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."

Comments

First bad joke post

[Anonymous Coward]

So now he'll have "one webring to rule them all --" oh forget it.

Re:First bad joke post

[Patik]

There needs to be an "unfunny" mod choice.

Re:First bad joke post

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Heh. I'd mod you up. Ignore the humorless cretins.

Re:First bad joke post

[wheresdrew]

But it'll be a "tolkien-ring" network, right?

Re:First bad joke post

[Jeremiah Blatz]

It's called "Overrated"

Re:First bad joke post

[VoyagerRadio]

I thought it was funny.

they got what they wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

you know everyone just clicked onto jrrtolkien.com and saw all their ads. the company is making their money back.

all is well

Re:they got what they wanted

[cgranade]

Unless we are so evil as to not click the ads, in which case we just /.ed not only jrrtolkien.com, but also their crummy adservers.

Re:they got what they wanted

[Merlyn MacGreine]

Yup, me included.

Damn internet, why can't it all be instantaneous?
"What, this URL now links to this server as of 2.2 seconds ago in a court four thousand miles away? OK, done."

Re:they got what they wanted

[sofakingl]

Some of us are running ad blocking software.

Re:they got what they wanted

[1u3hr]

The dumb thing is that they don't even have a token page about Tolkien to justify taking browsers there. If they'd bothered to crib together a page of bio and a dozen links they might have had a chance in court.

Re:they got what they wanted

[lamber45]

Agreed... this website isn't just funelling traffic, it's actually spamming the domain-name hierarchy.

Re:they got what they wanted

[herc_mk2]

Sorry, but your information about internet advertising is somewhat dated.

Virtually every ad in the internet space is now CPC (cost-per-click) and CPA (cost-per-action). In the CPC cost model, the advertiser pays per click, some of which makes it to the publisher of the website. With CPA, someone has to perform an "action" (i.e., fill out a credit card application, register on a website, etc.) for the advertiser to pay out.

The cost per impression model -- in awful advertising term, this is CPM ("cost-per-mil," where a mil is 1000) -- reached its peak around the same time as webvan.com did. CPM is a traditional (i.e., print and broadcast) advertising term that doesn't really apply very well to online advertising.

To make a long story short, seeing a banner ad doesn't help (or hurt) anyone. You're chewing up some bandwidth, that's about it.

The gold rush is over

[ObviousGuy]

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.

Re:The gold rush is over

[LouisZepher]

Well, the original homesteaders had it taken away by people who eventually became said corporations. This is just Manifest Destiny in web form.

Re:The gold rush is over

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Imagine if someone was renting all the land on the planet for twenty bucks for two years and porn companies rented all the usable farmland and then linked it all to one spot in Arizona with nothing on it but advertisements for porn that no matter how many sites you click through, you never find any any actual naked chicks, dammit.

Re:The gold rush is over

[Chess_the_cat]

Tolkien is dead. His estate is in charge now and they're very much a company. Regardless, I say if you registered the domain it belongs to you. What about that guy who was able to pick up hotmail.co.uk because Microsoft forgot to renew it? I say he should be under no obligation to return it. Same with guys who register celebrity names as domains. If it was important to the celebrity they should have something in place to protect the domains. Unless you think that companies and celebrities should be able to jump the queue and be able to take domains away from people at the time of their choosing. As an interesting aside, I remember an article in Wired years ago about how people were registering trademarks as domain names. Wired called McDonald's and told them that a guy registered mcdonalds.com and their response was "So?" Back then no one understood the Internet. Of course, some time later McDonald's strongarmed the guy into giving it back. No fair.

Re:The gold rush is over

[deathcloset]

I always wondered, why can't someone older than, but with the same name as, johnny depp claim intellectual property rights to www.johnnydepp.com ?

After all, older johnny had the name before younger famous johhny...right?

I mean, couldn't these sued-squatters at least have bought a fish, named him j.r.r and claimed the website was about their sea creature? would that have been all they needed to retain rights? or would they have needed a dog? perhaps a little boy?

I ask, because I know for a fact that there is another celine dion out there, and in my opinion she has just as much right to celinedion.com as the famous one who successfully sued for it (but has not the money as the vegas-diva name-counterpart).

heck, isn't there another j.r.r tolkien out there with rights to this domain? are any of the hiers even named j.r.r or John Ronald Reuel Tolkien for that matter ?....well, actually probably not...actually, there is probably never going to be anyone named that again (considering the google search of ""John Ronald Reuel" -tolkien -tolkin -tolkein"" still yielded hobbit-rich results)..... ......but you see my point!

ah, the shackles of the internet are starting to leave marks.....

Re:The gold rush is over

[Larry David]

I believe you can trademark your name, which might explain it. It was recently reported British entertainer 'Robbie Williams' has registered his name as a trademark so he has a better legal method to file suits against the manufacturers of fake/unofficial merchandise bearing his name. And a trademark almost ensures you win the domain name case..

Re:The gold rush is over

[PaulK]

This is just Manifest Destiny in web form.
So what would be the web form of the small pox blankets? MS ________(Insert product name here).

Cybersquatting is little different than tradmark theft. A company or individual that has worked for their recognition and reputation deserves the fruits of their labor.

There should be no need for litigation. There must be some way to mediate domain name disputes without lining the pockets of a lawfirm. Even if that were impractical, it could still be resolved in a small claims court if the actual cost of the registration was the only legal consideration. Value and revenue are issues that lead to squatting, but if the system was streamlined to quickly correct aberrant abuses with minimal cost, I'd bet that not many people would be willing to roll the dice.

Re:The gold rush is over

[cweagle]

"Why should I change my name - he's the one that sucks!" - Michael Bolton

Re:The gold rush is over

[LouisZepher]

Valid point. This particular case is different from another that I mentioned in a post below. In *this* case, the website owners are in the wrong.

Not that I rescind my comment, it applied well to the its parent, albiet not entirely accurately to this thread.

Re:The gold rush is over

[DerekLyons]

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.

Imagine you knew how homsteadering actually worked... It *wasn't* squatting, but a legal process. The homesteader had to lay formal claim to the land, and demonstrate that he could work and improve the land. Skip or screw up either step, and you lose the land.

Quite different from the squatters and thieves that hijack popular names for shady purposes.

Re:The gold rush is over

[Soporific]

Great, you gotta love all the cybersquatters who want to swipe domain names and hold them for ransom from people who want to use them legitimately, not by glomming on to some brand name that people type in expecting to get that brand and instead get Joe Fuckwads Huge Titty Site of Pop-Up, Under, Sideways Bonanza of Banner Ads Site.

~S

Re:The gold rush is over

[hugzz]

Even moreso if he's dead. Does George Washington's great great great grandchildren own the right to georgewashington.com over someone who's alive and named George Washington?

Re:The gold rush is over

[Chromodromic]

The law recognizes certain individuals as "public figures" with a set of rights that are separate from normal individuals.

And before you go all, "that's not fair!", just remember that the differences in rights of public figures aren't *always* (although frequently they are, I will grant you) in their favor.

For instance, in most states if I photograph or videotape you I can't use your image for personal financial gain (like, say, showing you on my reality TV show) without your permission, in most cases. But in the case of public figures, such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians, I most certainly can, as long as I'm telling the truth and as long as I'm being fair. Their image is recognized as having a symbolic value to the public over and above the value it has to that individual. This is why paparazzi can do what they do.

However, because these individuals are public figures, they own a piece of property that has value to them as well: their name. You can't call something Celine Dion Ice Cream, not unless the Celine Dion whose name is most likely meant to be used as a selling point gives her permission. It doesn't matter that there's another Celine Dion out there. Unless your other Celine Dion has established that her name has equal value in advertising or commerce, well, then the famous Celine trumps her because it's the famous Celine's name that is logically being used to pump the value of the ice cream, or what have you.

