Slashdot Mirror
JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name
Malfourmed writes "Reuters reports that the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien won a cybersquatting case against Alberta Hot Rods, a Canadian-based operator which registered jrrtolkien.com and linked it to its commercial celebrity Web site. The group - which has already lost domain name cases brought by actors Pierce Brosnan and Pamela Anderson, and author Michael Crichton - was found to have no legitimate rights, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) said in a ruling."
So now he'll have "one webring to rule them all --" oh forget it.
you know everyone just clicked onto jrrtolkien.com and saw all their ads. the company is making their money back.
all is well
Imagine if homesteaders had their land taken away back in the 1800's by corporations who claimed that they actually had rights to the land, even though the corps never set foot on the land and had no interest in it until they saw how profitable the land was.
I have been pwned because my
Can't we just kick these cretins off the net? What sort of punitive action can the international community take against organisations such as this.
I have a relatively uncommon first-name, but one of the few people who shares it registered it as a domain name relatively early in the history of the web. If I were to become famous, I'd almost certainly be known by first-name alone, as there are only a small handful of entertainers with this name, and none of them are "stars".
So all I need to do now is become famous, and that domain is mine!
...JRR Tolkein: The Two Tower servers.
You mean the railroad is coming to town?
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Wow. The law actually worked and wasn't evil or nothing for once. Good on them.
should be restricted to .com domains. That's what the TLD was supposed to mean. Any other TLD should be first-come, first-served.
Ya know, I love Tolkien's work and I like to keep informed of domain squatting issues, but how is an article about domain squatting of Tolkien's name supposed to interest me?
As an other example, I love computers and I really dig Buffy, but I really don't care to know what CPU Sarah Michelle Gellar is writing her email with.
Would this have been news if it were www.pamelaanderson.com that got overruled?
www.celebrity1000.com contains nude pics of JRR Tolkien I think they are out of luck :p
You know, there are two sides to this coin. There's the side from the 'squatter where they see the land, they grab it, and they hold on to it. They do this from their own pocket, hoping to make some money selling the land to whoever wants it at a later date. There's the side from the person that desires such land, sometimes for reasons of their trademark, or their name. This is where the 'squatter tries to get them to pay large amounts of money for the domain. Now, the 'squatter probably should get SOME money back from their initiative (cost, maybe?) but not be allowed to extort millions from whoever wants the website. Although I admit that the land analogy is flawed..I would have more respect for the 'squatter if they actually were trying to get a fair deal out of it, instead of, "Give us $1,000,000,000, or we'll pwn u, n00b!"
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I hate to be unpopular, but the guy is dead, right? Does he really have the same rights to his name as somebody who is alive?
Can anyone who's making money off their dead relatives make a case for the name? Seems to me that neither of the parties actually suing for or using the name actually *wrote* LoTR...
Just an alternative opinion...
Pixie
don't mess with those geekgrrls
Just because he has some snooty movie and a bunch of lawyers, doesn't mean he owns the domain. When Albertans think hot rodding, we think jrrtolkein.com, and no big timer geeks are ever going to change that!
The ruling makes sense to me. "J.R.R. Tolkien" isn't a trademark per se, but it is a (very particular) pronoun, so its use as a domain name should be reserved for the Tolkien Estate, not some random cyber-squatter. Infringing trademarks in registering domain names is an obvious no-no ... but I wonder, suppose there actually was someone named J.R.R. Tolkien, and he registered this domain? Would he still have a legitimate right to the domain, or would the domain be taken away from him, even though it was his name?!
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
I can write a book about Tolkien and title it "The Life of Tolkien". Why shouldn't I be able to get a domain name with his name, as long as I state I'm not he (or his heirs)? Businesses I understand - trademarks, etc. Maybe there should be a top level domain for "unofficial", so you'd have jrrtolkien.official and jrrtolkien.unofficial. A litter cumbersome but you get the point.
we slashdot them before the domain changes sites. And the site goes squish!!
This company brands itself "Celebrity 1000" and sadly, they and many others like them are cybersquatting on at least that many celebrity named domains. just try a few of your favorite celebrities. I'm not sure how this was ever legal to start with, and can't believe that to date this is only the 4th case brought against these fools. They're the papparazzi of the internet, making free money off the endeavors of others.
Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog
No one should be allowed to take that away from you. If i registered michael_jackson_loves_kids.com Should michael jackson have the right to take that from you? is it any different than owning michael_jackson.com? Frankly, its free speech, and its first come first serve. No one has a right to own their own name as a web domain. Mainly because there are more than one michael jackson in this world so celebrities dont get the right over the average nobodies who have the same name. So really ANYONE should beable to register ANYONES name. First come first serve... If i register www.killyourself.com and you wanted it... TOO BAD. Same thing with michaeljackson.com or in this case... tolkien
bought the land with the intent to profit off of the name of the corporation then yes, I'd expect as much.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that trying to profit off of other people's names is not acceptible.
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
They were mentioned on Slashdot, now their hit counter is going through the roof. Now that's good advertising!
As a Tolkien fan I believe that the domain name should be cast into the fiery pit at Mt. Doom, so that it may never again be used to trouble the world.
What if I had the opportunity to buy up all three character URLs starting with the letter 'I'. I would be able to buy all from 'www.iaa.com' to 'www.izz.com'.
Would IBM and other companies who have their names represented in my relatively random and arbitrary choice of purchased URLs have the right to wrest from me some of those URLs that I purchased in good faith?
The key here is how you use the domain name. IF your use is non-exploitive of the entity, specifically if it's someone famous, you can potentially hold it. I.e. If someone named James Hendrix had his personal web page on jimihendrix.com, he'd have a good case to fend off the Hendrix estate, as opposed to pointing the domain to some site clearly attempting to capitalize on the famous Jimi Hendrix.
A friend of mine actually had the domain AMERICAONLINE.COM for many years. He offered to sell it to AOL and they blew him off and expressed no interest. His problem was the domain was not in use and when he decided to put up a web page, it said, "This domain for sale". Within days of the site going up, he received a threatening letter from AOL's lawyers. I am not sure, but I think they scared him into giving them the domain. He screwed up by not having a legitimate web site that wasn't exploitive of AOL then he might have had a case to fight. But in this circumstance the guy basically snatched the name because it was available, so he was trying to take advantage of AOL's famous name. If he had a web site on that domain for example, that was a messageboard for "American's online" or something not exploitive of AOL's identity, he probably could have fought off AOL, or at least forced them to settle with him.
Generally speaking, the law has been pretty reasonable in dealing with these cases. There are probably exceptions though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...to the celeb site.
Nowif only we could find a way to introduce SCO to the WIPO.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
...proclaimed to be good when done in the name of one favored by the geek collective.
My last name is Coke, thus I should have the right to coke.com, right?
Oh wait, I don't think it works that way.
Hey /., think up an original headline!
{www.theonering.net}
I'm curious. Could anybody please clear up what it is gives WIPO the authority to decide upon cybersquatting issues? Is it a voluntary thing or is it somehow required by law?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
If two actors with the same name get into a dispute over somedumbactorsname.com, does that mean that it actually IS a popularity contest to see who wins?
It is obvious, im my opinion, that neither Alberta Hot Rods nor celebrity1000.com have anything to do with John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892-1973). Therefore it seems to me that the ruling is unjust.
The really original homesteaders were forced off their lands by white people with guns, marched en masse to reservations, given smallpox-ridden blankets, and starved into oblivion.
We are now fully off-topic...
All's true that is mistrusted
I mean there are other groups out there that just wait for a domain name in use to become available by over looking the date, sometime easy to do. Just one day can mean a company will come in swoop you domain name, and then offer to sell it back to you at a %1000 increase for "maintanence and transfering" fees.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
So if that's the case, why on earth do we have .com .org etc?
If you want truth in advertising, then the biggest, best-known company or individual using a given name should really just be given the name, right? Why even bother registering? We could just go by annual income...
Really, what difference is it in confusion between going to jrrtolkien.com and seeing ads, than it is to go to tolkien.com and see nothing, because that's what happens, when you try it. This is why we have google...
Pixie
don't mess with those geekgrrls
Nissan (the car company) sued Uzi Nissan (a technology company owner) to get his website. They [car corp] "lost" in the sense that they didn't get the domain name, but they convinced the court to totally neuter it: it cannot host any commercial content, nor can it link to any site that hosts commercial content.
Yeah, right.
Let me be the first to say, that the WIPO sucks ass. The company I'm with had their domain taken away despite having a good claim to it because we couldn't afford to send a lawyer to Geneva to argue our case.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I don't agree with the whining people who moan because of cybersquatters. Those that put into common use the // in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper. I, personally, think it's a 'first-come, first-serve' situation.
