How Can Cybersquatters Be Evicted, Cheaply?

Domain name doesn't always equal web site by josecanuc · 2005-09-30 10:16 · Score: 2

Remember also that a domain name doesn't always mean a web site.

It's just a mapping of text to a number and there are many services that can run on the computer identified by that number.

Re:Domain name doesn't always equal web site by takeya · 2005-09-30 15:09 · Score: 1

True, what if all his friends know him as John@companyname.com?
You'd like to ruin that for him?

This is like eminent domain for web sites, what you want.
Re:Domain name doesn't always equal web site by ScrewMaster · 2005-10-02 16:18 · Score: 1

Not really ... that would be if a government came in and took the domain away from a private individual or organization and used it for a public work. This is a matter of saying "you have something I want and I think you should just give it to me and if you don't I'm going to make you." Maybe that's right in this case, or maybe not ... but they got there first and hey, timing is everything.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Domain name doesn't always equal web site by ScrewMaster · 2005-10-02 16:26 · Score: 1

No kidding ... one might argue that Port 80 is of less consequence than all the other services that most people never even know they're using. This misperception that the Internet is nothing more than a way to ship email and HTML around is no less wrong for being common.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

There is more to the net than the web by Matt+Perry · 2005-09-30 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are more services than web sites. They may use their domain name for other services such as mail, DNS, Jabber, IRC, FTP, and so on. They probably decided to put up banner ads to get some revenue from people who hit the page. I have one such domain which handles some mailing lists and nothing more. The server that it is on has a web server for some other domains so I have a page appear with a joke on it when the domain is accessed.

Also, if the domain owner was willing to talk to you and told you that he didn't want to sell, as opposed to asking for a huge amount of money, then I don't see what reason you have to say that they are squating. They have it and want to hold on to it. I really think that if you didn't register the domain name before hand you might just be out of luck.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.

Re:There is more to the net than the web by numbski · 2005-09-30 10:41 · Score: 0

I understand your argument, but do you REALLY believe what you're saying? ;)

He's been squatted, plain and simple. He would be able to help us out if he'd just do a dump of all of the DNS entries for that zone. I'm willing to bet it goes something like this:

A zone.tld
CNAME www.zone.tld.

I'd be stunned if there's anything beyond that, other than an MX record with a virtusertable entry like this:

@zone.tld slimyscumbag@cybersquatterzrus.tld

--
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Re:There is more to the net than the web by twistedcubic · 2005-09-30 10:51 · Score: 1

So what's your definition of squatting? Buying a domain name? If he isn't interested in selling the name, then what's his motive? Your businness is small, you say, so obviously he's not getting lots of traffic as a result, or is he? What the OP wants to due is not cool. People should just think of original names, trademark them, and they would have no worries.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-30 11:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

He's been squatted, plain and simple.
Ummmm... he says they had the domain BEFORE he started using the name for himself. To me that makes the submitter the squatter, not the other way around.
"Hey, you have this domain. Well, now I've started using the name, so you should give me the domain or else I'll sic my army of slashdotters on you".
submitter sounds like a whiny scumbag.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by Matt+Perry · 2005-09-30 11:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

I understand your argument, but do you REALLY believe what you're saying?
Yep, 100%. Remember the domain name I was talking about in my original post? I get several offers a year to buy it. I tell people the same thing: "It's in use and it's not for sale." It's not my problem if they think it looks like it's not being used.
He's been squatted, plain and simple.
Yet he's unwilling to sell at any price, according to the submitter. There's no profit motive. Why "squat" on the domain? Maybe he's using it. D'ya think?!
He would be able to help us out if he'd just do a dump of all of the DNS entries for that zone.
You mean provide you with security information for no reason? There's a reason why you can restrict who can initiate zone transfers. When you make that request why not ask him to enable fingerd and provide a list of usernames from /etc/passwd as well.
Bottom line is that he has nothing to prove. He doesn't want to sell. It's his domain. He's doing nothing wrong. He registered the domain before the submitter. End of story.
The real lesson to be learned here is that if you are going to start a company then in addition to investigating company names with the Secretary of State you should also think about a web presence and investigate what domain names are available. A person reading Slashdot should have known that much back in 2001. It's the submitters fault for not getting the domain name he wanted. If he's unhappy about that then he might want to talk to a lawyer that specializes in this type of law rather than submit a question to Slashdot. A lawyer can tell him if he thinks he has a case and let him know how much it would cost to retain him for the job.
Next Ask Slashdot, please.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-09-30 19:40 · Score: 1

Bottom line is that he has nothing to prove. He doesn't want to sell. It's his domain. He's doing nothing wrong. He registered the domain before the submitter. End of story.
What of the other side of the story? Some corporate overlord company goes out and registers all open available domain names, using a different employee name on each one, which match anything remotely in the dictionary and then holds on to them just to piss people off? The employees are told, if anyone asks about the domain name, just give a null response.

Take "chemistry" for example. "chemistry.org" is currently owned by ACS, which is A Good Thing. But say if, back in '92, some high school dropout decided that getting "chemistry.org" would be like, so cool, man. Then comes in someone with a legitimate interest in "chemistry.org", but the dropout invested well in MS, and now won't sell the domain?

There are legitimate cases where some knob bought the domain name just because they wanted to feel better about themselves, and aren't really doing anything with it.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 00:11 · Score: 0

Ummmm... he says they had the domain BEFORE he started using the name for himself.

No, he says they had the domain before he registered his business name, but his business has been using that name before them.

I don't think there's any squatting going on, however.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by UnrefinedLayman · 2005-10-01 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are legitimate cases where some knob bought the domain name just because they wanted to feel better about themselves, and aren't really doing anything with it.
I bought a new flat panel monitor about a year ago. My old CRT monitor is sitting in my closet, on the floor, and hasn't been plugged in in over a year. Is it the right of you, or anyone else, to come into my home and tell me that since I am not putting my property to the use that others have deemed it should be that I must relinquish ownership?

I don't want to answer my own question, but give me a break. There is no such right. My neighbor's Jaguar is hardly ever driven, and just because I'd prefer to take a car to work instead of the bus doesn't mean I can appropriate it for my own use. It's not mine.

