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."
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
What about the reverse? I recall a few years ago, a family named Miller had the domain for "MillerTime". The brewers sewed, and last I knew won. (I would provide a link, but it's been so long, I've lost where the the hell I found the story.) That was an example of the reverse, a company that didn't call "shotgun" on DotCom bandwagon and wanted to profit off of something someone else did first. Said family was using said domain for "Family Site" shit, and wasn't profiting off the name, there was little reason for the suit, save for the fact that MillerCo was whining 'cuz they didn't think of registering the domain first...
This is kindof like Spike Lee suing Spike TV because it uses "his" name.
Really. Go look!
Quick, let him know... now's his chance to get them for not having a legitimate web site!
~ Aero
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
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.
There is one problem with this argument. JRR Tolkien is a registered trademark of the Tolkien estate. Therefore, JRRTolkien.com is in violation of that trademark.
There actually are "magic reserved names", those names are called trademarks. They are covered by intellectual property law, and it is not up to domain name resellers to enforce them.
Also I can't see how you can claim that this guy made "no reference to JRR Tolkien". After all, the domain name was called JRRTolkien.com. You can't get a more blatant reference than that.
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.
Not only is that analogy inaccurate but it would be more accurate if it were reversed!
Try this for example.
SCO: We own all you source code!
Slashdotters: How so? We wrote it!
SCO: We just do!
Compared to:
Squatter: I own that domain!
JRR Tolkien Estates: Why should you? You chose the name of the domain specifically because it is the name of the author whom we represent. You are seeking to profit from the fame of his name which he gained through writing some amazing works of literature, the site which you put up doesn't even have anything to do with him!
Squatter: Well I wants it!
Yes it is sleazy and I don't see any reason why this company should be allowed to do it. They have provided no service and have deliberatly mislead people to their site suing the fruits of someones elses labour.
I stole this Sig
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).
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)?
This is why went I want to find something on the net I type it into google, rather than adding .com and typing it into my URL bar. google will tell me where the real site or sites are about what I want. For example, google will tell me that I can read about the Matrix (assuming I still want to read about the Matrix) at www.whatisthematrix.com rather than www.matrix.com (which will allow me to "Get Expert Personalized Hair Advice").
Honestly, are there still people out there who just add .com and type things into their URL bar expecting to see what they want? That's so 1997.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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?
There is a Macintosh apple? Or are you thinking of McIntosh apples (not trademarked to my knowledge)?
Not that the point is wrong, but well known trademarks tend to sue any other use, even if unrelated. For instance, Cal Tech (the university) disputed CalTech (the paint company) being allowed to use its name.
This makes finding a good example harder, but how about Apple (records) and Apple (computer)? Though I hear there is a potential conflict now over iTunes.
Obscure examples are plentiful, just look in different cities with the same name for similar businesses. I'll bet there is more than one Springfield Cleaners in the US.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)