/opinion
If someone yanked 'mcdonalds.com' and was using it to slander mcdonalds, sue them for libel, but they have the right to rent that domain for as long as they pay for it. This babysitting by the courts for corporate welfare is just over the line. I don't know why I'm so outraged by the very idea of this, but I am.
This is kindof like Spike Lee suing Spike TV because it uses "his" name.
It is a PROPER NOUN, not a pronoun. A proper noun is a specific person, place, or thing. A pronoun is a word that takes the place of a noun, like he, she, or it. Please, I know that we are all nerds, but can we work on our grammar.
Then everyone would be in an uproar, but simply replacing the proper nouns can make a story good or evil on Slashdot.
Really. Go look!
Quick, let him know... now's his chance to get them for not having a legitimate web site!
~ Aero
SCO: We own all you source code!
Slashdotters: How so? We wrote it!
SCO: We just do!
Compared to:
JRR Tolkien Estates: We own that domain!
Sqautter: How so? I bought it!
Estates: We just do!
Although squatting is sleazy, I don't see why it's illegal. If there are magic reserved names that the general public can't buy then don't sell them in the first place. The guy bought it before JRR Tolkien estates, and made no reference to JRR Tolkien or LoTR so no trademark infringement occured. For all they know he could have thought it sounded like a l337 name for a porn site. So the lesson learned is that corporations have control over you no matter where you live, thanks to the U.N. and WIPO. It's just another example of a company saying they own something that they don't.
The difference between this guy and people sticking "I pwn this!" signs every thirty miles in virgin country is that this guy actually paid- through legal process -the deed for this land. Let's say that land had a famous hill named Tokkien Hill (JRRTokkien wrote his books up there on warm summer nights, ok?). That, by no means gives the Tokkien Estate the right to kick you off and set up a printing shop in their namesake no matter what you are doing with the land, ESPECIALLY after being duly and legally appointed the land.
Infact, just like real life, the value of the land increases the more people want it. If you want a piece of land on the beach in California, you can expect to pay big bucks for it because it's prime location. Guess what? JRRTokkien.com is prime real estate and thus the owner of that domain should get just compensation, if not exactly the price he asks for it. This guy had the foresight to pay $50 for the domain (or whatever) and now it's worth $5 million. He was in the right place at the right time with the right idea before shit became popular. Had the internet lost steam, his $50 could have been wasted. Would the Tokkien franchise have compensated him for that since they now have such a dire attachment to it?
Sorry, but this guy got shafted hard. He bought the land and wisely positioned himself for a trend that should have paid out huge. The Tokkien estate, however, missed the boat. People miss the boat every day and are told tough shit for better reasons than this. I don't care how many books the dead guy wrote Tokkien Hill, the squater should be paid the value of the property as it stands today, just like any other much sought after piece of land. He was there first, legally.
The only exception I would make to this is using the domain to slander somebody else of the same name. Anything else is pure BS.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Aha, that was exactly what I needed to know...
I checked PubLaw for a definition of the Right of Publicity, which also mentions the Right of Privacy, which "protects an individual from the emotional anguish resulting from the publication of private facts that are embarrassing, intimate or portray someone in a false light that is highly offensive" -- originally, I was thinking more of the latter as being not really so important for dead guys (-:
Thanks again for setting me on the right trail.
Pixie
don't mess with those geekgrrls
Those that put into common use the // in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper
The // is part of a well-formed URL, and therefore comprises part of an international standard. Only retards would complain about the use of //. Are you complaining?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
another whole generation gets to learn about such things as "nslookup", "host", and "dig"!
C|N>K
What do you say we all help out this poor :)
company who has lost their right of free speech,
and all click on their link at 12gmt, and then
at 12.04 gmt all click on their advertisement
nslookup insovietrussia.com
Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup with
the `-sil[ent]' option to prevent this message from appearing.
Server: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Address: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Name: insovietrussia.com
Address: 205.177.13.82
nslookup -sil hotgrits.com
Name: hotgrits.com
Address: 64.246.42.20
nslookup -sil beowulfcluster.com
Name: beowulfcluster.com
Address: 64.186.240.54
nslookup -sil natalieportman.com
Name: natalieportman.com
Address: 199.232.224.8
Name: natalieportman.com
Address: 199.232.224.9
nslookup -sil shiznit.com
Name: shiznit.com
Address: 67.153.155.100
C|N>K
Primarly on how good a lawyer he gets but also on what he's doing with it. If you are using the domain for a legitimate purpose, not related to capatalising on the trademerk, you have a much better chance of getting to keep it.
