Comments on: Disabled American Veterans Wins DAV.com Domain Name Case

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:58:42 +0000

This case is another perfect example of organizations using trademark law as a “back door” to obtain a desired domain name. It would be one thing if this retired judge was consistent with his decisions. Other cases, he decided rightly on.

If I ever want to get an equitable domain name, I’ll spend the $500 to get the trademark and then hope I get Meyerson to deliver my domain for the $1500. NAF fee. Sweet domains are now available for $2000.

Also, has anyone considered that maybe Meyerson has a Veterans in his family, or has a bias? If so, he should of recused himself.

I feel for the original registrant of DAV.com. He got a raw unjust deal.

By: bernard

bernard — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:05:40 +0000

You said:

if you try to sell a generic domain name, then it can be inferred that all of your domain names were purchased with the intent to sell them.

This is especially true for those having 1000s of domains! Lol.

By: Sell Domain Names « Dog Byte Domains

Sell Domain Names « Dog Byte Domains — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:12:14 +0000

[...] Domain Name Wire Â» News Â» Disabled American Veterans Wins DAV.com … Respondent has made no use of the Domain name other than as described herein. The record indicates that Respondent owns 800 additional Domain Names, and previously has been found to be in the business of Selling Domain Names for a … [...]

By: Domain Investor

Domain Investor — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:19:45 +0000

Quote -
“It is my understanding that the Disabled American Veterans has owned those 3 letters (DAV) for decades as a registered trademark”

I speculate less than 1/1,000 of 1% of the global population knows the term DAV. And, it is only known by a small portion of the U.S. population. They might possibly know the full name of the organization but not the abbreviation.

I’m located on the east coast of the U.S.
And, if I asked my college educated daughter what does DAV mean, she wouldn’t have the faintest idea.

This is a clear case of domain-hijacking.

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:04:56 +0000

Fred, when you work for Disabled American Veterans you should probably identify yourself rather than use a bogus email address. The owner of the domain had no obligation to return your calls.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:35:23 +0000

It is my understanding that the Disabled American Veterans has owned those 3 letters (DAV) for decades as a registered trademark. Like IBM, there is a branding of those 3 letters associated with the organization. Additionally, I know that the DAV tried repeatedly to contact the site owner to purchase the site; he refused to even return calls. In this case, justice definately prevailed.

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:22:56 +0000

OMG.

What about domain development now? Build your domains but be careful of how you represent your prodservs or someone may “link” it to a myriad of other companies who can claim to own the intent of your domain. whuuuuut?

These decisions by ICANN put the whole of the domain community under suspicion… everyone who invests in domains should be up in arms about ICANN’s comments on this ruling.

Very important article, DUB-A