> > Apparently you fail to recall the "MikeRoweSoft.com" case. >
The deal with MikeRoweSoft is a different issue then this one. Mike Rowe was perfectly fine in his use. However when Microsoft sent him a C&D and said they would pay $100 (IIRC) for his domain. His mistake was saying "yah, maybe for a $1,000,000.00" in jest. Doing so was enough to claim that his intent wasn't for his own his own fair use but to hold Microsoft to pay for it. Microsoft tried to force it to domain arbitration when it turned into a PR issue for Microsoft being seen as the big bad bully for taking down a 16 year old kids personal page, so they backed down and gave him a bunch of free stuff. Using Twitter in a domain name directly related to a service that involves Twitter is a whole other issue that pretty much can get you in a lot of trouble. Zac Bowling
