More Domain Disputes Labeled 'Reverse-Hijacking'

merodach writes: "This article on technews.com actually has a rare piece of good news in it - two corporations whose attempts to take domains from others were rebuked as attempts at "reverse hijacking." We can only hope that maybe the arbitrators are finally beginning to see the light." Read the story and be amazed at the audacity of these companies.

Comments

domain name != web site .....

[Dr. Awktagon]

[Nestle] complained that Pro Fiducia Treuhand, a financial and management consulting firm with some 40 employees, had no legitimate claim on the Maggi.com domain and that it had registered and used the address in bad faith because, after five years, the company had not made use of the domain for a Web site.

Lawyers for Aspen Grove argued that, "by continuing to use the domain name without offering any or little content or any legitimate business use, (Clark) has confused (Aspen Grove's) prospective clients and business partners and has diluted the value of (its) trademark and reputation."

That stuff worries me. I personally have two domains that don't have any hosts, just MX records for personal email. I fully expect someday some company to come along and somehow claim trademark infringement from a non-existent web site.

So does that mean I should go ahead and put up a web site with infringing material so they can sue me easier?

This is like saying if you get mail at McDonald's Avenue, you are a trademark infringer, and doubly so because you aren't running a hamburger stand!

Kudos to the opposing lawyers and WIPO (that acronym always makes me chuckle when I say it out loud) for blasting that stupid notion. But I still fear that someday I'll have to deal with this bullshit even though my domains were first registered 7 years ago, just because some idiot wants the domain and can't deal with the fact that he doesn't have it.

Re:Domain names are not property

[MarkusQ]

If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly in the net, they have a duty to break their contract in favour of the highest bidder.

This is utter nonsense. If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly, it must first be possible to trust that people will honour contracts.

-- MarkusQ

Where's the Spanking?

[skoda]

But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).(emphasis mine)

The article states that Nestle was "spanked" hard by the WIPO arbitrators, but the only negative consequence mentioned was a tongue lashing, equivalent to, "Bad Nestle! No cookie for you!"

Is that what constitutes a severe retribution from the WIPO board?