Re:The gold rush is over

[stwrtpj]

Tolkien is dead. His estate is in charge now and they're very much a company.

And naturally, as a Big Evil Company now, they're not entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Now, if we were talking about a domain that had a generic name, like onering.com, I might buy the argument. But jrrtolkien.com is extremely specific.

What about that guy who was able to pick up hotmail.co.uk because Microsoft forgot to renew it? I say he should be under no obligation to return it.

Explain your logic to me. What other use would someone want with a domain called hotmail except to screw MS? Or is this one of those "anything that screws MS is good" things? Note this is NOT the same as creating a domain called hotmailsucks.com or screw.this.hotmail.crap.com. Those are very obvious alternate uses of the hotmail name and I would agree in that case that they should not be taken away. To use a more relevant example, if the domain we're talking about was jrrtolkiensucks.com, then I'd lean towards the owner of the domain. But there is no reason to hold jrrtolkien.com except to 1) screw over the Tolkien estate and/or 2) lure people to your site making them think they were going someplace that actually had something to do with the author.

Same with guys who register celebrity names as domains. If it was important to the celebrity they should have something in place to protect the domains.

I would agree if the site was not EXACTLY the same name as the celebrity. If it were, for example, fansof[celebrity-name].org, then I'd say okay.

I don't care for frivilous cases of strong-arming domain names from people. At the same time, however, the rules, whether they be actual laws or just plain ettiquete, should be equal for all. Registering other people's trademarks and names as domain names (and I do mean names that are clearly distinctive trademarks and not common names that just happen to be parts of trademarks), in my mind, is breaking the rules.

Re:The gold rush is over

[Grym]

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

Re:The gold rush is over

[Pofy]

One can't just generally trademark a name. Trademarks are done in seperate sections (I don't know how many there are, but it is in the 20+ ammounts). For example, nothing prevents someone from registering a name for use with cars. Someone else can register the exact same name in the field of entertainmaint and so on. Take Diablo as an example, I recall seeing it as registered tradmark for cigarrs, cars and movie/games (a few similar fields) and possibly more, all by different companies. No problem at all. Sure, one can try to register ones name in ALL fields though. However, trademarks needs to be more or lesss activly used. You can't just register it and sit there waiting, you will then risk losing it (in say 5 years or something) to someone else.

For domain name cases it is for the same reason not at ALL a good reason to go with trademark since there can be many having registered the exact same name as a trademark. Who gets to use it? Obviously, no one else could use it in the filed someone else has it registered in, but other than that? Since top domains aren't grouped/named after trademark sections, it won't work well in many cases.

Re:The gold rush is over

[tommy_teardrop]

I live in perpetual fear that someone else with my name will become hugely rich and famous, and try to take my website away from me, and that me in my geeky science-guy and poor way, will be able to do nothing to stop them. What if the next boy-band happen to have someone with my name in the band, and he starts dating Brittany, and gets in a fight with Justin, and *boom* immeasurable fame and wealth come his way. The next thing you know he Trademarks his name and I not only lose my website, but I can never write, produce, sing, or artify small blocks of cheese in my own name.

Re:The gold rush is over

[lamber45]

Regardless, I say if you registered the domain it belongs to you. What about that guy who was able to pick up hotmail.co.uk because Microsoft forgot to renew it? I say he should be under no obligation to return it.

Unless you don't have any good rights in the domain name in the first place...

I live in Macomb county, Michigan, USA. The county sheriff's department had a website at macombsheriff.com, but the volunteer maintainer got tired of his duties, closed down the website, and sold the doamin to a third-party domain dealer. I'm thinking about writing to the county commissioners and telling them they should have used macomb.co.mi.us/sheriff/ as their main website instead.

(While I'm ranting about this, what's with all the junk in the .US domain? The other day I got about 15 pieces of spam all advertising two websites, both in .US, run by the same guy in the Netherlands and selling mail-order viagra or something. Right now, it's almost as bad as .biz. I guess all the government entities grabbing .com names have pushed the shady enties right on out.)

Re:The gold rush is over

[stephanruby]

Great choice of metaphor. Others would probably have compared this to the possession of an identity card which was not yours and a reputation which was not yours, but somehow your creative mind managed to find a metaphor that completely ignored those two little facts.

Would you mind if I borrowed your reputation and an official copy of your birth certificate? I swear I'm only going to use your reputation and your identity when I'm in a foreign country. This shouldn't matter to you, right? You'll probably never go to that foreign country anyway. And since everyone else is doing this already, your reputation won't really be tarnished because most people know that identity cards are meaningless anyway. So what do you say? Will you let me use all that wasted potential?

Re:The gold rush is over

[BiggerIsBetter]

Or to put it another way - this isn't about domain names at all. It's about trademark protection.

Re:The gold rush is over

[Aquitaine]

This information is a few years old and I may not remember properly, since I'm not in the Actor's Equity Guild or the Screen Actor's Guild. But IIRC, upon joining either of these guilds, your name does, in fact, become your trademark (this makes somse sense, if you think about it). So Johnny Depp the actor will almost always win over Johnny Depp the Other Guy.

This is one reason you see a lot of actors with three names. If someone else has your name and is already in the guild, you have to change your name or add a name.

Re:The gold rush is over

[McWilde]

Former Dutch prime minister Wim Kok was unable to obtain the domain wimkok.nl, because it was already owned by a bicycle store of the same name. I don't know who is older, but the bicycle store just registered for the domain first.

Re:The gold rush is over

[theKiyote]

I don't care for frivilous cases of strong-arming domain names from people. At the same time, however, the rules, whether they be actual laws or just plain ettiquete, should be equal for all. Registering other people's trademarks and names as domain names (and I do mean names that are clearly distinctive trademarks and not common names that just happen to be parts of trademarks), in my mind, is breaking the rules.

At this point in time, the internet is still somewhat free (as in speech, not as in beer.) According to the rules in place, anyone can register any .com domain name based only on whether or not the name has already been taken. And this is the way it should be.

You say that everyone should have equal rights to the rules, but, using myself as an example, if someone wanted to register my unusual last name (and they already have) I'd be powerless to stop them, irregardless of their intentions, due to financial restrictions. In this senario, I have a less then equal chance at getting it back. I have to roll with the punches and except the fact that the domain name is not mine.

Corporations should not be able to strong-arm ANY domain name. If they want the name bad enough, they should make an offer to purchase it.

--theKiyote

Re:The gold rush is over

[spentrent]

Dude, you can find ALL TEH NEKKID CHICKS YOU WANT at http://www.sex-paris-hilton.com

I swear! The gold rush never ended! Penis enlarge! Mortgages! Horny Housewives!

Signed, Dirty the Whore

Re:The gold rush is over

[Experiment 626]

True, Tolkien is dead, which begs the question of how long someone has to be dead before any random person can put up a Web site without consent of their officially designated "estate". Could I have a domain name about, say, Jules Verne? George Washington? Could some dork who who happens to be a descendant of Emperor Nero of Rome sue the pants off of Nero Burning Rom, or is the power of the estate to throw the deceased weight around somehow tied to copyrights? And with copyrights now effectively perpetual (thank you Disney), in the future will we in fact see "estates" of centuries-dead historical figures living off their fortuitous ancestry in a biziarre reinvention of the aristocracy?

Re:The gold rush is over

[wgnorm]

I took the opposite approach. I share my name with the famous golfer Greg Norman, and I can definitely relate to Michael Bolton in Office Space, since almost all my business meetings or job interviews start with someone seeing my name, laughing and saying "HEY - Greg Norman! You related to him?" or the much more common "So what's your handicap? HAHA!"

Sometimes they make it worse by adding "Bet you get that all the time huh?" or "You know there's a golfer named that right?" No, I had no idea there's a golfer named that. No, nobody has ever pointed it out before.

