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.

Comments

is this the END end?

[packeteer]

... or is this just another victory to be appealed away?... anyone know how well this can stand up in the future?

Bleh: Ludicrous

[Hash Browns]

This whole notion of trademarks entailing a right to ownership of domains is ludicrous. On a side note, does the date of the trademark in relation to the registration date of the domain have any correlation then?

There's a few existing domains I'd like without trademarked names. What's to stop me from trademarking the name after the fact and petitioning for ownership of the related domain names?

I'm sorry, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever someone grabs a domain name similar to an OSDN friendly site, we get to hear all about the use of squatting for advertising, or even profiling, but when some company tries to claim a name that, in all reasonableness is rightfully theirs, it's corporate oppression? Nice double standard there.

Re:They have this backwards

[Organic_Info]

Well as per usual we have a grey situation rather than the easy black and white sort.

I agree with your point why register a domain that clearly already has a trademark/copyright holder. What did they expect to happen?

However WHY had the X/Open group not already registered the domain themselves? Its not like Internet domain names are recent thing, they should have had this registered a long time ago.

I don't know enough about the situation to make statements, but from initial appearances both parties seem to be at fault.

Biased as usual

[SpatchMonkey]

From the article:

• ... so this is a Good Thing.

Surely we can make up our own minds about that.

Remember, everyone -- this is just some guy's opinion and not a fact.

Important Domain Arb Safety Tip

[werdna]

Notice the dramatic difference here between results of three-judge panels (unix.com) and an individual arbitrator (unix.org). The published statistics show that single-judge arbitrations tend to be dramatically slanted pro-Complainant, with more balanced (but still generally proComplainant) results arising from a three-judge panel.

The Complainant gets to pick the arbitration house -- and will invariably pick the one with the strongest published pro-Complainant statistics. The respondant cannot challenge that choice, but under the rules may opt for the three-judge panel.

Re:Important Domain Arb Safety Tip

[Grit]

And, unfortunately, pay for the privilege. Accepting a single arbitrator costs the domain name holder nothing; asking for a panel requires that he or she pay for half the cost--- win or lose.

This does even out the economic incentives somewhat. But even so, the UDRP provides choice of arbitrator to the complaintant, so market forces favor those arbitrators who tend to return pro-complaintant decisions. (I'm not suggesting any deliberate corruption, just magnification of any differences which naturally occur.)

Re:Message from Admin of Unix.com

[liquidsin]

Whether or not UNIX is a "generic term" is irrelevant to the case. "Coke" is a generic term. "Shell" is a generic term. There are literally thousands of generic terms that are trademarked as company names. Unless X/Open trademarked the term *after* 1993 when the domain was registered, they have every right to get it back. For once, this isn't about a company abusing the system, it's about a company laying claim to what is rightfully theirs.

Re:They have this backwards

[rebbie]

Exactly -- and IMNSHO once Network Slowlutions started suggesting that everyone should get .com .net and .org versions of their names to "protect" their interests (so they could sell 3x as many names) all bets were off...

It is now impossible to tell what type of organization you are dealing with based on their domain name. I run the web site for one nonprofit whose .org name was already taken so they have a .com. This seems to bother nobody. It's like 800 numbers vs. 888, 877, 866, etc.

rightfully theirs

[phriedom]

I'm going to pretend that this post really is "interesting" and not "flamebait": Trademark allows for the development of a business identity. It prevents other people from making money off of your good name. It is generally limited to areas where someone is using a confusingly similar name that would lead customers to believe they are getting the "real thing" but they are not. It does not extend to unrelated business areas where a reasonable customer would not confuse the names, nor does it extend to every use of a word, though corporations often try to make it so. So, for example, I might be able to get away with selling "Olde MacDonald's Scotch Whiskey" without infringing on the trademarks of McDonalds resteraunt chain, nor 3M's Scotch brand products. Mount Olympus Camera Co. would not fly, but Mount Olympus Software, probably would. I might be able to sell "Unix Cheese Puffs" and "Unix Caffiend Cola" if the judge doesn't think I'm trading on X/Open's good name.

My point is that X/Open do not own the word "Unix" they just some rights to exclusive use of it as a name for an operating system, and related things. THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THE DOMAIN NAME. What we don't want is people squatting on a domain, with no use for it other than to hold it hostage and to sell it to a party that does have use for it. That doesn't mean that a trademark holder is the only party with a legitimate interest in the domain, nor should their claim automatically be more legitimate just because they have a trademark. If I register NBC.* as a site or sites for Nehalem Baseball Club or some such before National Broadcasting Company does, they shouldn't be able to take it away from me.