bein fined for website name

daaave

You could also offer to sell them the domain...

dacouch

daaave wrote: »

You could also offer to sell them the domain...

Or more appropriately for a company called Silent Night who like to throw their weight around a gag

ABERDEEN_2

I've decided I won't be paying anything. I will reply to the letter stating I've received it but until I have received some legal advise they won't be getting a penny.

dacouch

Good luck with the website, you could use this situation as free publicity for your website whether you keep the same name or think up a new name.

Work out your strategy and then use your local and national media along with social media, it could end up being the best thing for your website in the long run.

Equaliser123

Sounds a bit speculative to me.

Bit of a tip: Google "threats actions". In essence, an unjustified threat of a TM action can give YOU the right to damages.

I cannot see any chance of "confusion" which must be demonstrated.

As a solicitor myself, theirs is an action which will NOT proceed. Or at least I wouldn't be advising pursuing it.

Naf

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Sounds a bit speculative to me.

Bit of a tip: Google "threats actions". In essence, an unjustified threat of a TM action can give YOU the right to damages.

I cannot see any chance of "confusion" which must be demonstrated.

As a solicitor myself, theirs is an action which will NOT proceed. Or at least I wouldn't be advising pursuing it.

Translation & summary
- You shouldn't have taken the website down
- Your website would not have cause any confusion in relation to theirs, nor drawn business away
- This is probably solicitors just trying it on to see if they can make some unjustified money
- Don't just bend over & take it: take the fight to them through the press & social media. Get this all over Facebook & Twitter with your business name everywhere. Get to the papers and get the story told!!

Equaliser123

Naf wrote: »

Translation & summary
- You shouldn't have taken the website down
- Your website would not have cause any confusion in relation to theirs, nor drawn business away
- This is probably solicitors just trying it on to see if they can make some unjustified money
- Don't just bend over & take it: take the fight to them through the press & social media. Get this all over Facebook & Twitter with your business name everywhere. Get to the papers and get the story told!!

Not sure it needed a "translation" - and if clarification is needed, OP should feel free to ask.

And that isn't what I said at all. I would never endorse taking "the fight to them through the press and social media".

kittiej

I agree with dacouch et al.

Excellent marketing opportunity for you here (will save you a small fortune in advertising)

common sense would say the 'notso' prefix automatically takes two words which together (silentnight) would imply something nice and lovely and a good night's sleep into a completely different area which has nothing to do with sleeping and to be blunt if your products sent me to sleep then I would want a refund.

If that is the case then where does it end? eg sunspot - it mentions the word sun but is trading online. Will all vocabulary be tm'd one day?

Go to the press and good luck to you!

Equaliser123

kittiej wrote: »

common sense would say the 'notso' prefix automatically takes two words which together (silentnight) would imply something nice and lovely and a good night's sleep into a completely different area which has nothing to do with sleeping and to be blunt if your products sent me to sleep then I would want a refund.

If that is the case then where does it end? eg sunspot - it mentions the word sun but is trading online. Will all vocabulary be tm'd one day?

Welcome to the law of trademarks.

Naf

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Not sure it needed a "translation" - and if clarification is needed, OP should feel free to ask.

And that isn't what I said at all. I would never endorse taking "the fight to them through the press and social media".

Sorry, the 'translation' comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek; the 'summary' referred to the rest of the thread too.