To solve the problem, I simply registered notthegolfer.com to use for my personal email address (the site is currently down).

It actually makes for a great ice-breaker and gets a good chuckle out of business partners and prospective employers, who then skip the obvious jokes. At my last job I had a co-worker who didn't really understand why I'd chosen that domain name. Then at a company christmas party a VP was walking around meeting us all and his eyes lit up when I introduced myself. He launched into the whole "Hey! Just like the golfer! What's your handicap...?" crap for several minutes. After he walked away, my co-worker finally leaned over and said "Dude, I just TOTALLY got your domain name..."

Re:The gold rush is over

[silicon not in the v]

I can't believe the one-sided belief in rights. Anything you think is good:
"I/They have every right to do that."
Anything you think is bad:
"They have no right to do that."

I agree with the parent here in terms of registering domains being a free market business opportunity. Domain names can be registered by anyone. If the company/celebrity was too slow to register the domain, then they should have to try to buy it from the person who registered it. They were, after all, the ones who were forward-thinking enough to realize that it would be valuable. Besides, the only ones powerful enough to make a difference on this also have enough money to entice someone to sell it.

It disgusts me to hear about the success of these court cases, where people who were on the ball enough to register a good domain have been forced to give it up because the bigger company (latecomers!!) decide they want it later.

Good Riddance

[svvampy]

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.

Re:Good Riddance

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

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.

A good ol' slashdotting to make them pay out the nose for the bandwidth charges their ISP will hit them up for, for starters...

Not famous yet

[rm -rf $HOME]

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!

Re:Not famous yet

[TheSunborn]

Nope. The base of the ruling was:

"was found to have no legitimate right"

What happend if the person who registered the domain later change name is anybodies guess :}

Re:Not famous yet

[marko123]

If you became famous, you would probably change your first name from "hugetits" anyway.

Re:Not famous yet

[MrFreshly]

The bastards took my site...said it was too close to some corporate name thing...whatever...

Regards,
Mike Rowsoft

Re:Not famous yet

[Paleomacus]

So what's this first name? You can't dangle something like that post out there and not give us our pay off!

Re:Not famous yet

[Jugalator]

So what's this first name?

I think it's "rm". Sounds unusual enough to me at least.

Re:Not famous yet

[avdp]

J.R.R. Tolkien was not an American, and neither is his estate. This is not corporate america.

Re:Not famous yet

[adrianbaugh]

rm certainly is an unusual name, but come to think of it your other names are pretty unusual too, Mr. $HOME. :)

Up next...

[gnu-sucks]

...JRR Tolkein: The Two Tower servers.

Re:Up next...

[Merlyn MacGreine]

Hell, I know I would buy one. Especially if it looked anything like Orthanc. Barad dur... maybe.

Choo Choo

[puppet10]

You mean the railroad is coming to town?

Re:Choo Choo

[bluGill]

I'm aware of no case where the railroad just took legaly held land without compensation. In the western US they were given a lot of land that was legally unheld (expect by indians, but there were treaties even if not in good faith, lets ignor that issue though) to build the railroad. They sold this land, and if you happened to be living on it, well the US government never recognised your right to live on that land.

Neat.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Wow. The law actually worked and wasn't evil or nothing for once. Good on them.

The domains of commerce

[DoctorFrog]

should be restricted to .com domains. That's what the TLD was supposed to mean. Any other TLD should be first-come, first-served.

Re:The domains of commerce

[Catharz]

should be restricted to .com domains. That's what the TLD was supposed to mean. Any other TLD should be first-come, first-served

That's what we do here with .com.au domains. You must have a registered business name that your selected domain name can be derived from. Of course, there were many people who thought that was too restrictive. In particular, the moron who writes for The Age and wanted property.com.au for a side venture of his. He gave Melbourne IT flack at every turn for not giving that domain to him (even though they weren't the ones who put the rules into place). AFAIK we also have similar rules for .org.au domains.

Re:The domains of commerce

[Ronny Cook]

That's what we do here with .com.au domains. You must have a registered business name that your selected domain name can be derived from.

Sadly no longer true: AU domain policies

The registering organisation must be a company, within a *very* loose definition - for example owning a registered trade mark qualifies you. The domain name must then either be derived from your organisation name (in a couple of obvious ways) *OR*:

c) be otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant, because the domain name refers to.
(i) a product that the registrant manufactures or sells; or
(ii) a service that the registrant provides; or
(iii) an event that the registrant organises or sponsors; or
(iv) an activity that the registrant facilitates, teaches or trains; or
(v) a venue that the registrant operates; or
(vi) a profession that the registrant's employees practise.

The rules were loosened about a year and a half ago, at about the same time as auDA took over management of the .AU domain.

Originally the requirement for org.au was that the domain not fit any of the other categories. The new (auDA) requirement is that the organisation be a charity or non-profit organisation.

Re:The domains of commerce

[LordLucless]

And also .net.au domains. In fact, it is impossible to get a personnal .au domain. Which is why I'm stuck with howsfamily.net instead of hows.net.au

Apparantly, the new ".id" TLD is going to be available to individuals. When they get around to making it.

Re:The domains of commerce

[yRabbit]

The domains of cybersquatters/spammers should be somehow restricted to .biz

And this is interesting because...?

[Enoch Root]

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?

Re:And this is interesting because...?

[Cosmik]

Would this have been news if it were www.pamelaanderson.com that got overruled?

You realise you're talking to bunch of nerds who don't get to see breasts all that often, don't you?

Re:And this is interesting because...?

[Hamstaus]

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.

You're just jealous because you missed out on owning sarahmichellegellarscpu.com, the original source for uncensored celeb pics of Buffy's CPU!

Re:And this is interesting because...?

[kjd]

That's a lie. Thanks to the Internet I see tits all the time.

Re:And this is interesting because...?

[1u3hr]

Would this have been news if it were www.pamelaanderson.com that got overruled?

For the curious, www.pamelaanderson.com looks legit, but www.pamanderson.com goes to the same celebrity1000 squatters.

Re:And this is interesting because...?

[JaredOfEuropa]

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?

It's not the cybersquatting that made it interesting, but the decision to turn the domain over to the Tolkien estate.

I have mixed feelings about this... I hate cybersquatters as much as the next guy, but what if some corporation decides it has more right to my domain name than I do, and asks the courts to give the domain to them? Such cases have already appeared in the past (one case involving McDonalds springs to mind). In one case, a judge ruled against a person owning a domain similar to his last name... the judge ruled that since the guy didn't use the domain, he was cybersquatting. Not "Using" it in this case meant not having a website there (the guy didn't have one); using the domain for a well-established mailing list and IRC server apparently didn't count.

Unless...

[ath0mic]

www.celebrity1000.com contains nude pics of JRR Tolkien I think they are out of luck :p

Re:Unless...

[eyegone]

I'd say that if they do contain nude pictures of J.R.R. Tolkien they're out of luck. I guess I'm just weird that way.

Re:Unless...

[ath0mic]

D'oh, that got modded as Flamebait? ... ahh well, my last attempt at humour.

Sides of a Coin

[Renraku]

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!"

Re:Sides of a Coin

[swordgeek]

You're right, but the question is, at what point does squatting lose its legitimacy?

Imagine people running around in a virgin country, sticking up signs every thirty miles or so at random, saying "this is my land." Should they be able to collect on it all, if those signs are the only claim they have?

Conversely, if they grab a spot of land, homestead it, and live on it, then it's pretty clear that they should be able to keep it. Even just living in a tent on unimproved land is a valid claim.

