How Can Cybersquatters Be Evicted, Cheaply?

wmshub asks: "Slashdot has covered stories where big mean companies threw poor little people off of web sites with names too close to that of the company. But what about when you are the company and the cybersquatter isn't even using the name? I have a small (ok, basically just me) company. The web site that exactly matches my company name has been registered since 2001, which is before I legally registered my company name but after I started doing business. Despite being registered for 4 years, the site is still nothing but a pile of banner ads - not even a hint as to why they want that particular name for their site. I contacted the owner, but they are not interested in selling (at any price, they said). If I read the ICANN guidelines correctly, domain name owners who have 'no legitimate claim for the name' can be evicted by people who do, so I think I should be able to demand they hand the name over. Has anybody ever tried this, or heard of a case where somebody with very limited funds (ie, not enough money to hire a lawyer) has been able to evict a squatter? Or do you always have to hire a lawyer and pay thousands in court fees to make this happen?"

Comments

There is more to the net than the web

[Matt Perry]

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.

Re:There is more to the net than the web

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Matt Perry]

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.

Re:There is more to the net than the web

[UnrefinedLayman]

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.

Taking candy from strangers

[KingPrad]

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.

CyberClaimJumper

[stonewolf]

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

I'm going to sue, too!

[fmaxwell]

[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.

How do I steal a domain...

[EzInKy]

...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?

rights, ownership

[itzdandy]

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:Trademark your name

[norwoodites]

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.