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

[wheresdrew]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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

Choo Choo

[puppet10]

You mean the railroad is coming to town?

Neat.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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

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...?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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 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.

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.

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

[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

[mph]

Remember whois?

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

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.

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: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: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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

...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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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

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.

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).

(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

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.

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)?

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

[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.

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?