So let's say my name is John Cisco, and I register cisco.com before Cisco Systems gets a chance. Now on this page, all I have is a "This domain for sale" with millions of popups. In this case I'm probably going to loose it. I mean it's pretty clear that my last name is incidental, I bought it to try and capatalise on their name.
But let's say I'm named John Cisco and I put a personal site up on cisco.com. It's your average personal homepage with a my intrests, family pictures and the like. In this case, I've got a much more legit claim. In this case it's pretty clear that I bought the domain since it is my name, and I'm using it as such, I don't care about the like named corperation.
Still, coprerations ahve the advantage since trademarks are pretty will defended by the law and they, of course, have big lawyers to defend them further. But what you do with a domain counts for a lot. If you're just squatting you have a lot less claim than someone who legitimately does something.
Where's the 'substantiating evidence' for the JRR Tolkien state? How do they know that the owner didn't happen to like the name jrrtolkien.com and thought nothing of the book/movie? There's no more evidence their than with SCO
So Tolkien is dead and his name and works are managed by a "company". I don't recall anyone saying that in a free democratic society that companies have no rights nor do they deserve to be accorded any. There are a lot of good reasons for families to set up trusts, not the least of which is the fact that there are many in this world--people, companies and governments--with absolutely no respect for the dead (and sometimes the living) and will take advantage of others' situations, fame, wealth and so on. It's meant to protect the "family jewels", not to fsck everyone over.
You make a good point with Microsoft...they messed up badly (I believe with hotmail.com as well) so they deserve the embarrassment--however a lot of (non-Microsoft) people but big-time money and effort into establishing the Hotmail service AND the brand/trademark, and Microsoft in turn paid big coin to acquire those assets. I know of nobody named "Hotmail" or other businesses operating under that marque--if there are then they have every right to sneak in and swipe the name from MS.
I am aware of the McDonalds case too...the fast food chain handled the situation quite badly and perhaps the Scottish esablishment that originally had it had every right to keep it. The fast food chain at LEAST should have the opportunity to make its case.
But jrrtolkein.com? What legitimate use does "Alberta Hot Rods/Celebrity1000" have? Their sole purpose is to suck traffic into a tasteless, annoying ad machine. That sort of parasitic money-for-nothing who-cares scheme pisses me right off.
Put yourselves in the shoes of Tolkein's descendants for a moment. Would YOU want your grandfather's good name to be abused by those who point the corresponding domain to a page full of tacky blinking ads and pop-ups schilling loan schemes, penis pills and porn? Just 'cause he's dead that means his name and his works are up for grabs by cyber-squatters, B-movie producers and every cheap toymaking sweatshop in China?
I'm not at all pleased to see copyright terms and IP law in general get perverted to the degree it is being done in the US. Some day all great works must be made available to the public domain. However, there HAS to be some balance between the rights of Joe Schmoe and those of everyone else (be it a celebrity, Jane Schmoe or Schmoe, Inc.).
If the domain was registered by a non-affiliated fan club or individual enthusiast and it was used to host a quality website on the subject (ie. LEGITIMATE USE), then I'd have said "screw off WIPO, leave them be"--especially if it was a non-commercial venture. I think if it wasn't the name of a person (living or dead) then I'd be even more inclined to say so (for example...startrek.com being ripped away from an early fan site by draconian, overzealous Paramount That was a dumbass thing to do too).
...if I ever heard one.
I'd put it more like this:
Imagine if a pioneer family homesteaded there in the 1880s and over generations they worked hard and built a grand country home that became a local heritage site, and that they eventually donated/leased/etc some or all of the estate to the local county with the understanding it would be made into a public park for all to enjoy.
Then picture the 1980s, and the county (in conjucntion with MeMeMe Corp.) start to build a six lane road through the pristine parklands, lined on either side with neon-lit, loud flourescent strip malls, gas stations and fast food joints. Word gets back to Joe Pioneer the 4th. Methinks the "pioneer family trust" may wish to have serious words with the County and MeMeMe Corp. over the abandondment of the original understanding/arrangement.
I'd say that sums up Tolkein vs Alberta Hot Rod more accurately.
The present George Washington, if he got the domain first, definately should keep it.
But then again, JRR Tolkein, Pamela Anderson and a number of other famous people do not and never have been employed by Alberta Hot Rods, nor do they own any portion of said company, and the most certainly received no portion of income that may have been made from said company's operations.
