A UDRP has just been filed against the domain name OxfordDictionary.com by Oxford University Press which publishes the Dictionary.
The domain was first registered in 2002 and is currently under privacy.
The domain name goes to a parked page full of references for Oxford Dictionary.
Why the publishers failed to take any action for 10 years is anyone’s guess.
It should be noted that the publishers haven’t even spent $10 to register the domain name, TheOxfordDictionary.com which is unregistered at this point.
The offical site for the Oxford Dictionary is OxfordDictionaries.com
There is not a trademark in the USPTO for the term “Oxford Dictionary”, the publisher’s have a Trademark for the three letters representing Oxford English Dictionary “OED”.
According to Wikipedia.org, The Oxford Dictionary was first published in 1884
“The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), published by the Oxford University Press, is the self-styled premier dictionary of the English language. Work began on the dictionary in 1857[3]:103–4,112 but it was not until 1884 that it started to be published in unbound fascicles as work continued on the project under the name A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles; Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by The Philological Society.
In 1933, it fully replaced the name in all occurrences to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in its reprinting as twelve volumes with a one volume supplement and more supplements came over the years until in 1989 when the second edition was published in twenty volumes.”
too late?
They reason they haven’t up to this point is because they’re most likely in that enormous majority of companies who give very little consideration to ‘domain names’ (where that’s all domainers ever consider) and learned, by whatever means, of the UDRP process recently.
There are a lot of headshot cases of squatting that have gone unchallenged for over a decade now, but once the associated mark owner learn that they’re not helpless in the matter, they’ll take action.
Those stupid cases where some overlapping mark holder tries to steal a generic notwithstanding, if you own a domain like OxfordDictionary.com, it doesn’t really matter how long it took them to figure out they could take it away, it’s eventually going to happen. Best case scenario is that they don’t pursue damages and cost you a whole lot more than just the domain (See: Two Plus Two Publishing v. Dutch Boyd)
Why would they need a TM on “Oxford Dictionary”?
They are Oxford University Press – unless you are creating a literal dictionary of Oxford it’s clearly infringing.
Would NBC need to trademark “NBC Nightly News” for example?
It’s interesting to note that OxfordDictionaries.com was registered in 2000, two years before OxfordDictionary.com.
Why they chose to register the plural version of the name in 2000, but failed to get the non-plural version at the same time, is a bit strange.
This will be a quick decision.
This is just tip of the iceberg where TM/common law mark holders pursue squatters
The name under dispute is a well known term as much as “Webster Dictionary” is for Americans
Complainant would have strong common law rights to the term “Oxford Dictionary” – especially if the panel arbiter was from UK, Australia, Europe.
The doctrine of laches should not prevent any TM/common law rights holder from filing a UDRP even after 10 years
In this case, I would think academics running the operation would not be too internet marketing savvy & are just getting their act together for an online push which is why they want the term
@ Grim
Grim said: “Why they chose to register the plural version of the name in 2000, but failed to get the non-plural version at the same time, is a bit strange.”
Use your brain for a while
Probably b/c the domain was already reg’d in 2000 by some cybersquatter (shock!) & then dropped around 2002 & then nabbed by the present holder
End users (especially back in early 2000’s) don’t all sit, scanning drop lists – which is what most social hermit domainers do most days, 365 days per year
@ Aggro
You think you are a clever Boy. Mass disenfranchisement salves the wounds of fools. Go peddle your dis-information elsewhere. You are on notice, the illusions you cast are reflected on your own self destruction. Give it up while your masked intentions still cast the false reality you seek to spread. You are fast being exposed for the negative world you project.
Do yourself a FAVOR AND GO ELSEWHERE YOUR SPELL IS LOSING POWER! BYE !!
Good Ridance
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)
@Jeff Schneider,
I own domains too, but what Aggro typed above makes perfect sense to me – what am I missing? The Oxford Dictionary is a well known international trademark – has been for a century or more (I’m guessing here, but I’ll be I’m right).
Aggro
Makes sense to me as well but I would say if someone doesn’t understand the space then they should know enough to hire someone who does, so like if your roof it leaking you don’t just let it go because you don’t know how to fix it
@ Casino
I’ll bet you’re right, too. This isn’t a generic, so it should be an easy win for OUP.
What Aggro wrote above is obvious, but as always, he likes to rub his arguments in everyone’s faces … hence the response Jeff gave him, more than likely.
“The name under dispute is a well known term as much as “Webster Dictionary” is for Americans”
Actually “Webster’s” in the US doesn’t refer to any particular dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary#The_name_Webster_used_by_others
In 1917, a US court ruled that Webster’s entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster’s 1806 dictionary’s copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster’s became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.
Mr John Berryhill
I know you are well respected in your field. Did you get your Law Degree from the University of Wikipedia?
I am just kidding, of course! It just looks funny when you cite Wikipedia for a legal reference.
I would gather that a citation to a 1917 case would be nigh unto useless for the readership here, which likely doesn’t have some 100 years worth of case reporters on their bookshelves.
It’s a blog comment, not a brief.
Saalfield Publishing Co. v. G. & (and) C. Merriam Co, 238 Fed. 1, 151 CCA. 77 7, Trademark Rep. 110 (1917).
Happy now?
Misplaced comma….
Saalfield Publishing Co. v. G. & (and) C. Merriam Co, 238 Fed. 1, 151 CCA. 77, 7 Trademark Rep. 110 (1917).
Mr Berryhill
I was satisfied before. I saw it more of an indication of how far Wikipedia has outperformed the critics when it first started to get some traction; no one thought it could be a serious reference site.
I think when a highly regarded legal man such as yourself feels able to use the link (whether in blog, legal briefs, or on toilet paper) it is quite an achievement.