Domain name dispute. SEO turns into legal notification.

[plumptree]

I maintain websites for Interlock Group of Companies. (Metal Roofing)

I was just served with a legal notification from a Domain Dispute Case Coordinator Supervisor (National Arbitration Forum) regarding a domain name I picked up because of its keyword significance www.classicmetalroofing.com

I have bought hundreds of domain names due to a rumor years ago about keyword importance in a domain name. Since Classic is such a mainstream keyword along with metal and roofing, I would assume this would grant usability. Google keyword assistant ranks classic metal roofing as a strong keyword - so as any webmaster would do - I purchased the domain name.

The Complaint was submitted by Classic Metal Roofs, LLC.

If anyone has been thru this situation, feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Scott Plumptree
www.plumptree.com
www.interlockroofing.com

[Ira_Weiss]

They may just be trying to pressure you. None of those words are trademarkable on their own. Different companies use different variations for Domain names all the time. ClassicMetalRoofing.com is just that, a variation. It's not their name.

Check with a lawyer...

[leesw]

I really don't think they have a case. I bet they just want you to surrender. Tacky.

I think you did a good job buying that domain.

[davebytes]

if it was classicmetalroofs.com, I could see, MAYBE, that there would be an issue. But I agree with Ira that it is a variant, and not specifically their name.

Of course, I don't know what the exact legal notification/issue specified is, so hard to give any (IANAL) advice. ;)

-d

[incrediblehelp]

Do they have the same problem with those that own http://www.classicmetalroof.com/?

I seem to remember a really long thread on WPW about domain ownership for a generic set of keywords. I think I remember it had the city Houston in it. Does anyone remember the thread link?

[paulsebcan]

I had a similar experience in 1997. I registered digitalrolodex.com and was contacted by law firm in Chicago representing the company. I just signed it over to them. At the same time I also registered fla-usa.com, the state of Florida settled for flausa.com. I was never contacted by the State to either give it up or sell it to them. I would have sold it as all the information on the site was about Florida there was legal reason for them to take it from me.

In your case neither Interlock or Classic Metal Roofs LLC have exclusive right to the name. The key being the word "roofing". Unless CMR LLC has that name legally registered I would not just give it up. From other posts/blogs/news I have read it may come down to who has the deepest pocket.

Hope this helps

[JimmiJames]

Did they ask nicely first or even offer compensation for your domain name?

If they didn't I would simply keep it to piss'em off.

[cz]

I believe that if you bought it - you own it! See here: http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/UDRP/rules.asp

The complaining company looks like a mid-size biz in the N.E. area and not an e-commerce site as we think of them commonly. Their domain is the same except for theirs ends in "roofs" - yours ends in "roofing".

They are being very petty for their online presence appears to be an afterthought to their business - not what drives it at all.

[davidmg]

I am in the Hearth and Patio industry. In 2002 I registered a website www.patiohearth.com. They are both common words and just about every fireplace and patio store has the words Patio Hearth in their names. In the state of Ohio our retail store is Patio Hearth Home and Garden. Pretty much just sums up the products we sell. After 3 1/2 years of building this website into a huge e-commerce venue this past February we were hit with a cease and desist order. There is a fire pit called Patio Hearth by Arctic Products that was not only trademarked but wordmarked as well. In other words they own the words Patio Hearth. Somebody at the trademark office must have been sleeping this day beacause they are two household words. Needless to say this cease and desist order was forwarded to Yahoo who hosted our website and they took the stand "Trademark violation" and pulled our website. Right or wrong Yahoo just backs off on any trademark issues to CYA. They gave us 48 hours before they pulled our website, but, Yahoo was great in moving everything over to www.davidmg.comfor us. This action has cost us millions because we weren't able to forward all our traffic. When you have a site with Yahoo all traffic goes to store.yoururl. All our advertising, natural links, etc went to the store part. We were able to forward any www.patiohearth clicks over but this cost us millions in lost revenue and a bad taste with consumers because our site was gone. Check with the trademark before you get a domain name, it can cost up to $2000 to get the trademark commission to look at a wordmark to revoke it and 6 months to a year before they can look at it. Domain names should be registered to protect yourself, we found out the hard way.

[docholiday]

I can speak from personal experience on this matter, as our company has dealt with this issue and won the case arbitrated by the forum.

Our group, the Greater Asheville Chamber of Commerce, a startup Chamber formed to assist primarily lodging and related tourism industry associations further their marketing efforts online for those looking for the Asheville namesake (Western North Carolina), was pressured heavily by the already established Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce, a "big dog" here.

We purchased www.ashevillechamber.com in 2004 from a domain broker who had been holding it since it was let go by a previous owner who no longer cared for it. The Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce then "sued" us for intentionally trying in bad faith to use their service mark as a branding effort to capture attention and divert business from them.

Their URL is www.ashevillechamber.org, and they were offered the .com when it was for sale from the domain broker we purchased it from, naturally, as they could have had claim to the namesake. They declined to purchase it, then turned around and sued our organization when we began to use it for commercial purposes.