Your "A Good Thing" logic is nothing more than second-guessing and is a short ride down the slope to explaining to a committee why you want to withdraw a hundred dollars from the ATM.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-10-01 06:59 · Score: 1

You're right. I would never suggest that this would go to a committee. Your case with the flat panel monitor isn't really in line, though, because you're not preventing anyone else from buying a flat panel monitor.

I never said there was any right involved. I only suggested that it would be nice if someone being a useless lump of banner ads on the web would give up a domain name to someone who wants to make a legitimate use of it. Which would you rather have in your neighborhood? Homes covered with graffiti and political signs, or homes where the owners take care of them?

Give me a break. And you even got modded insightful.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by UnrefinedLayman · 2005-10-01 09:20 · Score: 1

You seem to have misunderstood my example of the displays... My intention was to state that since I'm not using the old one, should I be forced to give it up even though it's mine?

That misunderstanding aside, your explanation that I'm not preventing anyone else from buying a flat panel display frames my point exactly: the OP can go buy a domain name, he just can't have that domain name. My hypothetical monitor-thief can go buy a monitor, he just can't have mine. The reason he can't have mine is because I went to the store and bought it before he did.

To put it another way, if my daughter purchases a custom wedding dress there is no person that has a right to take it from her, even with reasonable compensation, simply because she has already worn it the one time she'll wear it. Her reasons for keeping it may be inscrutable, but she doesn't need to explain that to strangers on the street. It's not for sale.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-10-01 11:49 · Score: 1

Your daughter would have an attachment to that $1000 wedding dress.

If someone has an attachment to a $10 domain name that they're using for a couple generic banner ads, they need to have their head checked.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by UnrefinedLayman · 2005-10-01 14:35 · Score: 1

You overlooked a crucial part of what I said:
Her reasons for keeping it may be inscrutable, but she doesn't need to explain that to strangers on the street. It's not for sale.
Not for sale. And as a whole lot of other posters have pointed out, just because the web site only has banner ads doesn't mean the DNS entry is used only for that purpose. You're endorsing exactly the role of that committee: we'll decide whether or not you're properly using what you paid for.

Maybe you're being purposely obtuse, maybe you're just trolling, or maybe you just don't get that you can't take other people's property because you don't like, or understand, how they use it.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-10-02 02:10 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm more morally in tune than you are. If I were sitting on a domain name which I used for a time server and an ftpd, and filled the httpd with a couple banner ads, I would be more than happy to migrate to something else if someone came along and politely let me know that they had a legitimate business that they would want to set up on the domain name. Provided I agree with the businees.

Yes. You do have a right to be a dick. I hope it makes you happy and keeps you warm at night. Everyone needs something, I guess.
maybe you just don't get that you can't take other people's property because you don't like, or understand, how they use it.
Oh, I get it. I get it that you'd like to start a business buying up domain names just to piss people off in the future.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 09:04 · Score: 0

Morally in tune? You're an asshole, there is nothing moral about taking something from someone because they don't want to sell/give it to you. Sure he could migrate to another domain but do you want to cover the costs? Even if there is no documentation that needs to be update you don't know how much infrastructure he has and how much time it may take for him to make the necessary changes you are asking for. You sound exactly like the big companies that count on people not having the resources to fight back. Moral my ass, you condone thievery and bullying.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-10-02 10:00 · Score: 1

You sound exactly like the big companies that count on people not having the resources to fight back. Moral my ass, you condone thievery and bullying
No one's condoning bullying. If they want to keep the domain name they are fully within their right to do it. No one's going to force them off.

What I said (I know, you're an AC troll, so you're not required to actually respond to what I said) was that if _I_ owned a domain and was doing nothing with it aside from hosting a few banner ads that _I_ would happily relinquish said domain name to someone who politely expressed, to me, an interest to do something productive with the domain name.

We're not seeing any bullying here. We're seeing a prime example of someone who has purchased a domain name with no real intent to do anything useful with it who is taking an extra amount of joy in their ability to piss someone off.

Kind of like that asshole on the freeway who enjoys pissing everyone off by going 5 MPH below the posted speed limit in the left lane.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 17:28 · Score: 0

You're a fucking retard, you don't even understand what you wrote, let alone anything anyone else here wrote. Dumbass.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by SilverspurG · 2005-10-03 00:07 · Score: 1

You're a fucking retard, you don't even understand what you wrote, let alone anything anyone else here wrote. Dumbass.
What's sad is that, even with this impressive display of intellectual eloquence, it's very likely that you make more money per year than I do. No wonder the world functions like a group of brain-damaged zombies.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:There is more to the net than the web by parasonic · 2005-10-04 05:40 · Score: 1

They may use their domain name for other services such as mail, DNS, Jabber, IRC, FTP, and so on.

Exactly. This is extremely important with a BNC service, I'll tell ya. You know, because it's really important for your whois to come up like, for instance...

*** parasonic is n=para@ i.own.natalie.portman.and.am.cooler.than.cmdrtaco. net (*Unknown*)
*** on irc via server brown.freenode.net (Madison, WI, US)
*** parasonic has been idle 4 seconds

A totally legitimate claim to cmdrtaco.net
Re:There is more to the net than the web by RedDirt · 2005-10-04 05:54 · Score: 1

> There are legitimate cases where some knob bought the domain name just because they wanted to feel better about themselves, and aren't really doing anything with it.

That the page currently has banner ads on it doesn't talk about the structure of the site and whether older content can still be linked to. A site I once worked on has done a similar sort of thing - the root page simply punts you to the owning entity's main page while all the old functionality remains underneath to satisfy the terms-of-service with their clients. Without knowing its history, I guess you'd lump them in the knob category since the root of the domain isn't "useful".

I also take issue with your statements regarding FTP. Absent a browser, you still need meaningful names for a repository - witness kernel.org. Using a bare, text-based FTP client I can visit the site and pull down useful content. If all the actual file repositories resided on some inscrutable domain, I'd not be able to find anything without having to make a mental mapping along the lines of: "lessee, kernels sit on baz.foo.bar while glibc resides over on the twiddle.my-bits.gently server" instead of kernel.org and ftp.gnu.org.