So, unless the proprietor of Alberta Hot Rods happens to be named George Washington, then I'd say the descendants of the 1st US president--no matter HOW distantly related, have every right to make a case to snatch the domain away for themselves...unless a present G.W. turns up (who would ovbviously have the strongest case of all of them).
(sorry, was unformatted)
Exactly. Funny how "getting there first" is all that seems to matter when it comes to patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the like, but when it comes to domains somehow its different.
It's all about what benefits the large companies and their congress critters the most. One standard works better here; another works better there.
I say, if we're going to stifle progress the way they want, then SURE allow mcdonalds.com to be cybersquatted, but if we're NOT going to allow that, then DON'T allow submarine-patents and lawsuits of standardized HEADER files.
-Grym
"Getting there first" is NOT all that matters in ANY of those cases.
If someone knowingly registers a domain in the name of an existing person, trademark or company for the sole intent of deceiving others for personal gain, it's AGAINST THE RULES.
If someone knowingly files a patent for an obvious applicaton or previously invented device, ANYONE who can demonstrat prior art can have that patent REVOKED.
Widespread, public-domain works also CANNOT be copyrighted unless perhaps you were the original author of said works.
Trademarks as they are applied to day are perhaps too liberal, however one CANNOT register a common word or characteristic as a trademark...One cannot own the mark "Red(tm) Ketchup" just so he can try to extort money from Heinz because of the hue of its biggest product.
That is the original SPIRIT of the law, however I agree with you to a point---the LETTER of the law in this regard has been perverted for the purpose of lining the pockets of gredy corporate and political mavens.
Since they are the registar is figuratively and literally charging rent for the domain name, couldn't they actually charge more for it since it is now worth much more. You get charged more for apartments for being in a more desirable location, so why not domain names. Damn, I'd so love to see them get hosed with something like that since I totally agree with Muddie-- It doesn't matter what the man was doing with the domain/land as long as he aquired it legally. As everybody else has mentioned, I won't be getting a piece of McDonalds, Coke or Mircosoft.com just because it happens to be my last name as well. The Tokkien estate, by all rights ought be SOL just as they would be in IRL. Tough shit.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
You guys remember nissan.com?
It looks like Nissan Motor Company just about shut him down.
Somehow he still owns the domain name but he can't do anything with it.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I'm puzzled. So If I own a domain that sounds like a trademark they can just take it claiming I can't own it for some reason. But I bought it fair and square. Unless buying domains doesn't mean anything.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Alright, all this GNAA nonsense is crap.
The above post contains this link [idge.net]. Apparently the headquarters of the GNAA trolls.
Thanks to some handy WHOIS information, the contact info for that website is:
Registrant:
Lin-Tech Communications
1770 St James Place
Houston, Texas 77056
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: IDGE.NET
Created on: 09-Feb-02
Expires on: 09-Feb-04
Last Updated on: 05-Sep-03
Administrative Contact:
Jackson, Tim dns@lin-tech.net
Lin-Tech Communications
1770 St James Place
Houston, Texas 77056
United States
(936)371-9350 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Jackson, Tim dns@lin-tech.net
Lin-Tech Communications
1770 St James Place
Houston, Texas 77056
United States
(936)371-9350 Fax --
Call and email them and let them know what you think of the GNAA!
This babysitting by the courts for corporate welfare is just over the line. I don't know why I'm so outraged by the very idea of this, but I am.
i agree, and i know why i find it outrageous : because it's a problem with brands, logo, corporate identities, all things that have absolutely no interest nor real value but that corporate and marketing types get all nervous over, mainly due to lack of brains and fear of losing power.It's even worse since in some famous cases ( like the french danone boycott website briefly described in english here ) they use IP law to fight against those who critic their abuse.
They can't fight over what is said so they will claim that their logo was stolen ! Wimps !
In the case of tolkien it seems more normal, though. I mean, it's not only about money and rights but also about a work of art that should be preserved from vultures.
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
Evil people, stealing the names of those worshipped by socially-challenged geeks and using them for profit! What horrors!
Quick! Someone *pass a law* to prevent this tragedy!
Whining little gits. No one has a 'right' to a domain name; it's first-come first-serve, and fuck the hindmost. You lose out, you lose out - end of story. Oh, wait, I forgot - it's a different kettle of fish if someone famous is involved. Wouldn't matter for dick if *my* name was 'stolen' by some cybersquatting company, but since it's Tolkien, the object of fan worship, why *he* gets special treatment!