Long story short, the NAF (National Arbitration Forum I believe) ruled in our favor, stating that although their name was similar to the URL in question, the finding was as follows:

- They could have owned the domain in the past but did not, voluntarily.
- They could not provide evidence wherein their service mark could be misconstrued as our organization, because of their already established business and marketing efforts.
- Domain names alone do not signify a business' method of marketing, nor does a specific domain name mean that a business has rights to claim it, unless their name is unique (read coca-cola) and their business would be hampered by a bad-faith intent to defraud and slander. This did not hold true in our case.

I could go on forever, but you get the drift. As long as you purchased the domain in good standing, and they had the same opportunity as you to purchase it (I'm assuming this is the case), then you have nothing to worry about and they will eat the cost of the Arbitration Board, leaving you with a great domain name and hundreds if not thousands of dollars out of their pockets.

Good luck!

[twopooches]

The company may have a suit because their name is registered LLC. The registration ensures exclusive use of the name. This kind of thing can be messy and complicated. I suggest that you contact your local SBA for a free consultation. The bottom line is if you will profit from the use of the name.

[corporateface]

I think you are in good shape.
You aren't using somebody's personal name etc.
They can always buy the .net.

It is their fault that they were to slow in the game (This late in the game) to buy their own domain name.

[plumptree]

Regarding: If the the company contacted me. No, they went straight to the National Arbitration Forum.

[davidmg]

Patio Hearth is not their legal name. It is the name of a wood burning fire pit, even the patten trademark states wood burning fire pit only not pertaining to gas because Coleman manufactures a gas fire pit called Patio Hearth. It's just that this company was able to get a wordmark for Patio Hearth. They insited I profited from their wordmark. It can be faught but in the end how much could I recover from this company if I win? The only ones who bennifit are the attorneys anyway. That's another story all together!!!!!!

[WineGuy]

Really would need more details as to their claims in the complaint. I suspect that they are claiming some sort of state mark, TM or rights to the domain because you both do business in Mass. As far as I can tell that is as far as their claims should go is on a state level.In reality, there is another company that would have a better case against both of you but I obviously won't go into that here.

As far as the keyword combination goes, it is a common combination of terms in your industry and I believe any US TM with said keyword combination could and probably should be disputed, TM examiners are so overloaded a lot of stuff falls through the cracks.

Not a lawyer but I do know recieving such notice will result in domains being turned over without question.

Good Luck, stick to your guns.

[seoma]

If you scope out ICANN, I think you'll find you can't do business under the "roofing" domain and may have to relinquish it. We had two separate clients who reported websites operating under domains very similar to the clients'... The domain owners not only had to cease and desist, they had to release the domains to our clients.

[DrTandem1]

I don't see the name trademarked in the US. Since it is not and their LLC is a slightly different name and your company is also in the roofing business, it is doubtful they will prevail.

Now, if they go to the trouble and expense of trademarking that name, they will prevail.

[bhartzer]

The Complaint was submitted by Classic Metal Roofs, LLC.

The bottom line is whether the name is trademarked or not. If Classic Metal Roofs, LLC owns the trademark then you need to turn it over to them. If they don't own the trademark and you don't use that name in bad faith then you should be able to keep the domain without any issues.

I'm a little surprised that they went the legal route first before talking to you first, though.

I would follow the procedures in responding to the complaint and as long as they don't own the trademark then most likely you should be able to keep the domain.

[TrafficProducer]

WARNING- This could be a type of Phishing or Ponzi con!

A Ponzi scheme ( this page may be slow loading) is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying returns to investors out of the money raised from subsequent investors, rather than from profits generated by any real business. A Ponzi scheme offers high short-term returns in order to entice new investors, whose money is needed to fund payouts to earlier investors, and to lure its victims into ever-bigger risks.

Ransomware. Usually a viral type of software that requests payment to remove the virus.

Scams and hoaxes. Fraud warnings. Virus Attacks

ICANN Dispute Policy

More simular links Web Master Tools and Utilities

[ebizer]

About a year ago, I registered the domain name, ebaybusinesstools.com. The site was going to be nothing but affiliate links to eBay marketing products.

Since I already had a site named ebusiness-toolkit.com (also an affiliate site), I thought the connection would be nice.

Nonetheless, I was contacted by the eBay Legal Department and was told, "Your registration and use of ebaybusinesstools.com violates the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) because it infringes and dilutes the famous eBay trademark."

Further, it was stated, "eBay is concerned that your unauthorized use of the eBay name may cause confusion as to whether you or your company’s activities are authorized, endorsed or sponsored by eBay when, in fact, they are not."

I removed the site.

[ccds263]

I really have no idea in this field so this is just my opinion since I'm a web designer.

Maybe they think they are losing business and that this domain was registered to "steal" traffic away from them? It's what, only 3 letters off from theirs. When I say "steal" I don't mean that this was the intent or is whats going on, just that it's so close to their name and it is being forwarded to another site that doesn't have the same name, but is in the same business..

Just my opinion of how they may be seeing it...

[davidmg]

To many times people are worried about what the other guy is doing and not paying attention to what they are doing. Business is down somebody is "undercutting us" somebody is getting all the business they are steeling our business! Common words in names are thought to maybe be misleading? If the company was concerned they shouldn't have picked common words for their name. What about "Fudrucker's" that name shot up to the top with little advertising! It was unusual! If these companies would spend more time developing their websites and promoting themselves as to what sets them apart than the other guy's they wouldn't be accusing everyone of steeling words.