Honestly, in my opinion, the fellow who submitted the ask slashdot is your aforementioned corporate overlord and is trying to do something wrong. I can only speculate that you were once burned by a domain squatter or had your eye on a domain that got bought out from beneath you or something which would lead to the current level of vitriol.

--
James

Where do you draw the line? by TheSHAD0W · 2005-09-30 10:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

So at what point is it a squatter versus a "legitimate" website? If you produce a definition, squatters will simply modify their design to meet the definition, perhaps adding or copying a minimum of information to become "legit". Face it, they've had the domain for longer than you've had your registered name or trademark. You're stuck, so live with it or change your own name.

Re:Where do you draw the line? by kiatoa · 2005-10-03 02:45 · Score: 1

So at what point is it a squatter versus a "legitimate" website?

So instead of trying to come up with a definition I say make it so all domains go up for auction every year and the proceeds get distributed to charity or something. That would quickly filter out the squatters (i.e. not serious) users of domain names from the legitimate users. I'd bid $50 on microsoft.com, think I'd get it?

--
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
Re:Where do you draw the line? by TheSHAD0W · 2005-10-03 08:10 · Score: 1

No, but Microsoft might get YOUR domain. Stupid idea.
Re:Where do you draw the line? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-05 04:28 · Score: 0

I'd bid $50 on microsoft.com, think I'd get it?

I think Microsoft, with bids of $HOWEVER_MUCH_IT_TAKES_TO_WIN and $COMPETITION?_WHAT_COMPETITION, would pick up slashdot.org and linux.org each year.

I'd like to... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-30 10:36 · Score: 1, Funny

sue you to take back the wasted part of my life reading this.

Trademark your name by HotNeedleOfInquiry · 2005-09-30 10:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.

If you trademark the name (nolo books for help) then you have a legitimate claim to the name and you should be able to get it through the ICANN expedited resolution service.

--
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...

Re:Trademark your name by norwoodites · 2005-09-30 16:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

But you don't have a right as two different people can "own" a name for two different industry so what happens for the internet and ICCAN, well it is a mess.

This is why there are at least three deltas in the world. One for airlines, one for faucets, and one for electronics

Now which one gets delta.com, well the person who registered the name first, in this case Delta airlines.

So maybe the person who register the domain name has the same registered name as the person asking does.
Re:Trademark your name by Seumas · 2005-09-30 17:15 · Score: 1

Of course, trademarks are EXPENSIVE.

I have a website with a large community. I don't charge for the service I offer. I'm not legally a 501c3 or anything (haven't done the paperwork), but I don't sell anything or make any money and that isn't even the intent.

Anyway, I have a problematic user who has done everything under the sun since I disabled their account several years ago to disrupt the site. They've spread rumors, lies, harassed my members, created dozens of false accounts and harassed people, called the police and made claims about our site that weren't true (or even realistic or sane) and, recently I found out, registered my domain name. The exact domain name - just as a .net instead of a .com. He doesn't use it, but clearly he has it registered as a threat to do something with it.

What bothers me even more is that another person put up a site that does the same thing as mine and took my name, but altered it slightly. If I were a big corporation, I could probably do something about it. After all, if I'm McDonald's, you can't open a fast food chain of your own selling the same foold and calling yourself McDonald (without the s). They've been doing "business" for almost three years while I've been around for almost seven. They came directly after - and were started by one of my own site's former members. The reason this pisses me off is that I get people frequently who complain about my site or a problem with their account and it goes on and on for quite some time - arguing back and forth - before they realize they're at the wrong website and that their account is actually at the competing site.

To give you an example of the difference between the two names - it would be like someone opening a website called "Monolith.com" to compete with a much older site called "Monolithic.com" - both serving the same group of people, offering the same exact service and benefitting off the similarities in name.

But hey, if you don't make a profit (or any money at all) and you've already invested tens of thousands of dollars into it, who can afford another couple thousand for trademark filing, wait a year for it to take effect, then pay thousands to a lawyer to file a claim against the two people who are 1) squatting on a domain with my business name with malicious intent and 2) essentially taking my name with the slightest modification and duplicating what I do?
Re:Trademark your name by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 19:10 · Score: 0

Now which one gets delta.com, well the person who registered the name first, in this case Delta airlines.
The only problem is, Delta Airlines wasn't the first to register delta.com.
Re:Trademark your name by ciscoguy01 · 2005-10-03 14:06 · Score: 1

The only legitimate claim you might have is if you have a federal trademark.

Here's what you have to do:
You file for a federal trademark registration and you better get it quietly.
Don't let anyone know you have it.
Wait 5 years, renew it.
After 5 years it becomes "incontestable".
No one can do anything about you then. If the domain owner finds out you have filed for a federal trademark registration they can contest it during that 5 year period. After that they are enjoined from doing so.

There is a specific provision in the domain name rules where you can obtain a domain name where you have a federal trademark for the exact same name.
As far as I know that is the only provision that would allow you to take that name by force.
After you get the federal trademark and wait the 5 years for renewal, you can demand the domain name, and according to the rules you should get it.
Not sure if this has ever been done successfully however. Naturally most of the domain squatter incidents that have been litigated have been deep pocketed companies who had a clear claim on the domain and the money to enforce it.

--
.

make it "unprofitable" for them to own it... by da5idnetlimit.com · 2005-09-30 10:39 · Score: 1

Use of poisoning techniques in the various serach engines are a cheap way to drive down a brand or name, but hey, it's also, basically, your brand too...so don't burn yourself out at the same time

Filing a complaint - there should be a way for each netizen to do so - to the icaan if it's the only choice you have, or trying directly with their registrar ...

Or you just send a nice cease-or-desist letter (don't know where you are so ymmv) and threaten to act this, and see whats happens...don't speak to the (possibly) dishonest person , try with the next person that can do something...like the ISP or the registrar he signed with, etc...

Going straight to the international board might be a bit to the top...as a first move...

if the local registrar show any willingness to help, the look with your local Trade Court, or first level justice system (small claims in the US I think)...

