One minute exact name matches are hot and work like gangbusters the next, opps, nothing at all, so how do you value the development of keyword domains if your not sure what will happen in the future and what if you must develop a complex combination lock of content and targeted SEO developments to create and sustain the value of that domain name.

Developing good domain names using keyword data, is it really reliable?

The following is from a discussion about google adwords, product with the word adwords in the domain name, some affiliate work was being done at that website, and over the years, since 2003, google likely benefited a lot from this websites efforts, but now they want to shut down the website, is that right, or wrong…

There was a long fest of comments, posted, of which this one was of interest.

(this does not reflect the thoughts opinions or other issues of the owners or operators or admins of this website.)

I think most of us have been around here long enough to know the difference between a discussion and a disagreement, this is a discussion.

You can see that at least I hope, that is plain, because it is evident that most of us agree, that while the law may be in a grey area, I.E. Bad Faith, and what Bad Faith is, may be something completely different, I think there is room for some interpretation and thus discussion.

There is such a thing as Fair use, and that is a proven legal entitlement, now I do not argue that in this case, but I also do not think that this particular discussion, is the basis, for an automatic Bad Faith Judgement.

Of course you would have to read the law to completely understand its intent.

And if anyone here is engaging in this discussion without having read the law, then I think that would be a sad thing, because in that case, your engaging in a discussing without having understood what your talking about.

The original intent of the law was to deal with three different distinct, legal situations, however later it was amended, and it was changed, so that makes it a little bit of a different apple to slice up,  the most important part of this discussion here, is what action should be the result of the proceeding action, and that I believe everyone here has a clear understanding of, cease and desist and move on.

I think any prudent reasonable person would do that without fail.

What I find to be of interest is that in the past, you had a relationship between these two legal entities, one being a publisher, the other being a trade mark owner, the publisher, brought in more business to the marks owner, and thus likely this “unofficial” relationship was permitted, because of the time involved, it is unlikely that this would result in any serious action, however, having said that, it is important to understand that permitting an action to occur as in this case, Google Adwords, by implicitly, allowed this relationship to grow and to become prosperous for both parties.

The publisher attracted consumers to the marks product, so it is not an adversarial relationship which is what many have commented on in error.

There was no bad faith in this implicit, relationship, until such time as the mark owner, took action, that makes it now a much different thing, which is why the OP should take action and comply, however, it is unlikely that an argument can be made that in the past, such implicit behavior by the marks owner, warrants, damages, because of the time that has taken place, one might say and rightfully so that this unofficial relationship was beneficial to both individuals, but from this time on, it could become “messy” which is why the OP should copy the website, and move it to a non,infringing domain name as well it might not be a bad idea to ask if the material might be published on a different domain name.

The OP might discover that the only objection is one of the proceeding use of the mark as a prior term, if that is the case then the publisher, (the OP) may go on with some level of the previous relationship which certainly would be beneficial, once again.

Disclaimer, this is not legal advice, the proceeding is an opinion expressed in a public forum, and not meant as advice and or for any meaningful communication.

However, I object to the idea that there is some evil intent afforded by this participatory arrangement that existed prior to this moment, for example, there are literally millions and millions of domain names out there, as well as millions of small business names out there that at times are found to be fair use.

It is something of a grey area and is not as some have suggested here to be a matter of property, it is a matter of alleged infringement, and that is where many have made an error in expression of how they feel, emotion has no place in this discussion.

Simply because both parties, benefited from the relationship in the past, means that this is not an automatic bad faith use of the mark as well this does not mean that the OP or others that have ongoing relationships that benefit both parties, are also evil.

What it means is that when no action exists, and no bad faith is apparent then a beneficial relationship can be granted, because, no action can mean implicit, or can mean implicit, behavior.

This idea that some Evil Exists, on the part of the OP, and that the Marks owner, never benefited from this unofficial relationship is pure Rubbish.

I would encourage anyone to actually read the law, in its entirety, as well as legal reports from some of the most respected legal minds of our time, as well as from some published thesis of the better law schools, then having been educated you might better express a thought, because speaking publicly about a subject that you know nothing about, and basing that information on emotion and anger, is just not very appealing as well it brings about the idea that ignorance is respected when in fact the opposite is true.

Bad faith is the operator here, if there were bad faith, then that is the only thing that matters, here, and since no meaningful communication has taken place, prior to this action, the relationship of the past cannot be logically implicit in this conversation only what happens now is important, and what happens next will be between these two parties, the publisher and the mark, and only the publisher knows if there was bad faith from the onset of this action.

No one should come in and judge the OP based on emotion and ignorance, that is a sad thing to do and it is not respectful, We should all be adults, here and thus be able to engage in an adult conversation without all this vitriol.

I see a lot of discussion as if everything were black and white but the truth is that nothing is that simple, and anyone who does not realize that truth is fooling themselves, thinking they are better than anyone else, because of how they view something emotionally and not logically, because the law is logical it is not emotional but in so many instances, people make the mistake of applying emotion as if it were law, as fairness as if it were law.

The truth is that the law is often not fair, it sometimes does not make sense, it is not the great equalizer, it is what it is, and if you do not know what the law is, then sadly you do not know what your discussing and that is truly sad.