Comments on: Ad.com Sale Falls Through, Lawsuit Filed

By: Domain Name Wire » News » AdMedia.com: Another Play on Ad.com? - The Domain Industry's News Source

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:12:00 +0000

[...] It sure looks like whomever has created this basic web site at AdMedia.com is trying to make a play on Ad.com, the disputed trademark that has caused some million dollar heartache. [...]

By: Some of the most famous 2-Letter domains - NamePros.com

Some of the most famous 2-Letter domains - NamePros.com — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:04:28 +0000

[...] Here is why, I think. __________________ Domain Names for Sale 90% Payout Affiliate program! Still in Pre-launch! [...]

By: Interesting & Intensive Domain Bidding War for AD.COM - Must see for all Domainers. - Indian Domain Names Forum

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:44:25 +0000

[...] [...]

By: AOL Wreaks Havoc On Advertising Domains | Domains News

AOL Wreaks Havoc On Advertising Domains | Domains News — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:21:16 +0000

[...] Thinks It Owns All Advertising Domains”. The company is not only partly responsible for the $1.4 million sale of Ad.com falling through, but it is now suing Advertise.com for trademark infringement and unfair competition based on the [...]

By: Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:41:37 +0000

@Jamie Parks – A.mericas O.verreaching L.awyers

That was SWEEEEET! (did you hire a comedy writer for that one, or did you pull that one up yourself? Either way, it made me laff because it was so on point! Good job broey)

Back to the issue at hand, I think some of these people dogging Moniker for not “representing outstanding TM issues” on Ad.com are not recognizing that AOL filed their TM lawsuit A DAY BEFORE THE AUCTION, if I’m reading the report correctly.

How can Moniker be aware of any TM issues if some bloated, desperate internet star with fading relevance files a lame and injurious TM lawsuit on a domain name they’ve never used, and has no “distinctive” qualities to give it a potential trademark? Whuuuuut?

Div and Directi should just pay for the domain and man up.

By: Ramki

Ramki — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:13:15 +0000

DC, if the seller (Mr. Guillen) and/or the auction organizer are so sure about ad.com is free of any such issues, wouldn’t you think they should indemnify the buyer of any such pre-existing claims?
You are repeatedly asserting that USPTO will not allow such trademark (though adam has given counter cases) then, why is holding/pending the decision?
I hope you realize that you are stretching it for too much to support a baseless law suite of a seller who don’t want to honor his responsibilities.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:03:36 +0000

I think you are thinking of Word Mark

A service mark is used to identify a service rather than a product

what does it matter? both advertise.com and advertising.com have trademarks (as well as others mentioned) and you stated “Generic domain names can’t be trademarked!!”

The UDRP even recognizes service marks : “. . .domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. . .”

You aren’t an attorney and neither am I . . . but I’ve presented fact, not conjecture.