Clearly update your own metadata, update your web presence by allowing more data to the bots, etc is one thing - differentiate yourself from the ad-banner guy

and good luck...

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker

Taking candy from strangers by KingPrad · 2005-09-30 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

domain name owners who have 'no legitimate claim for the name' can be evicted by people who do

And your legitimate claim is that you want it? That you want it really really bad? I know domain names are very important, but if you have no claim to it other than desire and the owner isn't cybersquatting (even if he is totally wasting it), why do you think you should get it?

I can see good arguments for both sides of this, but using legal pressure to take things away from their owners is disgusting to me. I hate it when the government does it and when people or companies do it. Ownership is [should be] ownership, whether some stranger likes it or not. Taking it is theft, whether you take it physically or through legal manipulation.

--
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!

Re:Taking candy from strangers by wmshub · 2005-09-30 11:35 · Score: 1

My legitimate claim is that I have a company with that name, and people look for my company under that name on the web.

My guess as to why he wants it is just that I get about 150,000 visits per month, totalling 5,000,000 hits, on my current, non-obvious URL. Not huge, but fairly busy. My guess is that a few tens of thousands of those people looking for my site went to his first, so he only wants the site to catch people looking for mine, and show them his banner ads.

In other words, I'm guessing that he has the site only so that he can trap people looking for my site. Some of those people may give up and not come to my site at all. Now who is stealing from who, in your opinion?
Re:Taking candy from strangers by Blakey+Rat · 2005-09-30 11:46 · Score: 1

How do you know that's all he's using it for? What if there's a lively MUD going on on port 23?

--
Comment of the year
Re:Taking candy from strangers by orkysoft · 2005-09-30 12:59 · Score: 1

If that were the case, I'm sure they could come to an agreement, since those two don't necessarily conflict.

--

I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Re:Taking candy from strangers by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-30 14:53 · Score: 0

"Now who is stealing from who, in your opinion?"

The guy that should have known better because his resume shows him working strongly with web technologies far before he named his company without looking at the web to see if the name was available.

Admit it, dude, you fucked up. Seriously.

At the same time, I can relate. I fucked up in this area as well...I have a well known resource with a funny name. Purposely picked a funny name as it was something unique and memorable but it also has a unique spelling. At the time, it was a hobby site and I'd simple say ITS WITH AN X!!! Well its not, but I'm posting this anonymously because you don't post that someone fucked up and be an asshole about it under your own name, ya know! Now that this site isn't a hobby and I have a team of people working full time specifically on the site and its related technologies, I started thinking about the spelling and maybe I should register the normal spelling (again of a unique juxtoposition of words). I look and see that someone has registered that name about 3 years after I started the hobbiest site, and he now has it registered until 2010. A single letter change, one that means the difference between someone hearing the site (but not seeing it in print) and trying to find it and getting the wrong site...

My IP attorney (the other reason I've posted this anonymously...trademarks and copyright and patents are BAAAAAAD here...and we've got a few of each) has suggested going after these people. And I'm thinking about it.

In my case, its OBVIOUS that I fucked up...but also that the guy is truly squatting (especially since the guy was a former subscriber of our mailing list). In yours, its obvious that you fucked up, but you don't seem to want to take any of the responsibility at all and you don't care why the guy is using it, you don't want to know, you just want to steal something that is valuable to him -- even if its only valuable because of your own fuckup.

The moral? Don't be an asshole. Change the name of your business...find something unique (and don't use fucked up spellings).
Re:Taking candy from strangers by corrosive_nf · 2005-09-30 17:29 · Score: 0

So he had this up LONG before you wanted it, and he's only using it to divert traffic from you. WTF? How arrogant are you?
Re:Taking candy from strangers by wmshub · 2005-09-30 20:23 · Score: 1

OK, maybe I am arrogant. I admit, actually, I'm really puzzled. His DNS record does nothing but have the web site (which is all banner ads) and route mail to 127.0.0.1. No clue anywhere as to what the site is used for. If he had *anything* there that made it look like he was using the site, I would just grin and bear it. I think the puzzle of "why the *@!$@!$ does he want that domain name?" is actually making it harder for me to get over this. The only thing I can possibly think of this is that he's diverting traffic from another site, or somehow else getting some benefit. Even a google search turns up nothing that might indicate why he is using that domain name.

And I admit, I did fuck up. :-) I originally took the URL that I have because it matched a sponsor of mine, and he wanted my URL to remind people of his own. About 2 years later I thought, "Hmmm, I should really have the more obvious URL also...", saw it was taken a while after I started using the non-obvious URL, and oops. Started asking if he would sell. Got "no" back. Asked, out of curiousity (and politely!), why he wanted it. Got no answer back at all.

Very very weird.
Re:Taking candy from strangers by corrosive_nf · 2005-10-01 02:22 · Score: 0

No it's not wierd. You admit he had it way before you did, and just because he doesnt want to sell it. Well shit. Give me your car. You had it before I ever wanted it and now I say you are squatting in it.
Re:Taking candy from strangers by sonamchauhan · 2005-10-01 03:11 · Score: 1

They may conflict in future. Plus there are legal issues that exist with joint ownership (do domain registrars even permit such a thing?)

And, just restating what is obvious: DNS domain names are used for more than just websites. Like this guy:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163840&cid =13689919

I think this guy should just forget about taking control of this website and move on in life.

CyberClaimJumper by stonewolf · 2005-09-30 10:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wish I new what the name is. My guess is that you and the other guys both thought of the same name at two different times. They were probably trying to come up with names that were either "cool" or names that are likely to be typed into a browser. In either case they registered the name and loaded it up with adds so that if someone does type in that name they go to that site and look at the adds.

Running web sites with cool names to get advertising revenue is a real business and is a valid use of a domain name. In other words, they have just as much of a right and are just as legitimate as you are. So, why call them cybersquaters? I could just as well, and just as validly, call you a cyberclaimjumper. As far as I can tell you are just trying to rob somebody of a source of income. The only way you could convince me otherwise is to prove that they knew about the name of your company and went and registered it.