This is, potentially at least, the first case. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it all.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[Plocmstart]

What about other squatter websites that I'd like to have just to make into something useful that don't necessarily have anything to do with my name or whatever? Would the same thing apply? Should there be some sort of content audit on websites and if your site sucks you lose your "license" to own that domain? Then of course who gets to do this reviewing? Oh well the government will kick all us "Indian" Internet squatters off the vast plains of the net eventually anyways.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Imagine people running around in a virgin country, sticking up signs every thirty miles or so at random, saying "this is my land." Should they be able to collect on it all, if those signs are the only claim they have?

I don't know. Do they have a flag?

Re:Sides of a Coin

[loucura!]

We don't need a flag, we live here. Millions of us, we've got culture and civilization.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[iansmith]

I entirely disagree.

Running around collecting free or cheap items and hording them to ransom off is simple greed. Remember the company that bought up all those vaccenes a while ago so they could crank up the price and most small hospitals couldn't afford them?

Calling it a valid comercial enterprise and "just the way the free market works to maximize the value of a product" does not make it morally right. Just because something you are doing involved money does NOT mean you can throw morality out the window.

I strongly dislike cybersquatters and anyone else who makes money purely off being a greedy bastard. Lots may do it, it may be legal, but they are stikk jerks.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[slowbad]

There is the side of the coin that says "United States" and the side that says
"in god we TRVST

There was no confusion to the public at the website in question.
Trademarks and copyrights are there to protect consumers, not companies.

--
This concludes the shameless link to domain for sale! Cheap!!

Re:Sides of a Coin

[jred]

What if instead of signs they paid a company $15/yr. for the right to use that land in the future, if they so chose? They wouldn't go gobbling up land unless they thought it would be worth something. $15 isn't a lot of money, but that depends on how many parcels of land you're buying. You don't see many people registering aabbcc112233.com. There's no reason to. The fact that they paid $15 to reserve the name proves they had an interest in the "property".

Re:Sides of a Coin

[Snoopy77]

I believe that at least in old English law you actually had to work the land and fence it.

In the web case it seems it was just forwarding on to some other site. You would hardly say that the site was developed.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[geekoid]

If I see a piece of land I know McDonalds is gong to want, I'll buy it, then charge more to McDonalds when they show up.

I buy low, sell high.

As long as the person sticking signs in the groung is also paying the approprite registration title fees, taxes, and abied the rules and laws of property ownership, than more power to them.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[Aardpig]

Imagine people running around in a virgin country, sticking up signs every thirty miles or so at random, saying "this is my land."

Except, of course, we all know it wasn't a virgin country. Somebody already lived there. They're mostly dead now, but at least they got attack helicopters named after them, as compensation for being ethnically cleansed.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[mubar]

That works much better as an analogy.

Additionally, people are complaining how "this poor guy" (ie. celebrity1000 or whatever) paid like whopping $50 for the domain, and so should have somehow the justification for it. Well, their ad revenue from that redirect alone is probably quite a lot higher than that, judging by the number of ads in their real site. The whole domain is set up to trick people who, in search for some info of Tolkien, write 'jrrtolkien' on location bar. I say the judging now is completely fair like it has been in numerous other cases already.

Re:Sides of a Coin

[swordgeek]

This is true, but we have a formal ruling on internet names which prevents this sort of thing.

Ten years ago (man, was it really that long?) if you registered coke.com, then you could sell it for whatever price you could get. A few years later, either IANA or ICANN decided that this was no longer fair game, and laid down the law. From that point forward, squatting solely for the sake of profit-taking would no longer be allowed.

Now did those people who were squatting get screwed by this ruling? Yep, I'd say they did. However, that was some time ago--anyone who deliberately registers a famous domain name and then doesn't use it for reasonable purposes can fully expect this sort of thing. In fact, they can almost guarantee that it'll happen, sooner or later.

Note also that by ruling against squatting like this, they are implicitly assigning an inherent meaning to the domain name, as a measure of its value. In fact, the name itself and the meaning assigned to it is the ONLY measure of value it has.

Let's also not forget just why (and how strongly) squatting was censured, up until the web got firmly established. The internet was originally set up as a noncommercial, nonprofit entity. That's clearly gone by the wayside, but I don't see why that means we need to strictly enforce aggressive opportunistic capitalism at every turn.

Hold on a tic...

[sillypixie]

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

Re:Hold on a tic...

[Drakon]

People who are looking for porn know where to look. Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed. If not because they make it harder to find things that should be on those domains, then because they make it harder to find porn. ;-)

Re:Hold on a tic...

[marko123]

If I was famous, I'd like to be able to pass on my marketability to my loved ones. That includes copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.

I imagine most people who made a living as writer would feel the same way.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[bckrispi]

Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed.

They are. Specifically, squatting a porn site on a domain name that can be misleading (e.g. whitehouse.com) was made illegal with the federal Amber Alert law last year.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[a1ok]

Well, since the summary says its the estate of JRR Tolkien ... I would imagine they have a much better claim to it than Alberta Hot Rods. Although I do think this is an exception, usually the laws are used to snatch domains away from individuals or families who do have some claim on them, but not enough $$$ to defend the rights in court.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[sillypixie]

Porn sites who buy domains that have nothing to do with porn should be outlawed

I suppose, but when I go looking for porn, I do not necessarily immediately type "porn.com" into the address box of my browser...

Would it have made a difference to you then, if there had been a LoTR fan site at jrrtolkien.com?

If I google on tolkien, I do not find celebrity1000.com in the top 200 entries returned, so I really fail to see how they could possibly could interfere in anybody's search for anything...

Alberta Hot Rods is getting better publicity by having you all surf to the site in outrage, increasing their hit count by a bzillion times, than they probably ever EVER had by the few people who type "jrrtolkien.com" into their browser on a whim...

Don't feel bad though - lots of people have trouble finding porn on the internet, I understand your dilemma...

*grin*

Pixie

Re:Hold on a tic...

[sillypixie]

Hehehe, somebody should change their name to Mr/Ms Alberta Hotrods, and sue for THAT domain name (-:

That'd teach em...

Pixie

Re:Hold on a tic...

[MissMarvel]

Do pardon me for holding an alternate opinion, but I think the issue has more to do with "fairness in advertising" than with making money off a famous name.

People linking to jrrtolkien.com have a right to expect a site associated with Tolkien and his work. Think how confusing it would be if you linked into www.nasa.com and found a full-page ad for ladies underwear.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[Breakfast Pants]

Great; Tolkien never had a trademark on his name. This is a totally different thing than standard IP laws, this is basically that california initiated bullshit where you own a fucking trademark on your physical appearance; you had NOTHING to do with the way your appearance is and yet you OWN intellectual property on it (and its also exclusive to if you are famous or not). This is not fully true in the case of all the crazy ass plastic surgery that goes on but still; its one thing to right the 4th lord of the rings under the psuedo-name tolkien and a whole fucking different thing to have a website that has nothing to do with the man and use that name.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[jred]

Why not state the obvious here, www.whitehouse.com?

Re:Hold on a tic...

[raytracer]

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?

There is something called The Right of Publicity. In short, it is the right for a person to keep his identity from being exploited for commercial gain without his permission. This protection can last beyond death, but varies by state.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[Aardpig]

Specifically, squatting a porn site on a domain name that can be misleading (e.g. whitehouse.com) was made illegal with the federal Amber Alert law last year.

Except that 'Whitehouse' is the name of a lower-echelon upper-shelf magazine which has been in print in the UK for quite a while now. How, therefore, can they object to whitehouse.com?

(As an aside, I'm highly amused that you think the Whitehouse should be under a .com TLD. You cheeky liberal, you!)

Re:Hold on a tic...

[tommy_teardrop]

Rather than "InfoSonar.com Targeted Advertising Network", which is what you do get if you go to nasa.com.

