law trademark rights back to its founding in 1987.  But they will have to prove that the owner of Peaches.com should have known about the trademark.  That will be tough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Matt &#8211; thanks for being picky <img src='http://domainnamewire.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>My guess is in the UDRP Peaches Uniforms claims common law trademark rights back to its founding in 1987.  But they will have to prove that the owner of Peaches.com should have known about the trademark.  That will be tough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/31/peaches-uniforms-wants-a-bite-out-of-peachescom/comment-page-1/#comment-307982</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3801#comment-307982</guid>
		<description>@  David &amp; WQ -

I agree with both of you.  The domain name shouldn&#039;t be taken away, as there&#039;s no way this was registered in bad faith.  There are many company&#039;s that own trademarks to the term peaches, too.

But the domain DID show a lot of medical uniform ads, which is precisely why Peaches Uniforms has *ANY* claim here.  If those ads wouldn&#039;t have shown up, Peaches Uniforms would have not shot at the domain.

Any self-respecting UDRP panel wouldn&#039;t find in Peaches Uniforms&#039; favor.  But the only reason they&#039;ll have to look at the case is because of the links.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@  David &#038; WQ -</p>
<p>I agree with both of you.  The domain name shouldn&#8217;t be taken away, as there&#8217;s no way this was registered in bad faith.  There are many company&#8217;s that own trademarks to the term peaches, too.</p>
<p>But the domain DID show a lot of medical uniform ads, which is precisely why Peaches Uniforms has *ANY* claim here.  If those ads wouldn&#8217;t have shown up, Peaches Uniforms would have not shot at the domain.</p>
<p>Any self-respecting UDRP panel wouldn&#8217;t find in Peaches Uniforms&#8217; favor.  But the only reason they&#8217;ll have to look at the case is because of the links.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
