Slashdot Mirror
unix.com Wins Domain Dispute
kyler writes "Apparently unix.com was able to afford the lawyers to fight off X/open from stealing their domain name in the wipo domain dispute.
If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael? This is ludacris" We had the story about unix.org losing their battle so this is a Good Thing.
When I visit www.unix.net, I get a picture of a pixilated finger, and the words, "Fuck You Open Group."
As "ludacris" as it might seem, I don't believe this is the type of site that WIPO is going to take seriously in a domain arbitration hearing. I don't care how rich you are, you can't lawyer away the middle finger.
The company bought the domain name in 2000 from the previous owner company. The actual human owner (of both companies and hence the domain) since 1993 has been Mr Tim Bass, who has continuously run a free speech Unix discussion site there.
Plenty of evidence that this is not a squat.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
It's the language in the statute. You want to convince a court that the statute applies to you, you use the same words.
From Neo (Admin of Unix.com) on their forums:
A few facts:
* We registered the UNIX.COM domain in 1993 in good faith.
* We only registered UNIX.COM (UNIX.NET and UNIX.ORG were registered by others)
* We have spent well over $25,000.00 on UNIX related legal fees.
* We have spent many more thousands of dollars to maintain this site so that all people can freely discuss UNIX related issues without commericals.
* We have spent a lot of $$$ to promote free speech regarding UNIX and UNIX like operating systems.
* UNIX is a generic term regardless of X/Open's claim.
* X/Open's false claim hurts the world UNIX community because it creates a negative environment and fragments the community with harsh actions that are, in reality, anti-open.
* We do this because we love the UNIX philosophy and the true UNIX community.
This is my gift to you, each and everyone of you.
From the bottom of my heart. - Neo
Anybody remember how Molson was awarded Canadian.biz a while back? They lost on appeal in an Ontario Superior Court.
Story.
Of course, I submitted this as a story back when it happened a few weeks ago, but it wasn't posted...
On a side note, does the date of the trademark in relation to the registration date of the domain have any correlation then?
Read the UDRP, version 19991024, and the resolution rules. An action in bad faith, such as reverse domain name hijacking, will be thrown out.
What's to stop me from trademarking the name after the fact and petitioning for ownership of the related domain names?
You run a risk that such action would be considered reverse hijacking, defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name" (Resolution Rules) (emphasis by yerricde).
Ludacris
Will I retire or break 10K?
I read through the decisions for the unix.com and unix.org cases, and can see some parts of the answer to kyler's question If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael?
The unix.com domain had been in use for some time for a discussion forum where the main topic was unix, they kept their domain registration despite it including the trademark. The unix.org domain had not been actively used for anything, and the information provided about what it had been intended to be used for was seen by the arbitrators as indicating an intent to make money as a result of attracting visitors, with the unix trademark being part of what attracted visitors.
The argument about 'unix' having become generic failed in both cases.
The arbitrators seem to be deciding on the basis of whether or not the domain is actually being used for some legitimate purpose. Mere ownership of the trademark does not seem to be enough for victory. It is good that the holders of unix.com won, but if the report of the unix.org case is accurate as to the facts, then I think that was a reasonable decision.
I also tracked down the decision for the unix.net case http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/200 2/d2002-0296.html, and among the things it says is The Respondent failed to file any evidence that might lead the Panel to the inference that the Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. Not having seen the site in its original form I can't tell for myself whether or not the arbitrators are right to judge that there was no legitimate interest. They seem to have formed the opinion that the site was really a web designer advertising their services, and using someone else's trademark to attract visitors. Perhaps someone who visited the site in its old form can comment.
In both the unix.org and unix.com cases, the panel said that X/Open had undisputed rights to the UNIX trademark, which covers unix.*. Unix.com refuted the bad faith claim, as it has been a viable, non-commercial web site since 1993. Unix.org, on the other hand, was a brand new site with nothing but links to commercial Unix-related sites.
I disagree that unix.org was registered in bad faith, but the battle lines have been drawn.
A couple of things to consider.
:) You don't hire programmers to defend your rights in court :)
(1) If you get into a UDRP dispute, hire a good UDRP lawyer.
(2) I recommend our unix.com attorney, Dr. David Steele (www.cph.com)
(3) Legal disputes are just like complex problems in your OS kernel: You don't hire lawyers to write a kernel driver
(4) UNIX.COM won because the domain was registered in 1993 (in good faith) for good reasons (including the non-commerical technical forum www.unix.com) AND we had excellent legal counsel.
(5) WIPO is not the proper authority to rule on the details of a trademark (generic or not). WIPO rules on WIPO guidelines.
BTW: Thank YOU Slashdot-gurus for all the moral support over the years!!! -Neo
www.unix.com