I hate these sites, but what if, rather than a sitter site, it was "Negligee and Sexy Allures", with a full-page ad for ladies underwear? There are plenty of legitimate sites that potentially deserve nasa.com more than NASA do, since NASA are a government agency, not a corporation. Just because it's what you first think of when you hear those letters stuck together, doesn't mean that everyone in the world thinks of that first.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The estate of the writer (usu. the surviving family) still owns a good many years after the death of the writer. Something like 75 or so years, check the copyright laws.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[RupW]

(As an aside, I'm highly amused that you think the Whitehouse should be under a .com TLD. You cheeky liberal, you!)

Yeah, but people do pick the wrong TLD. whitehouse.org, one of the better parodies, gets lots of feedback from people who think it's the real thing - e.g. over the recent immigration policy (parody here).

Re:Hold on a tic...

[theKiyote]

Don't feel bad though - lots of people have trouble finding porn on the internet, I understand your dilemma...

I personally use PersianKitty. Works great with pop-up blocking mozilla ^_^

--theKiyote

Re:Hold on a tic...

[bckrispi]

Except that 'Whitehouse' is the name of a lower-echelon upper-shelf magazine which has been in print in the UK for quite a while now.

Hmm, if that's the case, than it should be ok. Actually, I'm not sure if the owner whitehouse.com has gotten into trouble yet. I did read a month or so ago that the first arrest had been made of one of the more notorious porn-squatters. His tactic was to redirect from misspellings of popular domains, including Yahoo and Disney.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[marko123]

Good morning, Mr Breakfast Pants.

My point was about the marketability of a name, which is what makes a name valuable. In terms of domain names, whatever laws are applicable will be used to defend the fair use of one's own name, especially when other people are seeking to profit off it (by directing people to websites with advertising on them in most cases)

When other people make money from your own good name one day, you may change your mind about the value of legally being able to protect it for your own profit, perhaps by making the people who want to make the money pay you some kind of a licence fee.

Just a thought.

Re:Hold on a tic...

[DigitalCrackPipe]

You mean like whitehouse.com? I pop jokes about that site every once in a while and get blank stares... I wonder how many people have visited it later to find out why I was laughing about this "government" web site.

Really, any web site that has significantly different content than you would expect from the name is lame - so I don't shed any tears for cybersquatters who loose their domains.

Might doesn't always make right

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Makes sense to me

[Ignorant Aardvark]

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?!

Re:Makes sense to me

[Ignorant Aardvark]

It seems to me like .biz would be even more restricted than .com ... why would you suggest different rules? And it doesn't seem to me like .biz has ever really gotten launched, or ever really will be. .com for .company is good enough ... why would we need a .biz for .biziness?

Re:Makes sense to me

[KD5YPT]

According to law, he would. Since when both side have a legitimate "trademark" claim, it became a whose here first. Of course, it might be hard to uphold in court if the guy who happens to be called JRR Tolkien did it just to extort money.

Re:Makes sense to me

[Ignorant Aardvark]

It seems to me though that the J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote the Lord of the Rings would have come before the current (hypothetical) J.R.R. Tolkien who laid claim to the domain name, so wouldn't precedence be established in this case? If I name my kid Microsoft and he goes on to register Microsoft.com on Internet3 (or whatever), will his claim to the domain be legitimate, or will it matter that the trademark was around before the child was named?

Can no one born these days have the same name as someone "famous", at least in regards to protecting their right to register their names as trademarks? Better start naming your kids now, before all of the good company-sounding-names are taken.

Re:Makes sense to me

[TheAntiCrust]

Umm, .com is short for .commercial... not company.
Just being picky =)

Re:Makes sense to me

[geekoid]

No. First come first serve.

Of course, If I ran things the LOTR would have become public domain by now.

Re:Makes sense to me

[emh0]

I don't know how much UK law differs in this area, but here there was a case a couple of years ago when the .me.uk domain opened up, where a guy registered nokia.me.uk. When Nokia sued him, he claimed that nokia was his irc name, and he almost won, until the Nokia lawyers discovered his was a lying bastard and had also registered sony.me.uk, bmw.me.uk and a whole load of others. But if he'd been telling the truth, he would have won the case, and thats just based on an irc name, so in a case involving someone's real name I should think they almost certainly would have a valid claim over it.

Too restrictive?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

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.

Re:Too restrictive?

[KD5YPT]

Just another suggestion. Since most corporation want their domain name to be clean, why don't you just register a jrrtolkien-unofficial.com or something to that effect and leave this top-level domain thing along?

Re:Too restrictive?

[Herkum01]

You should be able to, infact you probably could. However the guy who was cybersquatting had no tangible or intangible relationship with anything tolkien he just snagged and said MINE!

Re:Too restrictive?

[MrFreshly]

Both domain names ARE available...so someone ought to get to writting that book, before the wicked Canadians get to it.

Re:Too restrictive?

[ImpTech]

But how is it ok for a business's name to be protected and *not* a person's name? That seems inconsistent to me. And really, I could see the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien having a somewhat legitimate claim that the name is their trademark.

Internet Papparazzi

[SUJovian]

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.

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[Trejkaz]

It was allowed because the global .com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as .com.au.

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[Jugalator]

It was allowed because the global .com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as .com.au.

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. That would make that one a bit more used. Or maybe that obscure .biz would be even better. I always thought that .com should not only be for COMmercial, but for real COMpanies too. :-(

Yeah, imagine the work to get all this done, imagine the technical problems, and imagine the law suits and... yeah. But one can dream. :-)

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[jdavidb]

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.

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[hcduvall]

Who deserves the domain names anyway? Obviously, this is a case of a company taking advantage of a the fame of a celebrity, and you could argue that they're diluting trademark and taking advantage of the situation, but if I'm John Doe New York, and I get johndoe.com, and so big celebrity has the same name, do they get to sue me to get it?

I think Madonna tried something like that...and there was a member of the Rolling Stones (Bill Wyman?) who sued a newspaper columnist for using his name. Except the columnist was older. And had his name from birth, unlike the band member.

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[mwood]

"Honestly, are there still people out there who just add .com and type things into their URL bar expecting to see what they want?"

Yeah, me. I've developed a feel for the likelihood of any particular subject being easy to find. (Works well for Toyota, not so well for Andy's Grill.)

For the ones I think will be harder, I tend to use (are you sitting down?) 'whois'. Remember whois?

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[Pope]

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

You're right. Nowadays people just go to their AOL search or MSN search home page and type the URLs into the search form, instead of just typing the damn URL into the address bar.

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[mph]

Remember whois?

Yeah, isn't that a protocol for the repeated distribution of Verisign legal boilerplate?

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[Trejkaz]

I just hope they never clean up .net, because that's where my domain is. ;-)

Re:Internet Papparazzi

[abramul]

I occasionally do that. It can be funny :]

If said homesteaders

[KalvinB]

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

Re:If said homesteaders

[LouisZepher]

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...

Re:If said homesteaders

[Hamstaus]

The brewers sewed,

No no, you have it all wrong. Brewers brew... it's tailors that sew. In rare cases of sewing involving wool and people's eyes, you will find that lawyers might be involved as well.

Re:If said homesteaders

[DerekLyons]

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...

MillerCo was laying claim to a domain that contained a trademarked phrase. Rightly or wrongly they had a legal claim. In a similiar case a gentleman who owned a domain with his family name, which also happened to be the name of a famous pasta, was awarded continued custody.

Re:If said homesteaders

[LouisZepher]

Karma-crap aside, how is this a troll? I posed a legitamate question that was related to the topic. I may have editorialized a bit, favoring the plantiff, but I hardly see it as anything troll-like.

Would someone mind pointing out how this comment was a troll, so I can avoid the offense in the future?

Re:If said homesteaders

[Aardpig]

As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.

What, and the same can't be said of those profiting off Tolkien's estate?

Re:If said homesteaders

[danila]

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.

And since when is it wrong to profit off of other people's names? Is it wrong to make a computer game called Caesar? To make parfume called Napoleon? To make cigarettes called Peter I? To make vodka called Rasputin? Or is it suddenly ok when there are no greedy heirs left?