My advice is to change the name of your company. Spend some time researching names that are 1) not trademarked, and 2) available as domain names. Then, register the domain name. When you meet the requirements for registering the trademark, then register the trademark.

Stonewolf

Re:CyberClaimJumper by J'raxis · 2005-09-30 12:07 · Score: 2, Informative

The only way you could convince me otherwise is to prove that they knew about the name of your company and went and registered it.

Right, and this what the UDRP calls a "bad-faith" registration, which is one the criteria for yanking someone's domain. A usual red-flag for bad-faith registrations is attempting to sell the domain to the person claiming legitimate ownership, usually at an inflated price -- something that this purported cybersquatter not only didn't do, but he didn't even agree to sell when approached unsolicited.

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:CyberClaimJumper by SilverspurG · 2005-09-30 20:29 · Score: 1

Running web sites with cool names to get advertising revenue is a real business and is a valid use of a domain name
I hope we agree that, if the sole only purpose is to generate ad revenue, they should have a willingness to pass on the name to someone who has a more purposeful use.

That's like using a bowl of clean water to wash your hands, then dumping it down the drain, when the guy next to you is dehydrating to death. Ad revenue.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:CyberClaimJumper by Knetzar · 2005-09-30 20:41 · Score: 1

Revenue is revenue. Why is ad revenue looked at poorly while selling services is not? Unless of course you're google, then ad revenue is okay.
Re:CyberClaimJumper by SilverspurG · 2005-09-30 21:40 · Score: 1

Unless of course you're google, then ad revenue is okay.
There's a tolerable tradeoff point in services vs. revenue. Look to the derision of Yahoo! from its once mighty alter. There's a reason why Google got everyone's attention.

If someone registers $my_favorite_hobby\.com and fills it with completely unrelated junk, perhaps even some fringe group religious bunk, just for the purpose of ad revenue then I would hope they would be less hypocritical enough to cede $my_favorite_hobby\.com when I turn $my_favorite_hobby into a legitimate business which benefits all of society.

If not then they're hypocrites and shouldn't be supported by international organizations which are (supposedly) working for the betterment of the planetary network society.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

I'm going to sue, too! by fmaxwell · 2005-09-30 10:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

[sarcasm]
This is a great idea! I'll find some web site which has nothing but banner ads. Then I'll start a business with the same name. After I do that, I'll go to court and sue, demanding that the owners of that domain turn it over to me.
[/sarcasm]

Maybe the current domain owners are holding on to the domain in the hopes of one day starting a business in their state/country with that name. Maybe they are ranked well enough search engines that the banner ads are profitable. Whatever the case may be, it's their domain and I don't understand why you think that your business interests should trump theirs.

Face it: You screwed up. You started a business without registering the domain(s) appropriate for that name.

I'm waiting for this to happen by Solder+Fumes · 2005-09-30 11:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

My domain name is based on my own name, but it also happens to be the exact same name as a Taiwanese company. They currently use the ".com.tw" variant. However, I often get emails to the company, even though my catchall address is blackholed. What's more, I have no visible index page...just a blank white emptiness. But I do use the domain heavily for my own email, my own file storage and web-based services for my family and others. If anyone tried to prove I was cybersquatting, I'm sure that I could prove otherwise. But it would suck to lose the email addresses that I promised to myself and my users would be there in perpetuity regardless of ISP changes.

Simple Solution by tsm_sf · 2005-09-30 11:18 · Score: 0, Redundant

Contact the owner (whois) and offer him $300 for it. Cheaper for you than getting the sharks involved, he makes a tiny profit, you both win. Don't try to take a moral stand on something like this. You're only on one leg as it is and there are plenty of real battles out there.

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.

Big Bucks by rueger · 2005-09-30 11:22 · Score: 1

Our of idle curiosity I went looking to find out what it would cost this guy (assuming he's in the US of A) to file a dipsute. It appears that he would do so through the National Arbitration Forum. The E-Z Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy instructions are here. Thankfully the National Arbitration Forum understands the needs of small business. In fact they describe them thus:

High litigation costs and the time-consuming nature of lawsuits can be a deterrent to anyone needing to solve a legal problem. That's why from large complex cases to smaller commercial and individual claims, parties trust the resolution experts at the National Arbitration Forum.

That's why the price for dispute resolution starts at a mere $1,150 US, or $2,500 US for a three person panel.

--
Three Squirrels

Re:Big Bucks by ldspartan · 2005-10-01 04:50 · Score: 1

People go to binding arbitration because it tends to be cheaper and faster than civil court. I'd be surprised if it was cheaper to take a case like this to court.

Of course, I learned this at the old age of 17 when I was working in a law office. Might be a bit facetious.

--
Phil

Squatted domains based on family names? by TMacPhail · 2005-09-30 11:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

What about domain names that are based on a last name? I believe there are provisions for claiming a domain based on your name when it is simply being squatted. Has anyone ever had luck with this?

Yes, this is still dependent on defining what it means to simply be squatting and having no legitimate clame to a domain. Take my name for example: MacPhail.

macphail.net appears to have no legitimate claim to the MacPhail name other than using the domain to host a page filled with links. I am sure there are many other sites owned by the owner of this domain that are the exact same thing. Unfortunately they hide who they are in the whois database by using a company called "Whois IDentity Shield" but the dns servers for the domain give a hint at the real purpose of it: ns1.hitfarm.com, ns2.hitfarm.com. And there is nothing to be found at www.hitfarm.com.
macphail.com seems to have a use for the name in that it resells e-mail accounts under the domain so you can have your own @macphail.com e-mail. This hardly seems legitimate to me but would probably pass in court because they have made a business of it. This bothers me because they are potentially making a profit from thousands of last names they have no claim to other than having registered the domain first.

Anyone ever been able to get their last name out of the grips of a company like these?

Re:Squatted domains based on family names? by Acy+James+Stapp · 2005-09-30 12:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, sure I have. The exchange is supposed to take place any day now.

Yours,
John Microsoft

--
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Re:Squatted domains based on family names? by way2trivial · 2005-09-30 13:02 · Score: 1

I know (family) a writer for a major metropolitan newspaper..

a pullitzer winner.

