Lapsed Domain Name Fight Ruled Upon In Australia

Zaphus writes "The Age is reporting that a domain name fight in Australia in which a lapsed domain name was snapped up by another group with the same initials, has been ruled OK by the arbitrator. This is despite the cause of the lapse being the registrar's for failing to process the renewal even though it was paid for. If this stands then it sets an interesting precident in Australia."

Comments

Well...

[MImeKillEr]

.. if the Registrar screwed up (as in this case) why should the original name holder be punished? The registrar should be fined or at least be forced to reimburse the 2nd group (the one that "hijacked" the domain) and the original owner should be granted the name.

This may go towards pushing for a "grace period" before a domain name can be snatched up by another party.

It also goes to show that if you own a domain name an renewal is up, you better make sure your registrar gets it done - even if you've already paid.

Recourse

[MacAndrew]

This sounds like fairly standard law, like the law of what happens when a party in good faith purchases something that was stolen from you. Your recourse is against the thief not the purchaser. (Again, the purchase has to have been in good faith, without knowledge of the illegitimacy of the goods. Things like an excessively low price are a tip-off to bad tricks.)

So the loser's recourse should be against the registrar. They may not have that opportunity, for if the registrar was smart it would have disclaimed liability for negligence in the contract to do the job in the first place. That provision could carry the day. Also, the would-be registrant should be expected to exercise due care to verify the proper registration.

Then again, I could be totally mistaken. YMMV. :)

Re:Recourse

[Henry V .009]

Here in America, a good faith purchase of stolen goods is void. The stolen goods go back to the original owner, and the purchaser's recourse is against the thief.

Re:Recourse

[Chris Canfield]

Has contract law become so misguided that a simple disclaimer can release the business from any liability due to obvious gross negligence? As "contracts" with registrars are basically non-negotiable, do they truly fall under the heading of contract law?

As the legal system was setup in part to protect individuals and businesses from unfair, exploitive, or negligent other individuals or businesses, doesn't the legal responsibilities of said party have precedence over a codification of negligent business practices?

Arbitration broken world over...

[JCMay]

So the drivers rights organization paid to renew their domain registration, but the registrar failed to process the renewal and resold the domian to the dust removal guys.

The arbitrators allow the dust removal guys to keep the registration? First of all, it's apparrent that Australian registrar is grossly negligent, and should pay to compensate the drivers rights group for their loss. It also highlights that the idea of domian name registration arbitration is broken not just here in the States, but around the world.

Finally, and most importantly, it underlines the need for people to become much more creative with domain names. Initials were cute "in the beginning," but with more and more groups competing for names, people must come up with better and ulitmately more meaningful alternatives.

Are Domain Names Owned...or Rented?

[0x69]

IANAL, but with domain names "sold" for limited periods of time, at fixed costs per year, and quickly & surely lost if not renewed (and paid for again), they look like rented property to me.

It ain't exactly moral, but what legal rights does Joe's Gas Station have if the landlord doesn't let him renew the lease, then rents the location to Bob's Gas Station? How's this domain name mess any different?

(FWIW, the whole domain name thing looks totally screwed to me. Imagine losing your phone number because anyone dialing "EAST TOKYO HONDA" got connected to you. How many little roofing companies are there in just the U.S., what's special about the one who got "newroof.com", and why should folks in both LA and NYC be sent to that guy's web site? The basic idea behind the whole thing is just plain broken.)