I don't like cybersquatting, but it should not be declared wrong, simply because he used a name of yet another dead guy. The name is not a trademark, it's not a copyrighted work, it's not a patent. The judges who made this decision are idiots and Tokien's estate is a bunch of pathetic jerks.

As a Tolkien fan I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

it's what you do with the domain that counts

[mabu]

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.

Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts

[form3hide]

my uncle's friend's brother's nephew's old roommate actually had the domain AOL.com for.....

Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

No... What you do with your domain is your own buisness. You can not regulate what people do with their domain. Thats just stupid. What would the people at cloneyourbone.com beforced to do on their webpage? clone their penises, or clone their femurs?

Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts

[MrEd]

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.

What, like "African Americans On-Line"? :/

Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts

[Comatose51]

I think you have to do more than that. You might want to check out the Panavision case.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/legalaspects/panavision_d om ain.html

If you're clearly out to damage someone's ability to use their own trademark, you are cybersquatting. The defendant in the case had a "legitamate" use for the domain; he had a site with aerial views of Pana, Illinois. But on further examination, it became clear that his intention was to spoil the domain name for Panavision and then selling it back to them. Likewise, if AOL can prove that was what your friend was trying to do, they would probably win the case.

Re:it's what you do with the domain that counts

[DerekLyons]

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.

That's a very iffy example, because it depends on a very unusual spelling for 'Jimmy'.

Re:A what if...

[KD5YPT]

Actually they can't, it's called trademark infringement, good faith or not. Although you might be able to get your money back.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[ctxspy]

Yeah but apparently you're wrong, as evidenced by this entire article.

funny that it still redirects...

[bbdd]

...to the celeb site.

Re:funny that it still redirects...

[bbdd]

come to think of it, why make tolkien's name redirect to some vapid celeb fan site? i don't think this is going to draw your core audience of empty-headed fluff-worshippers.

maybe try something like www.parishilton.com next time (which you can see here is also taken, but not by paris hilton).

Common sense finally wins!

[bshroyer]

Nowif only we could find a way to introduce SCO to the WIPO.

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[KD5YPT]

But it should be within reason. It is overstepping free speech when someone registered for a domain of a person name with the sole purpose of using said name for their own benefit. Now, having a clear variation on that (michael_jackson_loves_kids.com) does not overstepping free speech, since you're declaring, through your domain name, what your website content should be. Now, if you just registered michaeljackson.com and link it to a porn page, you not only overstep the bound but went into fraud. When people type in michaeljackson.com, they expect Michael Jackson, not some porn site, nor some site saying he is a pedophile (to be honest, I don't like him and I don't care, but just using the example given). When people type in JRRTolkien.com, they expect stuffs on J.R.R. Tolkien, NOT Celerbrity 1000 ad.

WIPO?

[Adrian Lopez]

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?

Re:WIPO?

[nilenico]

Check out WIPO.

Cutting and pasting:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.

With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection.

Look here for their info on what they do with cybersquatting.

What's the issue?

[Zebbie]

From the Reuters article:

Tolkien's estate has given publishers Harper Collins exclusive license over the sale of books, audio tapes and other merchandise related to the late Oxford academic.

This line does not imply to me that Harper Collins has exclusive rights to anything and everything with the tag of "J.R.R. Tolkien." It states that Harper Collins has rights to various forms of media and merchandise related to John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892-1973). They can not hold rights to the name, as anyone can name their child in such a way as to produce that name, and anyone can legally change their name to match accordingly. Obviously one can't just start mass producing lunchboxes with "Lord of the Rings" plastered on the side, but they should have no legal rights over the name itself, only the name as relating to the specific person.

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.

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[scotch]

Who cares what people expect? You have no innate right to the exclusive use of your name, no matter who you are. The intellectual property meme has mutated beyond all common sense. If people expect one thing, and get another, they'll soon learn to expect something else. Maybe even they'll learn to use better tools for finding information on the web than typeinsthingofinterest.com (who does that anymore, anyhow? just type it in google). People need to realize that domain names are not a good index or indication of content. All of these cases show that. The small space of names indicate that. The overlap of content names, acronyms, business names, etc. make it inevitable. These disuputes are all a waste of time and money. The sooner we go to first-come-first-serve domain names, the sooner they become truly meaningless, and the sooner the world turns to better information location systems, and the sooner the bottom-feading scum that are domain squatters will have to go find another scummy business to annoy all the hard working upstanding people of the world with.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Well..

[Theatetus]

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...

Re:Well..

[LouisZepher]

Uhm...DUH! That's what I meant! If ya really wanna get off-topic, could we use the smallpox-riddled blankets as a reason for the UN to send inspectors to the US, as it does have a history of using biological weapons against innocent people that were merely uprising against their oppresors?

Great news, now can we get the snipers?

[Martigan80]

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.

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

IF i link michaeljackson.com to porn, it is NOT fraud. Thats silly. Its free speech, perhaps my name is michaeljackson ? Perhaps i've created a cartoon character named michaeljackson that is my porno mascot... or perhaps theres no association to michaeljackson at all... I dont have to link it to porn. It could be blank... It doesnt matter. If you register it, you own it. Thats the way it should be.. Fair is Fair. If Michael Jackson cared enough about his carear, he would have registered it first... YES its all about money. DUH. Thats the point. This is captialism, where the stock market is run by crooks, and fud, bullshit quarterly reports are the norm... If you own land, you own land.

Fairness in Advertising? Hahahaha...

[sillypixie]

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

Another example

[Safety Cap]

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.

Re:Another example

[gujo-odori]

I remember that case, and I'm sad to see how it turned out. The court sure goatsed him. The commercial use to which he was previously putting that domain name was his small business, a computer shop, IIRC. Nothing whatsoever to do with cars, and he'd been in business for years under his name, since the days when Nissan still called itself Datsun in North America.

Poor guy. He really got shafted. Guess which Japanese auto maker will have a zero percent chance of selling me my next car?

Re:Another example

[sg_oneill]

Honestly.

The dude should of taken countersuit against nissan motorcars and demanded they cease and desist using the name nissan to trade under.

I find it baffling that in the land of the free, only the big get to be free.

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I want to add, that its SLEEZY to do yes... But it is not WRONG. Tasteless and ILLEGAL are not the same thing.

Let me be the first to say....

[Kenja]

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.

...and Rob & Jeff invented the slash and the d

[Muddie]

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.

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.

/opinion

Spike Lee and Spike TV

[btakita]

This is kindof like Spike Lee suing Spike TV because it uses "his" name.

Re:Spike Lee and Spike TV

[caffeineHacker]

Yet that didn't hold up in court, but somehow this one managed to? I guess only corporations and celebs have rights in the US anymore.

Re:Spike Lee and Spike TV

[CosmeticLobotamy]

It's slightly more like Spike Lee suing Spike Lee TV for using his name.

Proper noun

[Omni Magnus]

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?!

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.

If the headline was....

[caffeineHacker]

Microsoft won a cybersquatting case against Penguins Incorporated, a Canadian-based operator which registered microsoft.com and linked it to its pro-Linux.

Then everyone would be in an uproar, but simply replacing the proper nouns can make a story good or evil on Slashdot.

It's STILL not in use

[Aero Leviathan]

Really. Go look!

Quick, let him know... now's his chance to get them for not having a legitimate web site!

How is this different?

[caffeineHacker]

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.

Re:How is this different?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How is this different?

[citog]

No, they are attempting to profit from the assets of the JRR Tolkien estate. In so doing it could also be claimed that they are affecting the value of the assets. The difference between the cases of the estate and SCO is the existence of relevant substantiating evidence.

Re:How is this different?

