Every once in a while when checking out recent UDRP filings, there’s a case that is bothersome to me. This morning, I saw a UDRP was filed at the National Arbitration Forum on November 23, 2011 for the seemingly generic and descriptive Forces.com domain name.
Forces.com is owned by Internet Venture Holdings, Inc., a company based in Arlington, Virginia. IVH has owned Forces.com for many years, since at least 2007 according to the Whois record.
According to an email I received from IVH this morning, Salesforce.com filed the UDRP. Salesforce.com operates Force.com, although I don’t see how a customer could land on Forces.com and be confused into thinking that it was related to Salesforce in any way.
At the present time, there are no PPC advertisements on the landing page. There is a message that states “This premium domain is now for sale.” Prior to this simple landing page, there was a Armed Forces military-themed website since at least 2009, according to the Screenshot history tool.
IVH owns a number of descriptive domain names like StainedGlass.com, Coast.com, AlternativeCreditCards.com, Turquoise.com, Pooch.com, and many others. This is the first UDRP filing against IVH, and I hope the company prevails.
What an outrage. This is a perfect example of a case where the court needs to intervene and not just throw out the case but make sure that the company that files the lawsuit needs to pay for all fees incurred as a result of the action. The only way to stop frivilous filings like this is if it costs the filing party extra money.
Heck…Oracle owns Sales.com and their tagline is
“No Force Needed”
Sign up for our Cloud solution at Oracle.
That’s pretty funny actually:
How can Forces.com be a premium domain? They valued the name based on the fact that Salesforce owns Force.com and because of that, its ridiculous.
If Salesforce didn’t own Force.com, their domain would be worthless.
I hope Salesforce prevails in this case as they have the very right to defend their brand.
“They valued the name based on the fact that Salesforce owns Force.com”
Where did you come up with that? Aside from the fact that the military spends millions of dollars on recruitment, I think Forces is a great brand name in its own right.
IVH owned Forces.com in April of 2007 http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=details&domain=forces.com&date=2007-04-17
which is before Salesforce.com appears to have owned Force.com in July of 2007 http://www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=details&domain=force.com&date=2007-07-15
Unless IVH had a crystal ball, I don’t see how they would have known that Salesforce.com was going to buy Force.com.
Then why market it as it’s a premium domain because Salesforce owns Force.com. It was their marketing pitch when they tried to sell the name through Moniker auction. They told every potential domain buyer that and that was how they justified their extremely high price.
I know because I was pitched the same and I found it ridiculous that you base your price on a brand that another company has.
I don’t know anything about that. All I know is that Forces.com seems like a great brand name and has a different meaning than Force.com. It’s very likely a company could use the Forces.com domain name without infringing on any rights Salesforce.com has with respect to Force.com.
I could see Googles.com being a problem, but it’s similar to Apple.com and Apples.com. Why shouldn’t someone besides the tech company own Apples.com and use it in a way that doesn’t infringe on Apple’s rights?
It is called TROLLING….
Try selling ipods.com or ipads.com to Apple or selling
gmails.com to Google
and see if they file UDRP against you.
Your argument doesn’t hold any weight…
@ Stephen, Amitah, or whomever you are today.
That’s a stupid argument. iPads and iPods are made up terms coined by Apple and Gmail is a term coined by Google. Conversely, Forces is a very commonly used word.
My example of Apple vs. Apples is far more applicable in this situation.
ipods.com and ipads.com to Apple
or gmails.com to Google
and see if they file a UDRP, your argument doesn’t hold any weight
I don’t know were these others come up with their arguments. This is clearly a generic name that has multiple usages. For heavens sake, Apple has no right to Apples.com whatsoever.
We shouldn’t forget that the internet is not a strictly commercial operation. There are non-profits, educational sites etc. Who can say that a “brand owner’ of a word so generic should have automatic right to it? Kind of presumptuous on the part of some business owners…
Never mind Forces.com, the first question is why grant somebody “brand” or “rights” to Force.com? Force belongs to nobody! This is too crazy.
Yep, you said it. There are forces who want to “own” the internet. Business is one thing, within its own sphere, but letting it spill into everything on the internet, well, maybe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Like Elliot said, “Forces.com” fits quite well with the military. Can’t really follow the SalesForce logic.
Forces.com is clearly an awesomely premium domain so not quite sure why people say it would be worthless without the company.
The military of loads of countries pay massive money into recruitment like Elliot said. Someone one day will make a killing, so to speak, on this name – once developed into its obvious optimum niche. Sad.
Amitah let’s not forget that Google had to buy the right to use gmail off companies in other countries(ie UK), due to previous trademarks. Bad example!