Even after he's dead!
Yeah, pass a law, you freakin' hypocrites. Next week you'll be back to bitching and moaning over how powerful the government is becoming, doing your best to inflict selective amnesia on yourself to avoid facing up to the fact that you are just as responsible for the situation as everyone else out there. Either that, or desperately trying to justify why *your* laws are good, and those you object to are bad.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Hasbro sued Clue Computing and apparently lost, and in a pretty similar case (IMHO)
Hasbro sued Candyland.com and apparently won.
Candyland and Clue are both "popular" Hasbro games. Clue and Candyland were both small companies (not hard to guess the industries). Can anyone explain the differences in these cases to me, besides the obvious (and hopefully irrelevant legally)?
... will I get a letter from Dubbya?
U TF -8&q=miserable+failure
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
So the nissan.com page has to be used for non-commercial use?
Smart...
Or perhaps you mean the musician who used to play piano in gay clubs in London?
Or is it some younger newcomer you are talking about?
It's funny that international news could have a direct link to a small, ineffectual scion like myself, but I know this "Canadian-based operator". His name is Jeff Burger, and he lives in High Prairie, Alberta, Canada: I used to work for him as a teenager, at the local newspaper he owned. He's a real opportunist, and like other posts have noted, it's a bit like the Gold Rush of old. Not surprised that he's staking claims, not surprised that people are upset.
Maybe it was too simple & negated the need for lawyers, instead they bring in this IP based mess & lawyers have a field day.
1st come 1st served is so simple & litigation negating that common sense dictates it's the way to go.
Lets be honest if corporations don't get their relivent domain names ASAP they really don't deserve to own them
Its so simple, has no loophopes & is litigation proof. Just set the legislation simply & too the point, meaning if IBM forgot to register ibm.net they'd have no choice but to buy it off the Joe Bloggs who beat them to the domain name.
Now if Joe Bloggs took advantage of his ibm.net website, so what, that's what capitalism is all out.
Remember trademark & copyright laws predate the web, meaning there's nothing in those laws that guarantee relivent domain names to IP holders, meaning Domain name law should be 'bugger them it's 1st come 1st served'.
What if I had a name that was the same as someone famous? Should the famous person get the domain just because they are famous?
Being uncool is liberating
Anyone remember this poor sap?
Would I get burned if my real name was, say, Keanu Reeves, and I made a site called keanureeves.com ? Or is this an issue of someone making profit on someone else's success ...
The thing is, if my name was keanu reeves I would benefit from his success, greatly, but would I be somehow breaking the law?
Why is everyone still so focused on the .com TLD? With all the new TLDs available, I would have thought for sure that people would spread out like a fart in a room.
As a patriot bordering on a jingoist, I am happy to use the .us domain. Why don't others do the same and I don't mean just the .us domain (.info, .tv, .cc)?
I agree absolutely. This is a case where companies/organizations missed the boat and instead of paying the cost for being "a day late and a dollar short", they want the law to step in and just make everything better. Just using the term "cybersquatting" instead something like the Wall Street term "investing in futures" of a domain name shows how the media is manipulating public opinion by attaching a stigma to the act of purchasing a domain name in hopes that one day it will hold more value than when it was originally purchased.
Doesn't that sound a whole lot like purchasing stock, land, collectibles, or any other number of things in hopes it can be sold for a higher price later on? The difference I see is the domain names have to be re-registered periodically, oh, and the fact that they are not physical property. However, I personaly don't see cybersquatting being a problem, but rather it is the symptom of one. What problem? A common one for the Internet where the domain name registration system was not designed to account for the possibility of groups contending ( ok, fighting ) over domain names, or for names to be registered on a basis of greed and not a basis of need.
Solution? Put some rubber bands and chewing gum in place to keep the problem from becoming worse, and rework the domain name registration system so that if you purchase a domain name according to the provisions of the new system, you own it, free and clear, and do not have to worry about being sued or otherwise harassed soley over the name itself.
I can't afford a sig!
Clue-train's a'comiiiiiin...
Just imagine what a world THAT would be like!
We'd have to institute some sort of copy rights, and register patents and trade marks, but heck - there would be no more moronic allegories! (Or would there be?)
I love seeing this kind of precident set, but I hate the fact that there are undoubtedly a couple of lawyers somewhere with more cash in their pockets because of this.