[caffeineHacker]

So if my name is Joseph Randal Rudolph Tolkein, I'm a living breathing trademark violation? How can someone's name be a trademark? It's like those prisoners who trademarked their names, and sued the courts later for using it in legal documents. Guess what? That didn't hold up in court, so why should this? Can I trademark "Anonymous Coward" and sue Slashdot for the billion+ uses of it? No! If I was a big corporation that made a movie called "Anonymous Coward" could I do it then?

And I'm assuming "jrrtolkien.com" wasn't a trademark but maybe "JRR Tolkien" was, but the site never used that phrase. Microsoft owns the trademark for "NT" but they can't go around suing people who use the word 'rant' because it contains their trademark. It sets a horrible precident for corporations to start suing for trademark violations based on more frivolous logic.

Re:How is this different?

[quantaman]

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.

Re:How is this different?

[Grym]

You're missing the point. Somebody SOLD that domain to someone other than JRR Tolkien Estates. But they aren't getting sued because they aren't as easy a target as the "sleazy" company. Compare that to regular affairs. If I were to knowingly sell something stolen to somebody, I'd get in trouble; not them.

The problem is with the system, and this whole progress-stifling mentality of "I got there first! All your profit are belong to us!" that permeates patents, copyrights, trademarks, and so on.

As much as I hate taking the side of SCO, it's on similar ground as Tolkein Estates. The only difference is that here at Slashdot we are supposed to instinctively take the side of Tolkien and hate the SCO.

-Grym

Re:How is this different?

[robnauta]

That's a sad fact of life. If your name is Harrison Ford, but you're not the actor, you cannot really get www.harrisonford.com even if it's available. The general public associates that name with the actor, so even if it's registered to you he can claim it afterwards anyway.
It's like getting passed a counterfeit $20 bill and getting caught for trying to spend it. In that case you never get your $20 back, because what you were trying to spend wasn't $20 in the first place. A domain name taken away because it's a trademarked name wasn't a valid domain name anyway and you have no rights to it.
First-come first-serve only applies for neutral names.

The guy got raped, pure and simple.

[Mulletproof]

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.

Re:The guy got raped, pure and simple.

[MyFourthAccount]

although I agree with you in certain ways, I'd have to ask one thing: would you write the same if the guy had registered windows.com?

btw. Tokkien???? I'm not a fan, but I know better than that. ;-)

Re:The guy got raped, pure and simple.

[Mulletproof]

Ok, busted JRR Tolkien's spelling :p
Actually, yeah, I'd give him the same lattitude for Windows.com as I would give with JRRTolkien.com. After all, doesn't Angela Windows have the same claim? And even if it weren't a last name, I'd still give it to him. Again, he obtained it legally, just like a piece of real life land. Just because the land he bought happens to have a vally named Tolkien Valley doesn't mean jack squat. Tolkien, nor his predessessors have any legitimate prior claim to it in any way, shape or form. He bought it, they didn't and now the land is worth something. Looks like they missed a prime investment opportunity that he didn't.

Sorry fo the Tolkien Estate. They missed out just like any other land/stock deal. Tough shit. But you can purchase it at todays prices-- Whatever the man is asking.

Re:The guy got raped, pure and simple.

[Derekloffin]

I'm sorry, but there is one crucial thing you are forgetting. Land is a real thing, but names are assigned. A domain name is nothing more than an entry on a server that says name-X points to IP-Y. These two are not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination. In your example, this would be more a matter of the estate coming up and saying you cannot call that hill JRRTokkien hill without their permission, which frankly they are not willing to give. Since, to match our Internet example, the original namer of the hill also did not get permission to use the name, and the name is actually based on JRRTokkien and not some 17th century explorer who happened to have the same name, this is indeed a illegal use of someone else's name to sell your product/service and, whether you got the name by getting by some minimum wage county assessor or not doesn't matter, you still are using it illegally. You therefore should have to change the name of that hill.

At last, someone who knows...

[sillypixie]

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

Re:...and Rob & Jeff invented the slash and th

[Aardpig]

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?

Cool...

[inode_buddha]

another whole generation gets to learn about such things as "nslookup", "host", and "dig"!

Bummer...

[inode_buddha]

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

"Alberta Hot Rods" still available

[IvyMike]

Ironically, as far as I can tell, www.albertahotrods.com is still open.

whois -h magic albertahotrods.com

Crsnic.net hasn't heard of albertahotrods.com

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

No match for "ALBERTAHOTRODS.COM".

(Not sure if that's the best way to check, but register.com and a few other domain registrars agree.)

Depends

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Depends

[adrianbaugh]

Though surely there's an argument that you'd have been better off with cisco.org for a personal homepage. I have no idea which way it would go, but I bet Cisco Corp's lawyers would play heavily on that.
John Cisco's best chance of keeping the domain, I reckon, would be to set up as a small business called Cisco in a field absolutely nothing to do with computers - pre-folded origami kits, or as a reseller of picture tacks, something like that - register a trademark and use the domain for business purposes.

Am I the only one that thinks the TLD is actually a really good thing and should be used far more rigorously (only companies in .com, .biz, .co.uk etc, only TV stuff in .tv, and a better range of TLDs available so that there's an obvious one for personal homepages (I guess .info is okay but that seems really generic)?

Re:Depends

[Ignorant Aardvark]

I think you've got a really good point there. If TLDs were used more, this whole issue would already be solved. Cisco, the network corporation, would be able to lay claim to www.cisco.biz, because they are the largest corporation in the world with "Cisco" in its name, while www.cisco.per (.per for .personal) would be reserved for the first person named Cisco to reserve it. This way you wouldn't have problems with conflicts between people and businesses over .com domains.

So all corporate entities are evil then?

[WebCowboy]

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).

Re:So all corporate entities are evil then?

[dtobias]

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.

Though, if it's a non-commercial venture, it would have made more sense in a .org domain instead of .com.

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're right. There's no moral reason why. It's just convenience. When my kid types in www.gapkids.com, I don't want to see a banner ad for hot, naked girls. More importantly, when old people type in www.mastercard.com, I want them to get Mastercard's site, not Alberta Creditscam Co.'s. Sometimes the decisions suck, and Bob Gapkids would get it taken away, but that's life.

Corruption is the problem. The law is fine.

That's a big buffalo chip...

[WebCowboy]

...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.

of course not...

[WebCowboy]

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).

(formatted re-post)

[Grym]

(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

That's not exacly the case....

[WebCowboy]

"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.

Re:That's not exacly the case....

[Grym]

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.

But here's the thing, you're assuming that the legal system is fair and balanced towards all parties. This isn't the case. If I invented some great product and let's say Microsoft (or any large corporation for that matter) sees it, copies it, and files the patent first. I have little to NO CHANCE of getting it revoked. Because after the flurry of papers, alligations, and FUD by their pack of million-dollar-priced lawyers, there's not a jury or judge in the world that will rule in my favor.

See, what bothers me is that the laws AREN'T being enforced as they were intended. SURE, the law might SAY incremental changes can't be patented, but where was that when One-click shopping (or whatever it was) was "invented."

The real difference here is that the system in place is screwing wealthy coporations/persons, instead of the way its *supposed* to be.

-Grym

Re:That's not exacly the case....

[LJM0625]

Because after the flurry of papers, alligations, and FUD by their pack of million-dollar-priced lawyers, there's not a jury or judge in the world that will rule in my favor.

Actually, that wouldn't likely be decided by a jury. It's possible that it would be decided in an interference proceeding by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. You would attempt to show (based on your *documentary evidence*) that you invented your fabulous product first. Also, only the true inventor can file a patent application, so if you can show that MS "derived" their invention from you, they don't get a patent. It may be true that the party with more money (or the one with Lawyers on salary) can make things difficult for the one with less, but that's a product of the capitalist economic system in which we live rather than of the legal system. The law is balanced toward all parties. It's what allows small companies to prevail over large ones, even if you choose not to acknowledge those triumphs. It's the economics of the world in which we live that favors the wealthy, the law is an attempt to bring balance to an unbalanced world.

