OK so now I think we are close to being in agreement on my original post which to point out this is a complicated mess of a case, that going to take time and money to resolve.

However, I believe all parties involved have made the “smart” decision, as to what they should have done at this point.

With Div’s actual knowledge of AOL claim to ad.com and under threat of lawsuit by AOL, he made a business decision not to spend $1.4M on the name and face legal fees which would have been well into the six figures and probably would have been more than the purchase price of the domain.

I believe that was the correct business decision.

The Seller I believe went to the second highest bidder on Ad.com and they apparently said no, based on AOL claim.

The Seller sued the buyer for breach of contract, rather than filing suit against AOL, and I believe that was the Seller’s best business decision.

That was the smart thing for the Seller to do.

Much cheaper to sue Skezno for breach of contract than AOL for the tortuous interference with a contract.

Oversee did the right thing buy suing the buyer for its commission.

All parties have taken the smart business road based on where they find themselves at this point.

The bad news is AOL claim to ad.com (not advertise.com) may or may not get ruled on in this case. Unless one of the parties brings AOL into the ad.com case, they are out.

If AOL is out, I’m not sure the validity of AOL claim is at issue and the case between the Seller and Skezno will be decided on the basis on more traditional contract issues and how knew what when.

Stay tuned.

But throw in the logos and offerings on the sites…
Well, you can see why this case exists.

If someone get confused, goes to the wrong site, and a million dollar ad deal ends up going to the wrong company by accident….that’s what trademark law is about. Can’t confuse the end user, period.

Yes because we’re typing fast (I can’t type)
and not proof-reading.

But no one is mistaking Ad.com for either
Advertising.com or Advertise.com
…except AO.

The thing that defies logic for me is AOL nonchalantly referring to their business as ad.com when they didn’t own the domain. They set out on a losing course when they allowed this misrepresentation to go on. That a few major media outlets mindlessly joined in can be attributed to lack of professionalism in reporting. In my opinion, it adds no substantive credence to AOL’s claim.

My assessment is that there is an extremely important principle of law at stake … built around the importance of honest and accurate representations by companies in the greater marketplace. If AOL began referring to their advertising.com as “ad.com”, then they are actually contributing to their own loss of brand protection.

Any intentional use by AOL of “ad.com” does not strengthen their claim, but actually dilutes and weakens the brand equity they obviously purchased in Advertise.com. That AOL intentionally referred to their advertise.com as “ad.com” will be regarded as evidence of willful misrepresentation, all while knowing they did not own the domain ad.com.

When AOL lose, this will be another huge win for the integrity of trademark law and a massive win for domainers. Trademark boundaries and distinctions have carefully evolved over many years, and have effectively protected both consumers and the integrity of the larger marketplace. AOL basically ignored all common sense and in a pure example of grandiosity at work, violated the very protections designed to preserve their own brand.

Gosh, sorry again. I just can’t shut up. This is stimulating to think about. I suspect we will witness a new ahole drilled into AOL if this makes it Federal court. And I highly suspect this case will not get there.

It would be interesting if you put up a Poll for this issue. It seems that alot of people have strong opinions about the issue. It would be interesting to see how many think that AOL is right, Div is right, AbcSearch is right, etc…

Just an idea, take it or leave it

I think you meant to say “I find it very disturbing that AOL wants
ADVERTISE.COM to stop “engag(ing) in the same business that advertising.com is” See…you’re already confused, proving the point of the lawsuit.

Advertsing.com has been around for quite a while and all in all it’s NOT about domains. This is a branding and trademark issue. So the similar logo and similar business ARE a big deal in the branding and trademarking world.

Any smart company would do what it had to to protect their brand and brand equity. Advertising.com definitely isn’t going anywhere, so I’m sorry…AOL definitely has the right to protect the Advertising.com brand that they own. If I’m wrong, the courts with prove it, but somehow I doubt that.

AOL’s action here doesn’t make my day either.

The whole ad.com deal is horrible for the industry.

But I have to give my honest opinion, which is they have a claim and its going to be EXPENSIVE to defend.

Mike,

The similar logo , etc. aside, I find it very disturbing that AOL wants
Advertising.com to stop “engag(ing) in the same business that advertising.com is”.

Only AOL has the right to engage in the advertising business?

Not on my planet!

By the way I do get your point- it won’t be an easy case.