At my job recently, a trademarked name of ours was grabbed by a cybersquatter. This domain was registered shortly after we filed the trademark... Yeah, I know, we should have registered the domain name before they did, but REGARDLESS, they are asking $400 less than the WIPO arbitration fee for the domain in question.
This, I feel, is the very DEFINITION of cybersquatting, but since they have a monopoly on it, WIPO has seen fit to charge whatever they like (in this case $1500) to even LOOK at the case.
If only there were a way to put these cybersquatting businesses out of business. What the hell kind of business model is it to do something that is not legally justifiable and won't stand up in court...
Bastards. Like those that file nuisance lawsuits for a living... How is it possible to have a business based on what amounts to legally unjustifiable extortion that doesn't stand up in cout?
+++ ATH0 +++
I think .com should have this rule put into effect (like on so many other registries), then have some major cleaning up done and those who didn't have a registered name (i.e. free-viagra-now.com) be moved to the .info registry.
.com regardless.
.tm domain, e.g. uk.tm, us.tm, etc. then it would work pretty well, but that assumes (a) .tm isn't already a TLD for some country (I haven't checked), (b) each country administers its .tm according to its own trademark laws, and (c) it won't matter unless we can get the f*cking lawyers out of the other domains and into the .tm domain where they belong (good luck getting parasites out of anything).
While I agree that such a rule would have been nice from day one, it does have its problems.
1) trademarks are not unique
a) they are limited by "domain" (e.g. Macintosh(tm) for apples can exist in parallel with Macintosh(tm) for computers)
b) they are limited by geography (e.g. in the US, I can own "SourceMagic"(tm) in Illinois, while in Wisconsin someone else may have the same trademark for the same "domain", and national trademarks for x in Germany can be owned by one company, and a completely different company may have the same exact trademark registered in Canada or the United States).
This works for national domains, such as co.uk, where (a) there aren't state or local trademarks, only national trademarks (or they only allow national trademarks to use the domain), but it won't work for most trademarks in an international domain such as
Now, if one wanted to make a
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Of course, they want to do no such thing. What they want is to leach off existing technical development, outsource the jobs of the inventors so-displaced from their royalty streams and have the inventors die an altruistic death for the rest of the world in the nearest dumpster during winter having failed to pass muster of the local social welfare agency because they are white, male and heterosexual.
Seastead this.
Does it still constitute cybersquatting because someone other than the Tolkien Estate owns the domain? Or is it the proerty of the person who currently owns it?
This company, Celebrity1000.com has control over another author's name which my family owns the rights to. How do I go about reporting this to WIPO and get it? Anyone have any advice?
Reminds me of when you could type www.pga.com and get Pig Growers of Alberta, who are, on the whole, rather mediocre golfers. That one, though, was probably in good faith (and undoubtedly gave the farmers a knee-slappin' good chuckle).
E.g. www.userfriendly.com (some commercial site) has a prominent link to www.userfriendly.org (the comic). Importantly, the domian that any link goes to matters much less than a domain that a user must type in because the user does not notice the URL when clicking on the link.
I disagree with what Nissan has done in this case. Prior to the site's "shutdown", the guy posted a pretty good argument stating his claim to the website as well as early communications with Nissan Motor Corporation. Basically the guy's last name is Nissan and he runs several businesses under that name. IMHO, he should have been able to continue using the site.
I do enjoy Nissan Motor products (have two of their cars at this time) and probably would not have bought anything from the Nissan Computer Store. This is a case of David and Goliath, and Goliath seems to have won. The results of this ruling do not seem fair to me (given that the computer guy had the initiative to register first). I've considered registering #mylastname#.com in the past, and I'd like to think that I have rights to #mylastname#.
Jim
UN WIPO experts said they do not know the solution to trademark conflicts with domain names.
.reg TLD.
.gov domain - only registered trademarks can get a .reg domain.
These people lied - the answer was self-evident and has been ratified by honest lawyers.
Virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.
The only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected
Just like only US government departments can get
All registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg
Apple Computers can still use apple.com - just directed to apple.computer.us.reg as certificate of authentication and use as directory.
Please visit my site - Not associated with UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
Look, the bottom line is this:
If Alberta Hot Rods had taken jrrtolkien.com for one of their gearheads who was also a big Tolkien-Head, and he then used it to build a big ol' fansite about his undying geek love for the guy, most of you would be pissed off about the Tolkien Estate pushing around the little guy who just happened to get there first.