SURE, the law might SAY incremental changes can't be patented...

Where does the law say that? The law says that an invention must be "useful," "novel" and "non-obvious." Nothing about no "incremental changes." How would that be defined, anwyway?

And by the way, the word "obvious" has a different meaning in patent law than it does in normal English. In normal English, the word means, "readily apparent, or easily understood." In patent law, it means something closer to "A person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (usually seen as the filing date) could have made this invention by combining the teachings of prior art references A, B and C." This is a very subjective definition, so of course it can always be argued that my invention is not obvious. Apparently Amazon was able to convince the patent Examiner that the invention claimed in the One-click patent was not obvious. It's a point on which reasonable people may (and clearly do) disagree. The real problem with software/internet patents seems to be a lack of a useable database of prior art that includes all of the things that people seem to think it should.

Speaking of Rent...

[Mulletproof]

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.

Looks like Nissan.com has almost lost the battle

[Mustang Matt]

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.

Re:A what if...

[stephanruby]

May be you should talk to the Barbie twins then. After appearing in Playboy, they were contacted by Mattel, but the Mattel lawyers gave up as soon as they found out Barbie was their original last name.

domain as property.

[slothman32]

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.

Kill the trolls!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:...and Rob & Jeff invented the slash and th

[straybullets]

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.

Hasbro, Clue, and Candyland interesting too.

[ron_ivi]

I think two of the earliest and most interesting Domain Name cases are both from Hasbro.

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)?

Re:Hasbro, Clue, and Candyland interesting too.

[DerekLyons]

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)?

Actually, niether name really fits the (nonobvious) industry they belong to. The differences are quite simple really;

• Clue Computing - The gentleman was doing business under the name, and was doing business in a field other than that where Hasbro had the name copyrighted. Simply and clearly, he was not infringing and not causing damage. (IOW somebody searching on the very common term 'Clue' intending to find the game would not damaging or infringing material.)
• Candyland (A porn site) - At first blush, this seems the same as the case above, dissimilar industries, dissimilar usages. But here, it can be demonstrated that the usage was harmful to Hasbro's interest, as it associated porn with a children's game. (IOW someone seaching for the trademarked term would find something *very* different than expected and harmful to the rights of the trademark holder.)

These two cases pretty much split as you'd expect.

I know this guy.

[dagnabbitt]

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.

Yeh whatever happened to 1st come 1st served

[DABANSHEE]

Maybe it was too simple & negated the need for lawyers, instead they bring in this IP based mess & lawyers have a field day.

'legitmate use' is subjective humbug

[DABANSHEE]

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

Which is why 1st come 1st served is the go

[DABANSHEE]

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 my name was JRR Tolkien

[hurcain]

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?

Re:What if my name was JRR Tolkien

[Hrothgar The Great]

That would be decided on a case by case basis, and although the WIPO is pretty well known for being corporate-friendly in such cases, it certainly would be taken into account.

To have your domain removed for cybersquatting, the WIPO must decide that you have NO legitimate claim to the domain - that you are in fact using it just to make money off of someone else's good name and/or extorting that person into buying the domain from you at a high price. If YOU were named JRR Tolkien it is very unlikely that that would be your motivation in registering it.

Re:Proof?

[citog]

Let's see, they're a company that specialises in using the names of popular people to generate hits at a site advertising products completely unrelated. They have extensive prior history in this area.

Re:bullshit artists are at it again

[robnauta]

maxpublic, you are seriously mistaken. Of course geeks want to believe it's a first-come first-serve base, but although it started that way, legislation has stepped in and overruled that. The law, specifically regarding brand names, trademarks, etc. recognises that names and brands are valuable, and protects them from abuse. Names of famous people are trademarks, and they don't even have to be registered to be recognised as such. A domain name is nothing, just an entry in a long list, and the owner of the list can just hand over domains to others if he pleases.

Re:On the other hand...

[robnauta]

Did you know that the actor Michael Keaton's real name is Michael Douglas ? (but he's not related to the Michael Douglas we know) When he started in movies he changed his screen name himself because he realised that two actors with the same name would never work.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong..

[silverbax]

No. Because you, if your name was Keanu Reeves, would have a legitimate claim to the domain.

It doesn't matter if one of the Keanu Reeves is famous, it's a matter of having any legitimate claim to the domain name. If your name is Keanu Reeves and you go out and nab "johncleese.com", you would lose that battle in a court of law, because you have no ties to John Cleese nor are you named John Cleese.

Re:Does it realy make a difference?

[f0rt0r]

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.

God dammit.

[caffeineboy]

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?

Rather than upsetting the applecart

[FreeUser]

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.

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 .com regardless.

Now, if one wanted to make a .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).

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[dtobias]

.tm is the country code domain for Turkmenistan.

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[pliny3]

Now, if one wanted to make a .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).

.tm is the tld for Turkmenistan

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[Dusabre]

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 .com regardless.

Couple of notes:

There is an international regime for trademarks (Madrid Protocol) and an European regime (Community trademarks under a regulation). You register the trademark in one country and protection is extended to any that you want (Madrid Protocol) or you register in one place and have automatic protection in all member countries (Community). If the cybersquatting registering entity happens to have a seat in or connection with a country which recognises Madrid/European trademarks then they can be sued very effectively (regardless of the actual national character of a domain which in most cases will not decide jurisdiction in conflicts between parties). Unfair competition statutes are also an effective weapon - their basic premise is fairness/ethics and since its not fair/ethical to register somebody's name if you're not that person.

Why should there be a tm domain and why should people have to register their names? If a person or company has international renown - then they morally and ethically have a right to the global .com name (yes I know that .com was intended to be US but it has become a global domain).

Oh yeah, IAAP(arasite) and we parasites get involved in domain names because not all characteristics phrases are trademarks (i.e. names of celebrities) and there are many many people out to make a fast (cybersquat) buck on the blood and toil of others.

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[WalksOnDirt]

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.

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[Aidtopia]

a) they are limited by "domain" (e.g. Macintosh(tm) for apples can exist in parallel with Macintosh(tm) for computers)

Just to be anal:

• "Macintosh" is a trademark for computers.
• "macintosh" is a raincoat.
• "McIntosh" is a variety of apple (as in fruit).

Re:Rather than upsetting the applecart

[benj_e]

You can, of course, register a trademark in the US with the Federal government, which would trump state registrations. Federal registration allows you to use the registered symbol (the circled r).

Re:If you register a domain, you own it.

[scotch]

What about places like whitehouse.com? Where do they fit in?

Third from the top in my bookmark list?

http://legolas.com/

[avleenvig]

So, what happens in this legal wrangle to http://legolas.com/ which is hosting content about "Legolas" and Orlando Bloom?

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?

Pig Growers of Alberta

[rumblin'rabbit]

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).

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong..

[ccwaterz]

And I would have a legitimate claim to waters.com because my last name is Waters. I covet that domain for my own personal use.

The Waters Corporation almost let it lapse back in 2001 and I was ready to bounce on it. Alas they renewed at the 11 hour for 10 years.

Re:Looks like Nissan.com has almost lost the battl

[Jim_Maryland]

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

WIPO.org is corrupt - by WIPO.org.uk

[Garry Anderson]

UN WIPO experts said they do not know the solution to trademark conflicts with domain names.

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 .reg TLD.

Just like only US government departments can get .gov domain - only registered trademarks can get a .reg domain.

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).

Squatting Sucks, but don't forget the fun factor..

[slappyjack]

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.)

Re:Looks like Nissan.com has almost lost the battl

[Mustang Matt]

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.

Re:Internet Paparazzi

[tregoweth]

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...)