Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Oregon
The url is registered in my name.
I am being ordered to assign the domain name registration
to the company that has the trademark "hometown hotties".
By law am I required to give up the url?
Answer:
If they have a valid claim to the name itself, yep. Your registerting that name is what is called 'cybersquatting' and there is a LOT of case law against cybersquatters.

Answer:
Originally posted by jordansname
What is the name of your state? Oregon
The url is registered in my name.
I am being ordered to assign the domain name registration
to the company that has the trademark "hometown hotties".
By law am I required to give up the url? **A: I was wondering if the website is for the marketing the original Portland Hotdog or just another lame porno site.
Answer:
Please read
and

Just because your domain has a name that has been trademarked does not mean you are infringing nor does it mean youare cybersquatting.
Answer:
Originally posted by vso
Please read
and

Just because your domain has a name that has been trademarked does not mean you are infringing nor does it mean youare cybersquatting. **A: vso are you an attorney experienced in IP law?
Answer:
No I am not Guru. But if you are I would appreciate you reading those two articles and then telling me your take on them rather than relying on me to post quotes out of context for you to assail.
Thanks.
Answer:
No I am not Guru. But if you are I would appreciate you reading those two articles and then telling me your take on them rather than relying on me to post quotes out of context for you to assail. Well, that's some kind of record. You come here this morning looking for help on Registration of your own domain name because you get a letter from an Attorney, shut down your site in fear from this letter and NOW you are so qualified that you are answering posts on IP law from others.
Damn, I wish I could finish law school in only three hours.
Answer:
heheheh, I am a fast study Hex. For example, I read your first reply and I immediately knew you were an a**hole.
So, lets refrain from the ad hominem attacks shall we? I posted links to those two articles because the seem to be saying that trademarks do not protect the trademark owner from his trademark being used as part of a domain in and of itself.
Now, the author of these articles could be wrong, but clearly that is what the articles are saying. Why don't you get off your fat, lazy behind and read the articles from start to finish, review my question based on its individual merits and then have an adult discussion about what is wrong with the court rulings listed in those articles.
Answer:
Originally posted by vso
heheheh, I am a fast study Hex. For example, I read your first reply and I immediately knew you were an a**hole.
So, lets refrain from the ad hominem attacks shall we? I posted links to those two articles because the seem to be saying that trademarks do not protect the trademark owner from his trademark being used as part of a domain in and of itself.
Now, the author of these articles could be wrong, but clearly that is what the articles are saying. Why don't you get off your fat, lazy behind and read the articles from start to finish, review my question based on its individual merits and then have an adult discussion about what is wrong with the court rulings listed in those articles. **A: THAT'S IT, now I am really not going to read those 2 articles and review your question based on is individual merits and then have an adult discussion about what is wrong with the court rulings listed in those articles.
Answer:
Geez. I should have known better than to come into a legal forum run by a bunch of out of work attorney wannabe's who never passed a bar exam in their lives.
Sheesh.
My bad.
Answer:
vso=Very Sorry Opinions
And let me help you by providing answers for your idiocy:
"I posted links to those two articles because the seem to be saying that trademarks do not protect the trademark owner from his trademark being used as part of a domain in and of itself."
*** Your ignorance in law and inability to understand the legal issues is evident in your referencing these two articles as relevent to this thread.
They are NOT definitive opines as you think they are. Specifically, they refer to domain names that are NOT clear as to their ownership. In fact, two of the three cases show that the registered owner MAY have a claim since they have the same initials as the domain names. The third case (epix) is unclear as the claimed owner never 'marked' the word.
Even the cite you referenced points out that the law is not clearly defined as to domain claims:
"The outcome of the domain name dispute can fall anywhere along a spectrum, at one end being the cases in which courts have granted strong remedies against domain name owners, (hereinafter "strong remedies" cases), and at the other end being the cases in which it is decided that a domain name owner, who has registered with NSI a common or generic dictionary word that is used by many companies, has done nothing illegal (hereinafter "innocent domain name owner" cases)."
Those 'confused' domain name right issues clearly do NOT apply in the case of the specific name case cited in this thread.
In closing, since you (vso) have displayed a crappy attitude toward senior members on this forum, I am not going to get into a long theoretical discussion with you on this. Suffice to say, you have NO legal knowledge and only have an ability to do an online search of issues you HOPE will be of relevance.
Answer:
i see has been turned off. ... and i really wanted to check it out for "legal research" purposes
Answer:
Looks like ICANN expired their domain:
C:\>whois
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to
for detailed information.
No match for "WWW.HOMETOWNHOTTIES.ORG".
See for this text:
All ICANN-accredited registrars follow a uniform dispute resolution policy. Under that policy, disputes over entitlement to a domain-name registration are ordinarily resolved by court litigation between the parties claiming rights to the registration. Once the court rules on who is entitled to the registration, the registrar will implement that ruling. In disputes arising from registrations allegedly made abusively (such as "cyber-squatting" and ?cyber-piracy"), the uniform policy provides an expedited administrative procedure to allow the dispute to be resolved without the cost and delays often encountered in court litigation. In these cases, you can invoke the administrative procedure by filing a complaint with one of the dispute-resolution service providers.
Part of this policy states that registration in bad faith includes "(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."
You definitely violate this 100%. You therefore are bound by having registered the site to arbitration, which you may have to pay the costs for. Just be lucky they didn't choose to take you to court instead...