His name is 'his trademark' and he got someone to drop the name by having the papers lawyer contact the squatter.. it was apparently picked up right after he won the award...

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:Squatted domains based on family names? by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2005-09-30 15:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

macphail.com seems to have a use for the name in that it resells e-mail accounts under the domain so you can have your own @macphail.com e-mail. This hardly seems legitimate to me but would probably pass in court because they have made a business of it. This bothers me because they are potentially making a profit from thousands of last names they have no claim to other than having registered the domain first.

Anyone ever been able to get their last name out of the grips of a company like these?

Whaddaya mean, your last name? You're obviously not the only person named MacPhail, based on the success of macphail.com. Who are you to say that the last name belongs to you and you alone?

Unless you're using your whole name, or you're famous somehow, you don't deserve macphail.com. What the current owner is doing with it is fair - offering relevant services to all MacPhails, including yourself. What could you possibly do with the website or domain name that would be fair to the thousands of other MacPhails?

And if you, T. MacPhail, can take the domain name from the current owner, what's there to stop P.D.Q. MacPhail from taking the domain from you?
Re:Squatted domains based on family names? by eraserewind · 2005-09-30 15:24 · Score: 1

And if you had it, why would you be a more legitimate owner than some other Tom McPhail, Dick McPhail, Harry McPhail, or any of the many McPhails in the world? You have no more legitimate reason to own it than the current owners.
Re:Squatted domains based on family names? by stevey · 2005-10-01 01:05 · Score: 1

Names are massively non-unique. So claiming a .com for your surname is going to be very hard. Whoever manages it is bound to annoy other people of the same name later. Of the two sites you list the second one seems useful for those who want to be associated with their surname, but didn't think to register the domain themselves - presumably anybody can sign up and be linked with the domain?

If you're interested in surnames specifically you might have a chance at using the .name TLD. That was advertised at one point as being useful for forename.surname.name - not sure how well that worked out because I've rarely seen the domain in the sites I visit.

As for me, I got lucky. I'm all forenamey - and had never thought of using my surname..

Same here.. by eyeball · 2005-09-30 11:46 · Score: 1

I run a site for a non-profit organization whose .org name is taken by a cybersquatter (based on other sites the whois owner runs). The domain has been unused for more than two years, without a responding web server at the other end. Other variations of the name are awkward, so I've been trying for years to at least contact anyone connected with the domain and negotiate a price. Nothing. It's especially frustrating since they keep renewing it.

It's up for renewal in 2 months -- maybe I'll get it this time :/

--

_______
2B1ASK1

How do I steal a domain... by EzInKy · 2005-09-30 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

...would have been a much better title for this article.

I contacted the owner, but they are not interested in selling (at any price, they said).

The name is theirs and they want to keep it. Why do you think you should be able to take it away from them?

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Get clear on what squatting is by mikeraz · 2005-09-30 12:58 · Score: 1

I registered patch.com in March of 1994 - before there was much (any?) awareness that domain names could have economic value. Over the years I've received offers from people expressing an interest in buying the name. They have their reasons for wanting the domain name.

Mine is simple. It's my web home. I'm attached to it. I'm not holding out for some can't refuse financial offer or even one that's hefty enough to pop my eyes open. I'm hanging on to patch.com becuase it's the place on the web that I homesteaded way back when.

--

There's more to it than this.

Re:Get clear on what squatting is by SilverspurG · 2005-09-30 20:33 · Score: 1

You seem to have a legit use. I'd view it differently if you just had a few banner ads on it and no other services which were even remotely specific to "patch.com".

If you were running an ftp server, what do the clients care what they're connecting to? That can be moved.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:Get clear on what squatting is by sfurious · 2005-10-01 04:28 · Score: 1

Eh? How is that different from "If you were running a http server, what do the clients care what they're connecting to? That can be moved."? The web rules über alles?
Re:Get clear on what squatting is by SilverspurG · 2005-10-01 07:27 · Score: 1

FTP servers have only MINIMAL, and I mean MINIMAL, visual association with their name. A web site selling a tangible product has an enormous attachment to the name of the business front.

It's why Toys'r'Us isn't called FarmEquipmentDepot. In terms of ftp mirrors I don't expect every place that I get a kernel to have the word "linux" in it, except in the path or filename.

Do you really know nothing about marketing or are you trolling?

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:Get clear on what squatting is by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 22:38 · Score: 0

There is more to FTP than mirrors of the Linux kernel. An FTP servers domain name is as deeply associated with it as that of an HTTP server. The fact that the association isn't entirely "visual" is irrelevant.
Re:Get clear on what squatting is by SilverspurG · 2005-10-02 02:06 · Score: 1

An FTP servers domain name is as deeply associated with it as that of an HTTP server.
Right. I can see how all of these FTP mirrors are associated by domain.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

And the converse .... by khasim · 2005-09-30 13:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Dear Ask Slashdot,

I have a website that I've owned for years. Now some guy is trying to take it away from me by claiming it is his business name (non-trademarked).

How can I cheaply defend myself from his actions and keep my domain name?

Re:And the converse .... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-30 16:01 · Score: 0

Wow, this is clearly meant to be funny. He's acting like the person the article writer is trying to get rid of. +4 Insightful? What is wrong with the mods?
Re:And the converse .... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 01:04 · Score: 0

Insightful things can be stated humourously, you know.
Re:And the converse .... by canuck57 · 2005-10-01 03:04 · Score: 1

How can I cheaply defend myself from his actions and keep my domain name?
When contacted, all you have to do is show the reason why you own the domain name. Other factors to watch for, if a company registers their business name after you registered the domain name they are SOL. The rules are fair for the most part.

rights, ownership by itzdandy · 2005-09-30 13:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

at what point did the right to own and keep what is yours get voided? if someone ownes something, and then you use the same name(i'm not implying bad intentions), what makes you think you deserve to have something they own? they did own that domain before you had the company name right? you thinking that you have a right or some claim is complete crap and an attempt to take it should be considered attempted theft. the domain is owned and the owner did not violate your trade name or copyright when purchased, that means they OWN THE DOMAIN and you are STUPID and part of the PROBLEM with the american way.

go ahead, mod me down. good karma in the real world is worth bad karma on slashdot

Re:rights, ownership by InternetVoting · 2005-09-30 14:07 · Score: 1

ALL CAPS are stupid. Seriously, there is no need for that. I have a better question for you: At what point did running your mouth with no idea what you were talking about become ok? Some advice, read more type less. If you'd like to understand more about domain names you should out this. Good luck with the learning and the anger issues.
Re:rights, ownership by itzdandy · 2005-09-30 14:26 · Score: 1

maybe your the idiot that can't read? did you read the part where owning something should matter? and the idea of taking what is owned by others is wrong? the whole comment was about right and wrong, not what wikipedia says. and if you think my comment was 'running of the mouth with no idea' then what was yours?

