Gripe site creator demands Walmart pay him before he hands over domain name.
Walmart has filed a dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to take control of the domain name WalmartDoorGreeter.com. [Update: the domain owner has transferred the domain to WalMart.]
The domain name was registered by a Missouri man who set up a gripe site about how much Walmart pays its employees.
Gripe sites are OK in certain circumstances. But after receiving a cease & desist letter from Walmart’s lawyers, the man shot himself in the foot with this rant:
BULLSHIT!… this domain in no way infringes on walmarts trademarks… the same as, if i was to register a domain such as: “walmart-sucks.com”… and post every bad experience that i myself or others have hade at walmart, that is perfectly LEGAL!!!.. and furthermore, said domain name walmartdoorgreeter.com, was purchesed fair and legally! so if you honestly think im just gonna hand it over, you are highly misteken and full of corporate greed & bullshit!
If you want me to “transfer” said domain over to you, then YOU and or you client will have to purchase said domain name from me, the same way i legally obtained it in the first place.
Untill YOU and or your CLIENT, have made me a fair and right offer to legally purchase said domain, then said domain will continue to stay up and running.You make me a fair cash offer to buy said domain name then once i accept and payment is received, i will gladly remove said domain and all associated content, and transfer said domain over to you, NO EXCEPTIONS!
That “exception” might be when the World Intellectual Property Organization orders his registrar to transfer the domain name.
This should NOT be a case for UDRP, as registrant does not his/her domain name to confuse customers/visitors, nor he/she sells anything similar – product/services, that Walmart does.
“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
Okay, but does the proposition of “I will publish bad things about you unless you pay me” strike you as someone with a legitimate gripe, or someone engaging in some kind of extortion?
John, I am not saying that Registrant’s behavior and language are okay. No, they are not. I am just saying that this is more about non-UDRP related issues and most likely Walmart will file a regular lawsuit regarding this site, not UDRP.
““I will publish bad things about you unless you pay me”
He didn’t say that. He said:
“i will gladly remove said domain and all associated content”
Further I think he is doing the right thing actually. He’s a nut and he’s appearing nutty. Walmart lawyers should recognize that and act accordingly.
Also he doesn’t state a price that he wants he only says “fair and reasonable”. “Fair and reasonable” could be what is paid for the domain and a small nominal amount to cover the work that he has done “20 hours at $20 per hour” or something like that.
If they file a UDRP and he loses, so what? So he’s lost a UDRP. Unless he has other high value domains that he doesn’t want to lose in a UDRP who cares? It effectively means very little.
“I will publish bad things about you unless you pay me”: he ALREADY was publishing bad things about Walmart behaviour. Yes, he forgot to write the word “continiue”, so I will CONTINUE to publish etc.etc. NO EXTORTION HERE!
Only to say that if those are payments stolen by Walmart to all tax payers, him, as a taxpayer frauded, is only asking here for a refund in a different way. This is a legit way. The amount can be discussed, but he can always give the money received in excess from Walmart away to other people.
Also, he doesn’t actually promise to stop saying bad things, in any case, about Walmart. He could always register a new domain and keep on truckin’. He’s just saying they can pay for the domain name if they want it.
The only extortion evident here came from the hands of Walmart
Stop the infringement?
What evidence was there of commercial activity on the site?
Where is the financial damage?
Oops.
Hand over all your names? We are not providing you with the mark we are relying on or evidence of our superior rights but hand over your property.
Is Walmart greeter a registered trademark?
Would a reasonable person mistake a Walmart greeter with Walmart itself
Would a reasonable person at first glance be confused into thinking the site was somehow associated or affiliated with Walmart.
The first thing on the site referenced walmarts boycott of Paula dean and asked about their stance on anti white hip hop music
Went on to talk about low wages poor moral standards and other stuff often ascribed to walmart
Sounds like a gripe site
But if Walmart is all in a huff over tm inclusion then why start? What actions are they employing to stop that?
http://walmartisgreat.com
Actually, part of the problem with the site is that the name is somewhat innocuous. Under UDRP, the panels often consider whether someone would know it’s a gripe site merely by seeing the name. If I see WalmartSucks.com, I know it’s a gripe site. If I see WalmartDoorGreeter.com, I’d assume it’s owned by Walmart.
Also, Walmart doesn’t need a trademark for Walmart Greeter. It just needs one for Walmart.
And if WalmartisGreat.com is yours, I hope you realize Walmart could easily take it from you.
Hard to claim the domain is Innocuous and damaging at the same time
I appreciate that Walmart doesn’t need a tm for greeter in order to meet the requirements of the Udrp but under the law they have to prove the confusion exists. Harder for them when the hard questions are asked
Where is the confusion
Where is the infringement
These kinds of questions are not well suited for determining under the Udrp
This is a first amendment case. Where is the evidence of cybersquatting never mind infringement which can not happen in the absence of commercial activity
And no walmartisgreat is not mine
I mention it to evidence Walmart poor and selective brand enforcement choices
They want the greeter site as it an embarrassment to them whereas they are oblivious to other registrants who include their mark for obvious commercial gain akin to Walmart is great dot com
That site should have been torched long ago but was not. Somehow the greeter site came to their attention first I guess
Selective brand enforcement at best
Walmartisgreat.com is about to become collateral damage to this story
“Selective brand enforcement at best”
Basically every Fortune 500 undertakes selected brand enforcement. They’re only going to go after the ones that are problematic for them. It would cost too much to file a UDRP against every person who owns a domain that has walmart in it.
These kinds of questions are well suited to the UDRP. There are three prongs, and panels in cases similar to this have found that all prongs have been met. That said, it depends on how Walmart argued the case it filed.
The domain owner has transferred the domain to Walmart and Walmart has withdrawn the case.
What Constitutes “Bad Faith”…
The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (ACPA) lists nine factors that courts may consider when determining whether the domain name registrant possessed the requisite “bad faith intent to profit.”27 Although no one factor or group of factors is outcome determinative, a bad faith intent to profit is more likely to be found where the defendant:
•Offers to sell the domain name to the trademark owner for a fee
•Provides false contact information when registering the domain name
•Registers multiple domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others
•Does not have any particular reason to use the domain name, other than the fact that it is similar to another’s trademark
•Does not use the domain name for the bona fide sale of goods or services
•Attempts to divert customers from the trademark owner’s website in a way that creates confusion as to sponsorship or affiliation
•Registers a domain name similar or identical to a mark that is on the more distinctive end of the trademark continuum
Asking the TM owner to buy the domain name is illegal, according to Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.
(Ferrera, 01/2011)
Ferrera, G. R., Reder, M. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J., Jeff. (2011). CyberLaw: Text and Cases. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://1133173500