I realise this isnt the case and Alberta Hot Rods are a bunch of sleazebags for what they did, but i'm just making a point.
I tell you, those companies that just buy up domain names and then park them on a "this domain is for sale" page... theyre only one step above spammers, but still a few evolutionary steps below cockroaches.
I also fail to see why the WIPO needs to get involved and a bunch of lawyers need to get paid for what boils down to plain old common sense.
Fucking Lawyers. They, too, are typically a few steps behind cockroaches.
Anyone remember This little domain debacle/hysterical joke? That was funny, and the guys didny try to make a profit off it, they were just snubbing their noses at yet-another-titanic-corporation.
(My apologies to any cockroaches I may have insulted in this post.)
s'wut i sed.
Yea, where are all my slashes and dots? This dang website has too many words and pictures...
Yah, I've got my lastname.com too.
I'd hate to think that anyone could ever take it away short of me not paying the domain registration bills.
Luckily I've got a rather obscure lastname and the only person that might try to take it away is a family member. heh.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Those that put into common use the // in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper.
/. referred to hidden files in the root directory. Perhaps the people who decided on the '/' character as the separator character and the '.' character as the beginning character of hidden files could make a claim, but those characters had significance long before the advent of URLs.
Heh...I wouldn't think so. I always thought
Paid my bucks and incoporated one. I felt like a new papa. Now all I have to do is wait for the paperwork to arrive and I'll go find out who's holding 4172381CanadaInc.com and kick their ass!
[Mods: Please DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN. This information affects all of us in one way or another and it needs to be seen by the masses.]
.cx registrar's forum, supporting the reinstatement of the domain.
On January 14, the Christmas Island Internet Administration abruptly disabled everyone's favorite domain, goatse.cx. All joking aside, this action brings up serious questions regarding registrars exercising control over the content of websites they don't host. Goatse's geek appeal as a cult phenomenon is arguably stronger than AYBABTU, and has been an omnipresent icon here at Slashdot for years. There's a petition, as well as a thread at the
Regardless of peoples' feelings about what was hosted at goatse.cx, arbitrary domain suspension due to content has potentially chilling effects. CIIA used a vaguely-worded clause in their registration agreement which allows them to disable any domain for any (or no) reason, even if the domain's operators aren't doing anything wrong and aren't otherwise in violation of the agreement. The suspension was apparently done with neither warning nor notice to the domain's owner.
Nearly all registrars maintain the right to take such action. However, to my knowledge this has never been done before, except in cases where the domain's owner was seriously violating the registration agreement in other ways - spamming, illegal activities, etc. - and even then only on rare occasions. The goatse situation essentially amounts to a web-based joe job, wherein the site's owner had no control over links to the domain or how they were used.
Until this week, I'd always been under the impression that it's a hosting provider's job to stop service to a domain. If a website contained content so controversial as to generate complaints, the hosting provider would make the decision as to whether or not to continue serving the domain. If the host declined, the domain's owner could simply move the site to a more tolerant host. And that's the way it should be.
With CIIA's action, the tables have turned, and a registrar - even if only a small player - has set a precedent for registrars playing the role of content moderator. While this could come in handy (imagine dotster.com, who are running Apache on some sort of Unix, suspending sco.com's registration just for the heck of it), it also makes the process of shutting down potentially controversial sites far too easy. What if the Public Internet Registry decides on a whim to disable landoverbaptist.org because "Landover takes parody too far for our liking," or freenetproject.org because "Freenet can be used for bad purposes," or slashdot.org because "there are too many radical thinkers on that site?"
Domain names are finite resources. If it's widely known that you can be found at example.com, and your webhost shuts you down because they don't approve of the content of your website, you can find another webhost and be back online within a day or so. But if your registrar suspends your domain because they don't approve of your site's content, you can't just go somewhere else and "buy a new copy" of your prime internet real estate. (Oddly enough, it appears that Google has decided to ignore links to goatse.cx; I'd been hoping to use the search results to demonstrate the domain's popularity, but no go.)
The finite nature of domains becomes even more of a problem with many ccTLD operators, who are frequently the sole registrars of their root domain. I should emphasize that goatse.cx was suspended, not deleted; the Christmas Island Internet Administration didn't remove goats
It is possible that someone could want to go to matrix.com instead of whatisthematrix.com, since Matrix is a popular brand of hair products that predates the movies. (At this point, Matrix styling gel is probably more popular than Matrix movies anyway...)