Yes sir! but... you might wanna make sure and wait for another person to confirm this as I am not quite sure. Better yet, why don't you give a call to the iPage guys because they can answer you better...
Good read - although the complainant's bully tactics got on my nerve a bit:.
I'd like to see how Adam responds to any other requests (Beyond their $21,000 offer, of course!) after this method....
And FWIW, I'm going to use this opportunity to point out, yet again, why you should get an attorney that practices in HostGator names rather than your normal lawyer..
The fellow they used:.
Is focused on patents - and judging by location and age, is probably a junior guy on "PIG's" patent team (They are in a patent-heavy industry, obviously) and someone (Maybe he) convinced PIG to go the UDRP route because hell, it's more billable hours!.
Not saying any of that happened, but yet again his argument reads more like civil procedure than it does UDRP - and JB clocked him a bit on the request for response bit.
And in response to the non-quoted portion: A man who chooses represents himself has a fool for a client..
I would have wrote the DECISION:.
Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel orders that relief shall be DENIED.
Until when pigs fly...
DAMNIT! Many of us do not have $5,000+- to throw around. The owner of Pig.com apparently does, so he keeps his name, but whatever he paid his attorney is GONE..
My point remains that the owner of inc.mobi could not even get a response from a lawyer. Why? Probably it was not a big enough $$$$$ name. He had no choice but to represent himself, fool for a client and all, and LESS THAN THREE WEEKS to learn how to do it, in the midst of all the other responsibilities of his life..
And so he had his name removed from him, to the glee of hijackers everywhere. I am sorry, this system is cr@p...
Good points accent but at least this case sets a precedent and can be used by anybody finding themselves in a similar situation - so it's good to make it known to as many domainers as possible. I am new to all this and was surprised to see that anybody would dispute that 'pig' was generic but pleased to see they lost...
You know, I may be the only one on this or "the other" forum that knows what a "pig" is. I saw a article in Businessweek (or similar) a few years ago - kinda a "aren't they clever" piece. No heavy handed-ness here, oh no. Nice warm fuzzy company..
The company owner saw workers dumping kitty litter on oil spots that leaked from equiptment as he visited factories. Thought that was pretty messy, so he stuck ground up corn cobs in an old sock, and in a stroke of marketing genus (so says BW) called it pig. The article quoted the owner admitting that he got most of his sales because bored supply people thought it was cool to order something called pig..
So now you know. Make your own pigs..
Or better not. Maybe he own the rights to corn cobs...
The timing is appropiate....in the chinese 'year of the pig'..
What if the owner of the HostGator is in Sahara desert and the bully who wants to steal the HostGator is in America?..
Exactly. The owner probably loses..
If the owner does not respond within the three weeks the panel (of one) considers all reasonable allegations of the complaint to be proven and if they meet the three criteria (of course they do) he orders the name transfered. If the owner is not represented by an attorney the panel (I think most of them are lawyers or judges) considers him a fool, ignores his evidence and counterpoints because they are not in the proper form (even if they are) and orders the name transfered..
Lawyers, although there certainly are good honest ones, are members of a high priesthood that jealously guards their turf. If any Joe could come along and win law cases by hanging out in the library for a few hours then the legal profession could not charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their time, now could they?.
Pig.biz did not have a happy ending. The owner did not respond (who knows why?) and the name was transfered to Big Pig. see:.
I wonder if kangaroo.com is taken...
There's another article about it here -.
Nice to see they count PPC as being a legitimate use.
"However, the panel did not find that the HostGator name was registered to take advantage of New Pig's mark. Instead, it was used to display pay-per-click links related to the generic term "pig." The panel found that Pig.com was registered in good faith based on the dictionary meaning of the word "pig.".
Not "legitimate use" carte-blanche, but rather that it wasn't necessarily "bad faith" - and only in this circumstance, as the word is so incredibly generic..
Check nissan.com , for example. (Not parked, but an old stand-by for HostGator name horror-stories).
And I did get a kick out of the comment on the article : wipo.org.uk < For a good read; it sort of misses the point and only focuses on the first 2 prongs of the UDRP - but it is the third prong, I feel, that is most abused by panelists..
Thats pretty s****Y - poor guy, I would imagine that kind of pressure would wear you down after a while....and your bank account !.
Should'nt be allowed, I can't imagine why they should win it due to it being his surname and the fact he had it before they named their company Nissan ! if he has never tried to profit from their brand then I would have thought they did'nt have a leg to stand on, it is pretty rediculous, they're probably out to financially ruin him.....Barstewards !!.
Corporate Bullies - shame on you !.
Ps - Your cars are s**t too !.
This is ridiculous..
How can it be allowed for anyone to claim trademark rights to a valid english noun?.
Furthermore, I bet the (lucky) guys who own Pig.info or Pig.net have not had their ownership challenged...
That's a joke, right?.
Read, then reevaluate :.
I can claim you're not domainsusi. Is there anything not allowing me to do that?.
FYI, any word can be trademarked in the US..
It is another thing...
True. (Maybe even.
And just before the US bashers jump on board - the same is true in most other WTO/WIPO countries as well..
The company owns the trademark for "pig" as used to describe a oil soaking cleaning product. Their trademark does not apply to large smart barnyard animals, to pig iron, piggy banks or Miss Piggy the Muppet. The company could bring suit on any of those, or anything else, but would almost certainly lose. If somebody started selling their own corncobs-in-a-sock for oil cleaning and called their product "pig" or "pig poop" or pig anything they likely would be in violation of the trademark..
So a trademark can restrict others from using a common word in a specific novel way...
Yeah, thats the way I understood it - ie: a TM does not always mean you cannot use the same word as long as it is used for a completely different use..