BTW wikipedia is in no way how the work 'IS'
for instance 'No one in the world really "owns" a ....' is rarely accepted as 'law'

and in turn, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting for an example of cybersquatting and how this topic does not apply.

"Cybersquatting is a derogatory term used to describe the practice of registering and claiming rights over brand names which are, arguably, not for the taking."
as in one person gets a domain without claiming rights to a pre-owned brand name. At the time of domain was registration, no such brand name existed=no squatting.

'law does not = justice' 'wright and wrong'
'law = we say you can't do this'

also note, some(possibly many) laws do provide justice. i am not an anarchist.
Re:rights, ownership by InternetVoting · 2005-09-30 14:53 · Score: 1

Ok let me see if I can show you how to post a response without sounding like ill informed flaimbait. I gave you the Wikipedia link to explain to you the whole concept of Domain Names (which you still don't seem to). I don't disagree your the idea "idea of taking what is owned by others is wrong." I disagree with your premise that the author was trying to do that and additionaly I was explaining to you that you do not own domain names (hence the wikipedia link). Which came first really wouldn't apply to who actually would have rights to the domain name. It is primarily based on how you use the domain, and if it is in good faith. Again my advice, read more type less.

Also:
My reply = Well informed, educated and not involving all caps.
Domain name regulation != laws
The usefullness of this entire exchange = wasting most everyone's time...

Here's the answer by InternetVoting · 2005-09-30 13:52 · Score: 4, Informative

The World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO) will handle domain name domain name disputes and arbitration.

Check out there Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service (DNDRS).

You should also consult ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which is the guidline for WIPO's aritration.

Here's an abbreviated of what you would need to qualify:

your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Bad faith is:

circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain...(extortion)
you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

Now since the owner of the domain says he will not sell "at any price," and they probably aren't out to disrupt your business... it seems like your SOL. Hope this is helpful for anyone who has a legitimate dispute and need for arbitration.

Oh, and I know a lot of people are going to say that the whole arbitration process might be out of date as most "squatters" have realized all you have to do is put up one of those "search" tool that serves soley for advertising, and then try to sell the domain for a ridiculous amount of money. Those people are right.

You're sunk, I'd guess by focitrixilous+P · 2005-09-30 14:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

The web site that exactly matches my company name has been registered since 2001, which is before I legally registered my company

IANAL, but that statement seems to say that you have lost. Because he got it first, before you legally registered your company name, you are probably out of luck.

--
SAILING MISHAP

Re:You're sunk, I'd guess by YomikoReadman · 2005-10-06 03:15 · Score: 1

Yet you convieniently ignored the rest of his statement;

but after I started doing business.

Taking that in full context, I think he has a pretty good basis for having the domain name given to him.

--
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"

not necessarily squatting by wcb4 · 2005-09-30 14:39 · Score: 1

Just because thw web site is nothign put a parked domain someplace full of banner ads does not mean that this is an unused domain. I own a domain name. I have no web site. Perhaps I should put one up, but it is not a high priority as I have used the name for years for email , not a web site. Perhaps this person is using the name for email, perhaps they just want a static name to hit when they telnet into a machine, that is just as legitimate a use as your company. Might want to find out what they are using it for before you jump into anything legal

--
I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.

Re:not necessarily squatting by SilverspurG · 2005-09-30 20:37 · Score: 1

perhaps they just want a static name to hit when they telnet into a machine, that is just as legitimate a use as your company.
In that case I'd ask,"What does the client care what's in the address? Give them a static IP. It won't matter." Someone else mentioned a MUD, and that could be attached to a name pretty easily. But if it's just an ftpd/sshd/gopherd/wais/whatever with no real attachment to the name, it'd be nice to see people cooperate in building a better net presence than a set of banner ads.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:not necessarily squatting by larry+bagina · 2005-10-01 06:36 · Score: 1

"What does the client care what's in the address? Give them a static IP. It won't matter."
It seems to matter to you.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:not necessarily squatting by SilverspurG · 2005-10-01 07:04 · Score: 1

There's a vast difference between the address in a visually oriented Web page and the address in an ftp mirror. There's a reason why most business names and store fronts reflect their internal merchandise. In the case of ftp mirrors, however, the address is largely irrelevant.

If you take a quote out of context just to harp for the opposite viewpoint that's just plain trolling. Consider yourself fed.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

How is this even "cybersquatting?" by Evro · 2005-09-30 14:49 · Score: 1

This doesn't sound like cybersquatting, in which one party registers a domain of a well-known brand or some other well-known term. If someone in Kansas registers "smartypants.com" because he likes the name, and you happen to "run a company" named SmartyPants, that doesn't make the person a cybersquatter. I see no reason why the person should be forced or even coerced into handing over the domain name in question. Why don't you just change the name of your company rather than try to make someone else's life miserable because they have something that you want and don't want to give it to you?

--
rooooar

Obviously... by supersocialist · 2005-09-30 14:56 · Score: 1

We're dealing with a very clever cybersquatter. Not just your ordinary cybersquatter. He's getting all psychological on the poor guy.

