Just a couple of months ago a person associated with the Sarah Litman And Joe Pisani's blog Our Greenwich attempted to infringe on our trademarked usage of "Old Greenwich Roundup" which we immediately defended our good name and trademark and started speaking with an attorney.
And Now Again Some Jealous Crooks
Are Attempting
To Steal From Us
Hasn't Anyone Ever Heard Of .........
THE 10th COMMANDMENT
It is wrong covet the HUGE success of Greenwich Roundup.
Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's." --- especially his web site which has the highest number of daily visitors and page views than any other web site in Greenwich.
1,683 visitors
Day by day Greenwich Residents are turning to the the lean mean truth telling machine known as Greenwich Roundup.
We are not sure which story or stories caused Greenwich Roundup to set a brand new all time daily record. Maybe it was the the reporting about the 20 Year Old Mystery Diver That Killed A Young Man Or Maybe It Was The Report That Had Video Of Frank Mazza And Said He Did Not Know An Ass From A Hole In The Ground.
Who knows and who cares.
But all of this web traffic at Greenwich Roundup has tempted very jealous people to steal from and try to profit from all of our hard work.
Most recently we had the Ex-Greenwich Time Staffers who formed Our Greenwich Attempt To Use Our Trade Marked Term:
"Old Greenwich Roundup"
Please See:
I was always surprised that they would try and steal the name of Old Greenwich Roundup web site, because it was the weakest of the our blog sites that are under development. Old Greenwich Roundup only gets 75 - 150 visitors a day.
Just Days After Sarah Littman and her crowd of Ex-Greenwich Time staffers decided to cease and desist from stealing our intellectual property we get a new thief trying to use the good name of Greenwich Roundup.
On September 05, 2008 at 3:46 pm someone once again is attempting to steal our intellectual property and registered the name GreenwichRoundup.com, we have been quietly investigating this and watching what they are planning to do with our good name.
For over a year Greenwich Roundup has stated that we had plans to monetize our trademarked name by selling local advertising.
Well now this rouge company has taken
http://www.greenwichroundup.com/ and is now apparently confusing Greenwich Businesses and selling them ads by telling them they will be on the high traffic web site Greenwich Roundup.
These Crooks Are Selling "Sponsored listings for Greenwich":
To local businesses like:
There are even ads about the Hyatt Regency and the Delmar.
While we understand that Greenwich Businesses want to be associated with a high traffic web site like Greenwich Roundup that brings in over 1,500 visitors per day.
We are sorry to report that we are not equiped or ready to handle local advertising accounts.
Right now we are solely focused on deliverying hyper local news to Greenwich Residents.
In fact, when a local business gives it's hard earned money to
http://greenwichroundup.com/ they are giving it to a criminal organization that has aq very nasty reputation on internet message boards.
I have spoken to a couple of lawyers about my options and will be taking action against this bottom feeding internet firm that's hoping to get a couple oh hundred misdirrected hits when some assumes the internet adddress for GreenwichRoundup is
http://www.greenwichroundup.com/
The Greenwich Roundup trademark was so strong that it was often refered to as GreenwichRoundup.com and these cybersquatters are causing confussion in the marketplace.
We have scores of incidents where persons have refered to Greenwich Roundup as GreenwichRoundup.com in the past.
Please Note:
Cybersquatting means registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark
Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the names deleted or transferred to their ownership (which means paying regular renewal fees on all the names or risk their being registered by someone else). Under the ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) a cybersquatter can be held liable for actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000 for each name found to be in violation.
This basically a case of "name jacking" (also "name-jacking" or "namejacking") which is accomplished by purchasing an individual's name as a top level domain name. Setting up a website allows the purchaser to capitalize on any searches done for that name. For example, if John Jones has a thriving professional practice (perhaps he is a doctor, a lawyer, a financial professional, or real estate agent - or any other profession which interacts with the public on a regular basis), there is a high likelihood that potential clients will do some research on the internet before doing business with Mr. Jones. If Mr. Jones has been "name jacked. "then someone else owns johnjones.com and that website will appear at or near the top of any searches for the name "John Jones." These "name jacked" sites are typically set up to sell high-profit items like ebooks and/or various business opportunities and require few purchases to be profitable.
This is a case of trademark infringement, because Greenwich Roundup is getting over 1,500 visitors per day.
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to our trademarked name Gtreenwich Roundup.
This domain name registrant had a bad-faith intent to profit from the trademark which attracts over 1,500 visitors per day.
The cybersquatter registers a domain name containing another’s trademark and sets up a website. The cybersquatter displays advertisements on the website on behalf of advertisers willing to pay the cybersquatter anywhere from a few pennies to a few dollars each time somebody clicks on one of the ads. The cybersquatter then counts on the fact that Internet users will type in the cybersquatted domain name into their web browser and click on the ads. Multiply this by a hundred clicks per day, and multiply that by a thousand domain names, and suddenly we’re talking about a lot of money.
Cybersquatters recognize that a single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and they capitalize on this by acquiring domain names that will yield substantial user traffic.
Maybe, I should start asking 1,500 plus people a day to make a daily trip to http://www.greenwichroundup.com/ and click the links of some car dealers, hotels and realestate agencies.
Then when Coldwell Banker Of Greenwich Gets A Bill That Reads.....
1,500 hits x 30 days x $1 each
......then they might not want to advertise with this bottom feeding company.
I Learned Today That We Can Sue The Domain Name And Not The Cybersquatter (In Rem Claims Under ACPA).
The federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) enables cybersquatting victims to recover their domain names even when the cybersquatter is located in another country, or where the cybersquatter cannot be identified at all. Such actions are referred to as in rem actions.
Notable Arbitration Decisions Involving Cybersquatters.
AnthonyQuinn.com
The estate of Anthony Quinn, the renowned artist and two-time Oscar-winning actor, filed a UDRP complaint against the registrant of AnthonyQuinn.com The Quinn estate claimed that Anthony Quinn’s fame and success as both an artist and actor made his name internationally known in multiple categories of goods and services, including entertainment services, jewelry, watches, award statuettes, and entertainment awards.
The UDRP panel found that the registrant was not using the domain in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain, because the registrant used the disputed domain to operate a website featuring links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites for the registrant’s own commercial gain, which was evidence of the registrant’s bad faith registration and use.
Click Here For The Arbitration Decision
CarmenElectra.com
The actress Carmen Electra brought a UDRP arbitration action against the registrant of CarmenElectra.com. The registrant used the disputed domain to divert traffic to a website located at www.celebrity1000.com, a commercial website providing biographical information on some actors but not Carmen Electra.
The UDRP panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain to Ms. Electra, finding that the public associates the name Carmen Electra with Ms. Electra’s performance services. The panel also found that the registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, and the registrant registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith.
Click Here For The Arbitration Decision
A close relationship exists between trademarks and rights in domain names. A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in connection with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from others’ goods (a service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product).
Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. As such, in order to serve as a trademark, the word, name, or symbol must not simply convey to the buyer qualities or characteristics of the goods, but it must be unique and distinctive.
A trademark comes into existence as soon as a business starts using that trademark in commerce. While registering a trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office offers a trademark holder certain benefits, it is not necessary to establish rights in a trademark. Once a business has established rights in a trademark, it can prevent others from using that trademark—or confusingly similar words or symbols—on similar goods.
Trademark law dovetails closely with anti-cybersquatting law. The owner of a trademark has the right to prevent another person from using the trademark—or a confusingly similar variation of the trademark—in a domain name, if the person has a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name. Congress has determined that it is unlawful for a person to register a domain name containing another’s trademark with an intent to profit on the other’s trademark. However, a trademark holder cannot prevent another from using the trademark in connection with sufficiently different goods. As such, Congress has required a trademark holder to show that the cybersquatter had a bad faith intent to profit from the domain name.
Greenwich Roundup Is Part Of Round Up Media Which Has Maintained A Legal Mailing Address In Olg Greenwich For About Four Years And Has Had A Dedicated Phone Line For One Year.
Domain names are big business. For the past several years, domain names, the “real estate of the Internet,” have generated substantial returns for savvy investors, who often refer to themselves as “domainers.”
Prior to the rise of pay-per-click advertising, domain name speculators would acquire desirable or trademarked domain names and then simply sit on them, hoping that they could sell them later on for a profit.
Today, a domain name holder can display pay-per-click advertising on a website, and sit-back and let the money roll in while Internet users click on those ads. A single domain name can bring in hundreds of dollars a day, and many domain name holders have thousands or even millions of domain names. The ability of a domain name to generate money through pay-per-click advertising depends on the likelihood that users will type in that domain name. As such, a domain that is a common word or phrase, or which incorporates a well known trademark, can draw in a constant stream of Internet users.
In order to make money from a domain name, only a fraction of the Internet users who type in a domain name need to click on an ad. Each click can bring in anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars.
Cybersquatting is not a petty crime. Rather, cybersquatting can involve substantial money and serious legal claims.
And this, trademark owner is going to be proactive in policing the misuse of our trademarks by cybersquatters.
As soon as you become the most visited website in Greenwich all of the cockroaches come out trying to steal a little bit of your traffic and goodwill.
If we get this much trouble when we get over 1,500 visitors per day. What's going to happen when we get 2,000 or 2,500 visitors per day.
ALSO PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT OUR NEWEST SITE:
http://www.darienroundup.blogspot.com/
Also Look At This Recent News About Recovered Domain Names:
10/03/08
Toshiba
In a domain dispute between Complainant, Toshiba Corporation, and Respondents, James Valedshi and Serified Systems, the UDRP panel found found the domain names, and , to be confusingly similar to the TOSHIBA trademark. The UDRP Panel also found the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark was in bad faith, and transferred the domain names to the Complainant.
09/26/08
Post-Its Go Online
After 3M Corp. filed a complaint that the domain name was confusingly similar to its 30-year old POST-IT trademark, the Respondent willingly accepted the transfer. The UDRP panel found no reason to deny the request of the Complainant, and granted the transfer of the disputed domain from Nameking.com to 3M Corporation.
09/17/08
World Series of Poker
Harrah’s License Company, LLC, a subsidiary of the famous casino mogul, Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., submitted a complaint against Chad Nordaune regarding the domain name, <> for its association with their annual event, the World Series of Poker. After reviewing the pleadings, the panel found the domain name confusingly similar to Harrah's mark and ordered it transferred.
Harrah’s License Company, LLC, a subsidiary of the famous casino mogul, Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., submitted a complaint against Chad Nordaune regarding the domain name, <> for its association with their annual event, the World Series of Poker. On September 17, 2008, the panel transferred the domain to the Complainant on the grounds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark , registered and used in bad faith, and not of legitimate interest to the Respondent. The Respondent’s use of the domain name included a website featuring Complainant’s marks, designs and services as well as information regarding other poker websites.
Harrah’s License Company, LLC, a subsidiary of the famous casino mogul, Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., submitted a complaint against Chad Nordaune regarding the domain name, <> for its association with their annual event, the World Series of Poker. On September 17, 2008, the panel transferred the domain to the Complainant on the grounds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark , registered and used in bad faith, and not of legitimate interest to the Respondent. The Respondent’s use of the domain name included a website featuring Complainant’s marks, designs and services as well as information regarding other poker websites.
08/14/08
MilkDuds.com
Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation recently succeeded in recovering the domain name www.MilkDuds.com. The respondent argued that the MilkDuds.com website sold clothes relating to milk products: hence the terms, milk & duds. The UDRP panel rejected this argument, and found that the www.MilkDuds.com website sought to divert traffic from Hershey's website. Accordingly a transfer was ordered.
08/06/08
C.S. Lewis Estate Recovers Narnia.mobi
The estate of C.S. Lewis recovered the domain name Narnia.mobi, as ordered by a UDRP panel. The cybersquatter argued that the domain was registered for personal use and therefore not in bad faith. The UDRP panel rejected this argument, finding that the respondents had a pattern and practice of registering domain names based on others' trademarks.
07/24/08
Boxer Floyd Mayweather Wins Back MoneyMayweather.com
Former welterweight champion boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr., a.k.a. “Money Mayweather,” has won a domain name dispute for MoneyMayweather.com. Despite a lack of a registered trademark, the UDRP panel found that Mayweather had common law rights to his nickname.
07/14/08
YahooYellowPages.com
A National Arbitration Forum UDRP panel agreed with Yahoo! and found that the domain name WWW.YAHOOYELLOWPAGES.COM was cybersquatted. The fact that the domain name did not resolve to an active website did not dissuade the panel from finding a presence of bad faith. The panel ordered the domain name to be transferred to Yahoo!
06/25/08
Jimmy Buffet files UDRP Complaint
Jimmy Buffet and his associated companies filed a UDRP complaint against CheeseburgersInParadise.com, a cybersquatted domain name similar to the name of Buffet’s restaurant chain “Cheeseburger (singular) In Paradise”.
Jimmy Buffet and his associated companies filed a UDRP complaint against CheeseburgersInParadise.com, a cybersquatted domain name similar to the name of Buffet’s restaurant chain “Cheeseburger (singular) In Paradise”. The site CheeseburgerInParadise.com is currently used by Buffet and gets 25,000 to 35,000 hits per month. The cybersquatted domain points to a parked page with ads for Wendys and Yellowbook.com.
06/18/08
Facebook Wins Facebook.com.au
Facebook won the domain FACEBOOK.COM.AU from from Callverse Pty Ltd, an Australian company that was advertising an upcoming “click to call service." at this domain name .AU is the country code for Australia and such domains are not freely salable on the aftermarket, as registration is limited to Australian companies and individuals. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decision was made by three-person panel and will be published in due course.
06/12/08
TuckerCarlson.com
Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson recently recovered the domain name TUCKERCARLSON.COM from a cybersquatter. Prior to this action, the domain resolved to a parked website with sponsored links.
05/16/08
Baylor.com
Baylor University, a Christian school in Waco, Texas, has filed a UDRP arbitration to recover the domain name www.Baylor.com. Baylor University's official web address is www.Baylor.edu. The website currently resolving to www.Baylor.com is parked and displays sponsored links.
05/12/08
KimKardashian.com
On May 12, 2008, a National Arbitration Forum panel found that the domain name Kimkardashian.com was being cybersquatted. The panel found that the domain name was identical to the registered trademark KIM KARDASHIAN, owned by the television actress and model of the same name. The panel found the registrant had acted in bad faith and had no legitimate rights to the domain name.
05/06/08
Microsoft goes after Microsoftt
A National Arbitration Forum panel recently ruled that Microsoft was entitled to reclaim the domain name Microsoftt.org from a cybersquatter. The panel found that Microsoftt.org was confusingly similar to the MICROSOFT trademark, and that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith by displaying links to competitors' websites. Accordingly, a transfer was ordered.
04/25/08
StsteFarm.com
On April 25, 2008, a National Arbitration Forum panel found that the State Farm Insurance Co. had successfully shown that the respondent had registered the domain name Ststefarm.com in bad faith to trade off State Farm's trademark. The panelist found that the respondent had no rights in the STATE FARM trademark and the this trademark was confusingly similar to the domain name Ststefarm.com.
04/14/08
SimonAndShuster.com
On April 7, 2008, a World Intellectual Property Organization panel found that the domain name SimonAndShuster.com was being cybersquatted. The registrant had used the domain name to promote businesses in competition with Simon and Schuster. The panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the SIMON AND SCHUSTER trademark, and that the registrant had taken advantage of this confusing similarity for commercial gain. Accordingly, a transfer was ordered.
03/13/08
Shuttterfly.com
On March 13, 2008, a National Arbitration Forum panel found that the domain name shuttterfly.com was being cybersquatted. The registrant had used the domain name to display both competing and unrelated links to third-party websites. The panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the SHUTTERFLY trademark, and that the registrant had taken advantage of this confusing similarity for commercial gain. Accordingly, a transfer was ordered.
02/15/08
Yahootrips.com
On February 13, 2008, a National Arbitration Forum panel found that the domain name yahootrips.com was being cybersquatted. The panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the YAHOO! trademark, and the panel stated that the deletion of the exclamation point from the domain name was irrelevant because exclamation points are not valid domain characters. The panel also found that the registrant had acted in bad faith and has no legitimate rights because the domain name did not lead to an active website.
================================================================
Please send your comments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
