Slashdot Mirror
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.
I run a online game, and had a domain registered for it, until a company claimed I was infringing on their trademark and wanted the domain.
Well fighting them I thought would be too expensive so let them have it for their nickel. (They paid to transfer it). They are now out of business and a couple of squatters picked it up.
They want $2500 for the domain name. Excuse me?
The game I run is covered under the Diku MUD License, Merc License, and RoM MUD license. It is fun, but not worth $2500.
(btw, for those who don't know, those licenses expressly forbid profiting from running the game based on them)
Yeah, the board decided that these guys (Nestle and Apsen Grove software) were abusing the system.
What isn't mentioned is what the repercussions will be.
If it is just a matter of pissing away the money on lawyers, that isn't enough.
Sounds like this system is in bad a need of loser pays as the US court system.
-Peter
I am really amazed by these rulings. I was beginning to think ICANN was getting paid under the table with the amount of .coms they keep handing over to companies.
.org ... seeing as how an IRC server can hardly be misleading clients, or damaging a trademark.
.org would also qualify.
A friend of mine has a popular-candy-name.org (not posted so as not to draw attention) that he is using for an IRC server, and has so far never had and problems... but I've often wondered if popular-candy-company would come along and snatch a
Since Romeo Maggi's defense of Maggi.com for individual use and email seemed to fly, I wonder if an IRC server under a
Companies rarely trademark numbers - it may not even be possible (any IP lawyers out there?)
IANAL, but didn't Intel go with "Pentium" partly because they couldn't trademark "586?""If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Take a look at this. Assuming my last name really *was* Wellings, I'd be pretty pissed off about this. This is blatant cybersquatting. I'm VERY sure that members of the Wellings family have prior history claim to that domain and NOT NamePlanet.
Oh...and for the record, Wellings isn't my last name, but they ALSO own a domain with my last name. I ought to sue.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
The new law's evident flaws allow people to exploit it in such a way as to steal a web-domain from someone. Aswell as this, people who buy domains of famous people's names etc. will always get away with it. I cannot remember the URL but there's a site which someone bought because a new company was coming out named this but when faced with court precedings, he researched the name of the company. He found out that there was a rare breed of chicken with the same name as the company and so he made a website about that type of chicken.
I was quite shocked to hear of a case whereby someone registered a domainname which was the name of a famous person and put a fan-site at it. The person who registered the domain name was forced to hand over the domain and the expesive hosting he'd paid for to the famous person. I just talked to a friend about this and they told e that there's still no website at the domain.
I think the next poll should be about abolishing the idiotic "CyberSquatting" laws.
In a response filed on his behalf, Clark's lawyers blasted the notion that the lack of a commercial Web site constituted bad-faith use on an Internet address.
.com, does not mean you have to be a commercial site?
Excuse me? just because it is a
Is slashdot.com a commercial site?
(or am I mistaken on this?)
It is like saying if you buy a sports car and don't drive it like a sports car you should get a ticket other wise (because sports cars, next to motorcycles, prolly get more tickets than your average station wagon.)
Is this the way the legal mind works?
So, if a "lawyer tazer" is invented, we have to use it, or else we will be sued?
or
Yes, a hammer is meant to hammer in nails, but you'll be in deep trouble if you should *dare* pull a nail out.
Gotta love "Catch-22's" like this.
Amusing in a sad/ironic/silly way.
I suppose if the owner gave the domain over to Nestle it would technically be "The Gift of the Maggi"?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
- my Nestle Boycott page
- good backgrounder on baby food issues
Danny.I have written over 900 book reviews
Few will probably remember this, but many years ago I was eating some Wheat Thins and noticed the company logo and the letters N B C on each cracker. The company is Nabisco, which was once known as National Biscuit Company. Keep in mind that their logo looks a little like an antenna and think about how they and a radio, later TV and media concern National Broadcasting Company butted heads. Clearly Nabisco found a different name and backed down, but they still but N B C on their crackers.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Silicon Image recently pulled a swift one. After basically presenting false testimony to the arbitrators, the people who owned the siliconimage.com took legal steps to thwart their success with WIPO arbitrators. Silicon Image sued the domain-name holders and took them to federal court. In the mean-time the domain name was frozen because of pending legal action. Just before they were to show up in front of the judge, Silicon Image dropped the suit, called Network Solutions and said there was no pending legal action and registered the domain.
This has got to be the slimiest thing I have seen. Apparently even the judge is furious but to get this fixed means huge dollars and the previous domain name holders are finacially strapped.
I personally know the previous siliconimage.com domain name holders and they are nice people.
This is yet another example of how what is right is irrelevant and the one who has the most money is allways right.
If there is anything we can do, let me know.
Put up a web page that says "This domain is for email purposes". Then include a web form for sending you email.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Almost a decade ago, as part of the whole USL vs. BSDi lawsuit (see the section "The Lawsuit" in McKusick's history of BSD for details), one of the complaints was for trademark infringement for advertising their phone number as "1-800-ITS-UNIX".
You don't know the web and the internet are the same thing? Jeeze! I bet you're not very good at AOL!!
OK, sorry... the point is, these are unfortunately interchangable words in modern English. Lucky us for getting the right decision (for once.) But man oh man do I hope you don't put up a http as these other folks are suggesting. Don't legitimize it!
If you get letters from lawyers complaining about them, reply that the administrater can only be contacted at webmaster@your.disputed.domain and give you evidence you're actually using the things.
I would also hope that you record your McDonald's avenue analogy, along with all your other thoughts on the issue now, in case some jackass does decide to sue you. Who knows? Maybe educating a judge will actually effect a change in the way we all live, and put you next to ESR in the anals of making my computer a better place to live!
My apologies if this isn't coherant - I should've got to sleep about seven hours ago!