Domain Managment Tools for Dummies by miller60 · 2005-09-30 15:14 · Score: 1

There's lots of free sites and services that make domain management and brand protection easier than ever. Services like Whois Source and DomainsBot make it easier than ever to know which domains are taken and available. You can search on names, keywords and phrases to see what's available across major top-level domains (.com, .net, .org, .biz. and .info) or use the "name spinner" options that suggest names that may be of interest.

Domains are a business asset. You need to take the time to understand them - which the initial submitter clearly has not. If a domain name you want has already been registered, be prepared to spend a lot of time and/or money to acquire it, either through the UDRP appeal process or "drop catching" (buying an expiring domain name as it is deleted from the registrar's system) which nowadays is really a game for professionals.

--
RichM
Data Center Knowledge

No TLD mentioned... by tsvk · 2005-09-30 16:53 · Score: 1

The web site that exactly matches my company name...

Since there is no TLD mentioned, I assume that the .com TLD is implied.

I find it really sad that we are in a situation where the .com TLD gets all the attention. If you have a business and don't own the .com domain that matches your company name or a trademark you own, you're practically screwed. The .com TLD namespace has grown into a global business name registry, which effectively hinders companies that are not even on the same continent from having the same name.

Since the article poster seems to be in the US, how about registering a .us domain? Or .net, .biz, etc...?

Re:No TLD mentioned... by Monoman · 2005-10-01 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Which brings up the whole issue of missused TLDs. People register whatever they can across the TLDs. The TLD guidelines are not enforced and are a big part of the problem. IIRC the intended uses are

* com - business
* net - internet providers
* org - not for profit (is Slashdot.org a non-profit?)
* edu - education and enforced AFAIK
* mil - military and enforced AFAIK

I frequently look for resources on the edu domain and find it a joy. I can't think of any time finding a missuse. It just works.

IMHO the TLDs uses should be enforced. They should also make use of the country code domains like you often see with tw and uk. Multinationals would then regsiter for a .com if and only if they had the domain in use in multiple country level domains.

just my .02

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:No TLD mentioned... by kcb93x · 2005-10-01 04:55 · Score: 1

I hit that issue, for my site (linked in my profile) Bachman New Age Computing. BNAC for short. .com, .net, .org were all taken. So I started looking at the unique, other TLDs. Biz fit. So I registered it.

Quite easy, bnac.biz. Easy to spell, and it fits.

I'm quite content with my non-"mainstream" TLD.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

have you considered alternatives? by joe094287523459087 · 2005-09-30 22:58 · Score: 1

i could have had joe.com but i was just barely too late. now i have joe.to instead and i actually prefer it, because people remember the somewhat interesting top-level domain.

then you have other examples like del.icio.us where people really took advantage of their top-level domain.

so maybe look around and forget .com and get something even better

Duh. by geminidomino · 2005-10-01 07:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

You should have put the link in the summary. After a good slashdotting, the squatter would be BEGGING you to take it off his hands!

Re: How Can Cybersquatter Be Evicted, Cheaply? by Dave+Zan · 2005-10-02 13:52 · Score: 1

Well, tons of people here have posted this and that about the thread. I'd like to add mine for what it's worth. Oh, and I'd like to say "Hi!" to everyone here, too. First time aboard. :) If you really feel you deserve the domain more than its current registrant, then it's your burden to prove it. Granted it's not easy, especially for those with limited funds. Disputes happen every day. That's what courts and mediators are for.

--
David
DaveZan.com

Try 3rd party help in aquiring by MrRoger · 2005-10-03 03:17 · Score: 1

I'm a little late on this one, but maybe better late than never... I think one of the small business' most hidden resources is already-registered domain names. It only costs $7 per year to register a domain name - that's why virtually all the good ones are registered. Browse our inventory to see tons of names for sale for less than $1,000. If you want to aquire a particular domain name, you should try sending an offer through a third party service like Afternic.com or Network Solutions' Certified Offer service. It does not work to simply express interest and ask how much they want because many owners are timid about disclosing that they might be interested in your money. It weakens their "good faith use" argument should the case go to dispute resolution to have asked for money. The third party service validates your offer because you have to sign up and attest to a binding legal agreement, and it also escrows the transaction which protects both parties in the transaction from losing their property if either party doesn't perform. If you can't get it that way, then you can move on knowing that you simply can't afford that name. (That's when you might consider renaming your business.)

Alternative Solution by 91degrees · 2005-10-03 20:36 · Score: 1

1. Choose a name that has no associated domain. 2. Register the domain. 3. Change your company name. 4. ??? 5. Profit.

in this case the law is pretty simple by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-04 02:51 · Score: 0

even for you our submitter...

it can basically be translated to. tough s#$t. your claim to have a legitimate business identity does in no way usurp the current owners rights of ownership. additionally (based on your lack of mentioning it) since they are not piggy backing on an association to your business identity, defaming you, misrepresenting you, etc. etc. your little bit of knowledge about the law is, ahem, leading you astray... it may help you to read up about stuff like "can my web site in any way be viewed as prior art?" and "getting into the world of business late, naieve, and confused."

i've had the same type of action attempted against my company, we have a blank page on our site but ran deep non public content further into it. one company even sued us as "squatters", idiots. i threw a party for my staff (7) using the settlement money (costs+ etc.)

the simple solution here is to move on and find another domain name. it's done every day and it's called "dealing with it"

Issue a notification of trademark violation by feijai · 2005-10-04 08:57 · Score: 0

You do not control the rights to a URL beyond the grace offered by your registrar. What you can control is the rights to a trademark. IANAL, but here you go:

Make certain that your company's name is (a) trademarked, (b) in use well before the offending website started using the mark, (c) valid.
Make certain that the offending website is (a) not trademarked and (b) either in the same field as your own, or obviously attempting to profit from your mark.
Contact an intellectual property lawyer (sorry, you have to do this at least once until you get the hang of things).
Have him draft a trademark violation notification letter and formal complaint as detailed here.
Issue the letter to the website, and more importantly, to the registrar which issued the domain name, naming the registrar, and requesting that the registrar yank the domain name in question in return for not being named in a forthcoming suit.
Wait for the registrar to respond. They have 20 days to do so.

Slashdot Mirror

How Can Cybersquatters Be Evicted, Cheaply?

97 comments