Re: debian domains
mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> It's a problem if our trademark is being used for advertising unrelated
> products. Now that we're aware of it, failing to take some form of
> action could potentially result in us losing the trademark.
Regardless, I would start by accepting Gregg's offer and
using domain dispute procedures for the "removed" ones, if
we want the domain. I think the first one is the registrar at
http://www.enom.com/terms/drp.asp and this seems straightforward,
covered by 4.a., 4.b.(i) and (iv). Will the DPL dispute it,
does SPI need to, is there a better delegate or should a random
DD act?
I recommend using enom rather than signaturedomains dispute
first, as it looks like signaturedomains are the holder and
enom the registrar. Has whois output quality gone downhill,
or was .com always this bad?
Something like:
I/we assert that this domain is confusingly similar to the debian
trademark, the holder has no legitimate interests in the domain
name and is using it in bad faith by:
1. has acquired the domain name in order to prevent the previous
holder giving it to someone with legitimate interests in the
mark, according to a statement by the previous holder; and/or
2. is using the domain name to attract visitors to their site
through confusion with the debian mark, as seen by the adverts
at http://search.domainsponsor.com/d.search?x=1550|1||related||debiangnulinux.com|linux
linked from the home page http://debiangnulinux.com/ using
the word "Linux" when inspected on 2005-04-01 at 13:55 UTC; and/or
3. is using the domain name to disrupt my business by advertising
other competing suppliers of Linux, through the same method as
in point 2 above.
ENDS
Of course, 3 only works if you offer debian OS services, which I do.
--
MJR/slef
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Reply to: