Hacker News Reader

>Are you in the same industry and compete with each other? If so, there might be an issue

...

> as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product

Sounds like they are, but that the issue is in the reverse, they are trying to steal the authors market and product directly by using their name. This is very aggressive, not to mention wrong.

Hope to read a follow up post one day about how the end result of this letter is the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains.

> the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains.

That may not be punishment enough to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender. In an ideal world the result would cost the directors the right to start a business for a long period of time.

I don't see that as too severe in any light - This is pretty close to fraud: trying to undercut market forces by dishonestly claiming rights to the name of a business with 7 years more history.

Their only defence to malicious intent would be ignorance of the author's business existence prior to theirs - which is completely unbelievable considering that's the first and most obvious fact that will be used to settle the issue. Their lawyers would have to claim complete incompetence.

Its unlikely that their lawyers are completely incompetent. For example King trademarked candy then sent a CaD letter to the makers of the original candy game that they had ripped off - and got away with it.

Unless there are more to the story i think the op can just ignore the letter. And step up the SEO so that the other business will have a hard time competing.

There will always be people that try shortcuts to success by committing fraud. And there will always be suckers that will get fooled. The tactic is often to scare - don't fall for it.

It's really too bad it's so expensive to pursue issues like this. If the .net company has more money than the OP they could even end up with the .com even though no one would consider it fair.

I think it would cost a lot of money to invalidate a trademark, especially if the company that owns it has deep pockets and even a UDRP complaint can cost in the range of $5k from what I've read. I think that's why so many mediocre .coms sell in the $2-4k range. It's cheaper to pay the domain/trademark squatters for the guarantee of getting what you want than it is to (maybe) prove their registration was in bad faith.

To defend a UDRP it’s about $10,000 plus filings fees. Typical filing fee is $1500.

That’s why I recommend getting domain name protection ahead of time for all your domain names. $10-20 a month can save you from having to pay big legal fees.

There's really no way to say that with the limited amount of info in the post. There can be two legit businesses in the same space with similar names. This is incredibly common in tech.

> If anything I would have thought they should be the ones changing their name, ...

No doubt that they did think of that. Instead they decided on intimidation as an opening strategy.

> ... as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product

So they are guilty of what they are accusing you of. You could: 1) threaten to counter sue and settle for a price, or 2) sell them your .com

They've no doubt anticipated these responses as well and are prepared to negotiate. They simply decided to open the negotiations at $0

Imagine the conversation they had 2 years ago when they registered their .net domain.

Maybe 2 years ago, they were deciding on their corporate identity: maybe ABC, DEF, or GHI, ...

They decided on ABC even though they knew ABC.com wasn't available. THEY KNEW IT, so they took ABC.net instead. They could have made you an offer at that time, but maybe they weren't ready because their business wasn't profitable yet. No point in putting money into something isn't proven valuable yet, right? So they kicked that can down the road; delayed that decision to buy your domain.

So, now they want it, and they're engaging you now. They know they have no more claim on it than they did 2 years go.

> They are just trying to “ strong arm” the domain away from you with a threatening letter.

This isn't ok and making them go away isn't good enough. They need to pay for having made that long list of demands and threats, ideally by having their whole business taken away and given to OP.

Agreed, it’s not okay. Some companies are found guilty of reverse domain hijacking after filing a udrp.

> If you cannot afford an attorney, look for a company that offers domain name insurance or a domain name warranty, if you have an issue like this with your domain name, your legal fees to defend the domain are covered.

I would think it’s too late for that. Insurers typically (and most of the time rightfully, exceptions being cases were law requires them to do so, as is the case with health insurance in some countries) do not cover cases known before the insurance started.

If they covered past issues, nobody would take insurance before they knew they needed it.

The OP only received a letter, and hasn’t been sued. It’s not too late to set up domain protection.

Business insurance and cyber liability insurance doesn’t cover domain names. You have to get a domain name protection company to cover the domain.

Surely the insurer would become suspicious if the OP was then sued soon after, and then refuse to pay? My experience with insurance companies is that they will go to the ends of the earth to avoid paying anything.

> If you cannot afford an attorney, look for a company that offers domain name insurance or a domain name warranty, if you have an issue like this with your domain name, your legal fees to defend the domain are covered.

I've never heard of that before and all I can find trying to search are sites about the `.insurance` TLD.

Anyone got any links to some examples?

DNProtect offers domain name protection plans for exactly this reason. If the OP had domain name protection all the legal fees of defending the name would be covered.