Re: Alarm/security related domains for sale

[onlinealarmquotes@xxxxxxxxx]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:45:32 AM UTC-4, mleuck wrote:
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:16:34 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
>=20
> > On 06/06/2012 4:06 PM, mleuck wrote:
>=20
> > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:44:14 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
>=20
> > >> On 24/05/2012 1:38 PM, mleuck wrote:
>=20
> > >>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:15:05 AM UTC-5, Frank Kurz wrote:
>=20
> > >>>
>=20
> > >>>> Yes, as I recall Jim was rather "unprofessional" in his dealings w=
ith
>=20
> > >>>> the court.  You definitely don't tell a Federal Court Judge that s=
he has
>=20
> > >>>> "no jurisdiction" or thumb your nose at her when your IN court.  I=
 think
>=20
> > >>>> he had a good case but some of the things he wrote telegraphed his=
 total
>=20
> > >>>> Granted, Brinks really didn't have a leg to stand to begin with.
>=20
> > >>>> They DON'T (and
>=20
> > >>>> never have) manufactured their own panels.  Every user and install=
er
>=20
> > >>>> manual I saw had the Honeywell logo on it!
>=20
> > >>>
>=20
> > >>> They may not have manufactured the equipment but they likely have t=
he rights to it.
>=20
> > >>
>=20
> > >> They have the rights to the Brinks Logo, but to sue Jim because he's
>=20
> > >> selling "their" re-badged programmer should not have turned out the =
way
>=20
> > >> it did.  Jim's defense submittals mentioned this, but his point was =
lost
>=20
> > >> when he told the judge to "shove it".
>=20
> > >>
>=20
> > >> Frank
>=20
> > >
>=20
> > > But none of us know what the agreement was between Brinks and Arrowhe=
ad (I assume it was them since they originally made the programmer.
>=20
> > >
>=20
> > > Would I have a legal right to sell and install something branded with=
 your companies name on it? Even without any agreement I doubt it.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I do it all the time.  All the stuff I sell is "branded" and no one has=
=20
>=20
> > an issue (DSC, Ademco, Simplex, Edwards, etc.).  I think part of Brink'=
s=20
>=20
> > argument was that they actually "owned" the equipment and "rented" it t=
o=20
>=20
> > end-users.  There is a valid argument that if an end-user cancels his=
=20
>=20
> > monitoring agreement, and Brinks doesn't come out to remove the=20
>=20
> > equipment, it could be considered "abandoned".
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Since I assume none of us are lawyers we can't be sure what the law is re=
garding an old panel however Brinks is the only one I've ever seen with pri=
nting on the box stating they own the equipment. Like that made any differe=
nce since I've ripped them out many times.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> About the only fact is Brinks won and Rojas lost <

What sunk Jim is that he advertised Brinks programmers on his website. Had =
he called them anything other than Brinks there isn't a damn thing they cou=
ld have, or would have done.=20

Broadview came after me when I registered domains using Broadview.
My lawyers told them to stick it up their ass. There isn't a thing they cou=
ld do.
I owned monitronics.mobi as well. Your people tried to make me release it. =
Again there wasn't thing one they could do.
Now had I used either domain in a for profit manner geared towards the secu=
rity industry they'd have had a chance.=20
I never renewed those domains because they served no purpose other than to =
annoy some folks, but at the end of the day you can register any domain nam=
e you want so long as you don't use it for financial gain in the same indus=
try as a company with that exact name.
Years back a guy that owned Dunkin Donuts Sucks or something like that ende=
d up selling the domain to D&D for quite a tidy sum. He used it as a blog t=
o express his disdain for D&D.
Nick Lawrence knows more about domains than most folks and could further ex=
pand on the legalities but in a nutshell Graham's Honeywell domain is worth=
less as tits on a snake for anyone in the alarm industry.