Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dreamworks vs. Baggervance.com

Posted by michael on from the hand-me-my-3-iron dept.

An AC points us to baggervance.com, which Dreamworks (the movie studio producing "The Legend of Bagger Vance") has filed a complaint against in WIPO's slanted arbitration process. Oddly enough, it seems that most movies coming out are either getting sites that are off the company's home page (studio.com/moviename) or they aren't trying to get the most generic version of the domain name (moviename-themovie.com rather than moviename.com) so disputes like this one aren't as common as they could be. Not that that's a bad thing.

4 of 9 comments (clear)

  1. Question of timing by Masem · · Score: 2
    I can't look at the site from work, but given the name (a fictional one from a movie) and what the first poster said, this definitely has the starts of a classic cybersquatting case. Specifically, if the site was registered at some point after the movie was announced, and the text that is reported to be on the front page, I think the guy will lose. If, on the other hand, it was a true fan site of the movie, then I'd say that it should be ok.

    I do see more and more studies stickign their movie sites under their main site. Although I've started to see the use of Internet Keywords akin to AOL keywords (specifically, in the case of Little Nicky); since these actually cost a bit more money to obtain, I think it's more reasonable to go that way as well.

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    1. Re:Question of timing by Masem · · Score: 2
      Record created on 11-Dec-1998. That's iffy; 2 years is not an unreasonable timeframe between announcing that a movie will be filmed, and the release of that movie. (Look at Star Wars, LotR, etc)

      But you are right too; if Dreamworks wanted that domain, they should have registered it as soon as the script was accepted. It's just that the taunting this guy appears to be doing is not helping his case.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    2. Re:Question of timing by subsolar2 · · Score: 2
      Well it looks to me like it was registered long before the movie was announces, and since the name is not trademarked, I would think they don't have a change. Of course there is no justice in the world, and they (dreamworks) will probably win by greasing a few pockets.


      Like many companies before, their marketing department forgot to register the domain when they decided on the name.


      The WHOIS info follows:

      Registrant:
      Grantics (BAGGERVANCE-DOM)
      P.O. Box 3853
      McLean, VA 22103
      US

      Domain Name: baggervance.com

      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
      Karlin, Grant (GK1170) grant@TECHIE.COM
      Key Design Group
      8 Okland Dr.
      Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
      518.583.7611
      Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Bukres, Abdel-hadi (AB4783) support@CHEAPESTHOSTING.COM
      Xcellweb
      PO Box 897
      beaverton, OR 97075
      503-574-4417 (FAX) 503-629-1884

      Record last updated on 06-Oct-2000.
      Record expires on 11-Dec-2000.
      Record created on 11-Dec-1998.
      Database last updated on 6-Nov-2000 06:03:01 EST.

      Domain servers in listed order:
      WEBBER.XCELLWEB.COM 206.58.39.236
      WEBBER2.XCELLWEB.COM 206.58.39.237


      - subsolar

  2. Looks like squatting by dmuth · · Score: 3

    The site really doesn't seem to have any actual content on it, other than a single page saying "we had this domain first so Dreamworks can't have it". Understandable, but if the owner bought the domain for the sole purpose of pissing off Dreamworks, it seems like a case of domain name squatting to me. :-(