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

Reverse Hijacking

[dorzak]

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)

Re:A lukewarm welcome... Examle before the WWW

[ackthpt]

Well, this is interesting but keep in mind that "reverse hijacking" requires the plaintiff be contesting a trademark they didn't have at the time the domain was registered. I sorta assume that if you snooze, you lose. How about the rest of ya?

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.